Yes, the Roger Clemens steroids story, if true (probably) is somewhat tragic because he was the rare modern player who knew baseball history and wanted to be in the company of its immortals. The fact that he has raised doubts about his greatness with this steroid allegation is very sad.
As for casting doubts on the Yankees late 90s dynasty, I beg to differ. First off, the major flaw in the Mitchell report is that most of its substance comes from Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski and Yankee bp pitcher and trainer Brian McNamee - both stationed in the NYC area. Mitchell's report is very flawed because we only get testimony from these guys - it became a NY based investigation - and while I believe them, there is no testimony from other trainers or suppliers in other areas. There was probably a Radomski and McNamee in every clubhouse. That is also why most of the players on the list came from the Yankees and Mets. Sheffield never played on a Yankees championship team and the same is true for Giambi.
As for many 2000 Yanks being on the list (their last WS winning team), it looks bad until you study the facts. Pettitte used HGH in 2002 the report says, Mike Stanton in 2003 (when he was on the Mets), Chuck Knoblauch sometime after the 2000 season.
Again, the testimony comes from NY based people and how do we know that the Yanks were not facing teams loaded with steroids players and beating them? This is why that era will have to be classified as the "steroids era." Also, let us not forget that the Yanks run ended with a bloop hit by Diamondback Luis Gonzalez, a steroid abuser.Michael Hart, SI, NY
END OF POST