Maybe good can come from this

It took four hours and 41 minutes -- about as long as the average Yankees-Red Sox game -- for an overriding truth to emerge from Wednesday’s hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The investigation into steroid use in baseball should not have come to this, a made-for-TV tragicomedy of sometimes fumbling questions and evasive answers timed by an impatient gavel.

If Commissioner Bud Selig had enough spine to insist on tough anti-doping policies a decade ago, and if players’ union boss Donald Fehr had considered the value of procedures that would have sternly punished the guilty, this wouldn’t have been necessary.

If baseball had policed itself, the committee could have spent Wednesday overseeing government and programs that affect many lives -- as it did in its last two major hearings, on the effectiveness of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and assessing charities that purport to help veterans.

The committee wouldn’t have had to determine if Roger Clemens lied when he denied using steroids or human growth hormone.

It wouldn’t have had to weigh whether Brian McNamee, Clemens’ former trainer turned accuser, is a liar in addition to being a hustler who inflated his credentials and leeched off rich athletes.

McNamee’s claims of Andy Pettitte’s HGH use were verified by the deposition of the absent Pettitte; nothing happened Wednesday to disprove McNamee’s claims that Clemens used steroids.

But since Selig and the owners ignored the illegal substances that were filtering into clubhouses, and since the union would not agree to a drug program with teeth, Congress stepped in.

Regretfully so. But rightfully so.

Stephen Ross, director of the Penn State Institute for Sports Law Policy and Research, pointed out that sports and government have long been intertwined.

Leagues and teams routinely get tax subsidies, and the NFL and Major League Baseball enjoy antitrust exemptions. Boxing has often been scrutinized by the House and Senate in attempts to eliminate corruption.

“If indeed sports leagues are not acting in the public interest, there is a legitimate justification for Congress to get involved,” Ross said.

Leniency toward drug use falls squarely in that category.

This is serious business, and most committee members treated it as such. But not all.

Did Rep. William Lacy-Clay (D.-Mo.) have to ask which uniform Clemens will wear when he’s inducted into the Hall of Fame? Did Mark Souder (R.-Ind.) really not understand the meaning of “It is what it is”?

Memo to Rep. Souder -- it means acceptance. It is what it is.

Kareem Crayton, an assistant professor of law and political science at USC’s law school, noted that it’s normal for Congress to monitor big business -- and baseball is a huge business.

It’s also normal for politicians to perform for the spotlight, creating justifiable cynicism.

“They want to show they’re on top of important, pressing issues,” he said. “In some ways it’s easier than trying to get control of our involvement in Iraq. It gets much more publicity and attention.

“There’s a sense there are better things to do. The public is probably divided on that.”

But besides promoting such catchphrases as “knowingly knowing” and “misremembered,” the session may serve a great purpose.

“These hearings draw attention to the seriousness of doping and provide disincentive not only to pro athletes, but to college athletes and athletes younger than that,” said Matt Mitten, a law professor and director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University.

In addition, public pressure stirred by the Mitchell Report and subsequent hearings might lead baseball and the union to agree to a tougher drug policy.

“That’s probably the best thing that will come out of it,” said Mitten, who testified before a House committee in 2004 on the NCAA’s policy toward ephedrine, a supplement it had banned.

“The fact that Congress is paying attention does provide incentive for both sides to take it more seriously.”

By contrast, a sports-related inquiry championed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) seems purely petty.

Specter, perhaps pandering to Steelers and Eagles fans, asked to meet NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on Wednesday to discuss the league’s destruction of “Spygate” tapes from the New England Patriots’ illegal taping of the New York Jets last season.

Goodell fined Coach Bill Belichick $500,000 and took $250,000 and a first-round pick from the Patriots, punishment enough. Specter, however, is threatening to abolish the league’s antitrust exemption.

Crayton said that while Congress often does informal information gathering, “this is one of those things that’s pretty close to the line after which you think there’s no practical benefit other than to heighten the profile of the congressman.”

Mitten agreed. “I have really a hard time seeing the relevance,” he said. “I’d say that’s really getting far afield.”

Maybe Wednesday’s hearing was the first step toward making steroid investigations irrelevant someday.

--

Helene Elliott can be reached at helene.elliott@latimes.com. To read previous columns by Elliott, go to latimes.com/elliott.