Bringing their A game (or not)...
...so, yeah, you know I won't let the Roger Clemens testimony go by, right?
Here's the shocker: From what I've read up on yesterday, I'm a bit more inclined to believe Clemens than Brian McNamee.
Surprised? If you saw and read the evidence/testimony, you probably shouldn't be.
Because, here's the thing: On the evidence and testimony alone presented yesterday, Roger Clemens would walk. There is nothing that was said or given that would erase the reasonable doubt that Clemens was taking steroids.
Andy Petitte's testimony? Hearsay. It supports the evidence, it is not evidence in itself. And besides, Clemens could be right, he might "misremember" hearing Clemens admit to it.
Clemens' wife taking the juice? Only proves Clemens' wife took the juice. Clemens knowing or not knowing about it doesn't mean crap with Roger Clemens, only that his wife decided it was a good idea.
All those syringes and gauzes? Proves someone was shot up with something. Until the tests come back, we don't even know if the blood was Clemens'. And then we don't know what he was shot up with. Could've been anabolics, could've been HGH, could've been B12. Could've been cortisone. Could've been tetanus for all we know.
But, and here's the big part: In reality, yesterday didn't change anyone's minds. Those people who absolutely, positively know Roger Clemens took steroids (without ever having met him or even seen him pitch) will still absolutely, positively know Roger Clemens took steroids. Those who think he's clean will continue to think he's clean. Those who are neutral about the whole thing...but there aren't any of them anymore.
See, we aren't going to hear the real truth from either Clemens or McNamee, because of the following reasons: Roger Clemens has no incentive to say he took steroids; and Brian McNamee has every incentive to say Roger Clemens took steroids. For Clemens, some people are saying he should just admit to it and it'd be easier. But he addressed that: If he didn't do it, he can't in good faith say he did. On the other hand, if he did, he has no reason, no incentive, no impetus to say that he did. Roger Clemens is many things, but saying the truth even if it incriminates himself is not one of those things in my opinion. And if you say that just saying it will ease the eventual penalties for doing it...again, from what we heard yesterday, that is far from a done deal.
In McNamee's case, he was coerced and cajoled into making his statement to George Mitchell, whose report should be taken for what it is in this case: Even more hearsay. There isn't one whit of actual physical evidence to make the report's case on Roger Clemens. Which is why Clemens sued McNamee in the first place (because I believe he couldn't sue Mitchell or MLB, and probably wouldn't because they're too big of targets anyway.) He was threatened with jail time if he didn't cooperate, and thus has every reason to deal dirt. Or, possibly, make up dirt. That's why Republicans were taking him to task on changing his story every five seconds. First he brings in all of this bloody evidence, then he says he never injected Clemens with any substance at all. He's flip-flopping more than a freshly-caught walleye, and that really hurts his case against Clemens.
But again, that's just testimony and evidence talking. The bottom line: If I were a juror in a case against Clemens, and this was all the evidence I was given (but it wouldn't be just this, not even close), then I would have to vote not guilty. Because there's still a large reason for doubt in this, not the least of which is that the accuser is himself untrustworthy.
Here's the shocker: From what I've read up on yesterday, I'm a bit more inclined to believe Clemens than Brian McNamee.
Surprised? If you saw and read the evidence/testimony, you probably shouldn't be.
Because, here's the thing: On the evidence and testimony alone presented yesterday, Roger Clemens would walk. There is nothing that was said or given that would erase the reasonable doubt that Clemens was taking steroids.
Andy Petitte's testimony? Hearsay. It supports the evidence, it is not evidence in itself. And besides, Clemens could be right, he might "misremember" hearing Clemens admit to it.
Clemens' wife taking the juice? Only proves Clemens' wife took the juice. Clemens knowing or not knowing about it doesn't mean crap with Roger Clemens, only that his wife decided it was a good idea.
All those syringes and gauzes? Proves someone was shot up with something. Until the tests come back, we don't even know if the blood was Clemens'. And then we don't know what he was shot up with. Could've been anabolics, could've been HGH, could've been B12. Could've been cortisone. Could've been tetanus for all we know.
But, and here's the big part: In reality, yesterday didn't change anyone's minds. Those people who absolutely, positively know Roger Clemens took steroids (without ever having met him or even seen him pitch) will still absolutely, positively know Roger Clemens took steroids. Those who think he's clean will continue to think he's clean. Those who are neutral about the whole thing...but there aren't any of them anymore.
See, we aren't going to hear the real truth from either Clemens or McNamee, because of the following reasons: Roger Clemens has no incentive to say he took steroids; and Brian McNamee has every incentive to say Roger Clemens took steroids. For Clemens, some people are saying he should just admit to it and it'd be easier. But he addressed that: If he didn't do it, he can't in good faith say he did. On the other hand, if he did, he has no reason, no incentive, no impetus to say that he did. Roger Clemens is many things, but saying the truth even if it incriminates himself is not one of those things in my opinion. And if you say that just saying it will ease the eventual penalties for doing it...again, from what we heard yesterday, that is far from a done deal.
In McNamee's case, he was coerced and cajoled into making his statement to George Mitchell, whose report should be taken for what it is in this case: Even more hearsay. There isn't one whit of actual physical evidence to make the report's case on Roger Clemens. Which is why Clemens sued McNamee in the first place (because I believe he couldn't sue Mitchell or MLB, and probably wouldn't because they're too big of targets anyway.) He was threatened with jail time if he didn't cooperate, and thus has every reason to deal dirt. Or, possibly, make up dirt. That's why Republicans were taking him to task on changing his story every five seconds. First he brings in all of this bloody evidence, then he says he never injected Clemens with any substance at all. He's flip-flopping more than a freshly-caught walleye, and that really hurts his case against Clemens.
But again, that's just testimony and evidence talking. The bottom line: If I were a juror in a case against Clemens, and this was all the evidence I was given (but it wouldn't be just this, not even close), then I would have to vote not guilty. Because there's still a large reason for doubt in this, not the least of which is that the accuser is himself untrustworthy.