I cannot disagree more with your article in last Sunday’s ABJ. You believe Brian McNamee, the one (emphasis on one) witness whose story does not hold together per your own report. You use your position to now become judge and jury rather than trust the process this United States created to give citizens a fair hearing and be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Clemens was acquitted; you should accept the verdict.
Did you accept the O.J. Simpson verdict as truth?
Obviously my words were lost on you, but I went out of my way to make a distinction between the standard of proof in criminal trials, civil trials and the judgment of public opinion.
Yes, I believed McNamee. Just because Clemens’ lawyer created reasonable doubt doesn’t mean Clemens didn’t take steroids.
I have often been frustrated by the errors that appear from time to time in your daily Tribe stories. Nevertheless, I must commend you for your column taking a principled stand on Roger Clemens and the Hall of Fame.
As you correctly stated, his acquittal doesn’t prove that he didn’t cheat and use steroids but only proves that they didn’t produce sufficient evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime with which he had been charged.
Most of us have no way to know for certain, but it seems extremely likely that he did in fact cheat, use steroids, and then lie about it. Just like that other dirt bag, John Edwards, he appears to have gotten away with it insofar as the legal system is concerned.
However, as you also correctly pointed out, that doesn’t mean that he has to get away with it in the court of public opinion or with consideration for the Hall of Fame.
Failing to be selected to the hall of fame is not punishment. The overwhelming majority of players never even get their name on the ballot.
I just don’t see the wisdom or the justification for rewarding a player who pumped up his list of achievements by likely using substances that not only were against the rules but also illegal to obtain without a medical reason.