Roger Clemens May Actually Be Telling the Truth About Never Taking Steroids
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
The point of view that Clemens never did steroids is the only thing a logically, unbiased person could possibly believe.
Many people will think that only the most naive person in the world would believe in Clemens or that only a Yankee fan would believe in him. You couldn't be more wrong. I am actually a lifelong Phillies fan and I never liked Clemens when he pitched.
Now you are going to say, wait a minute, he pitched during the steroid era and he was named in the Mitchell report as a steroid user. In an era with Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, Rafael Palmiero and so many others were found to have cheated the game, why should we believe Roger Clemens?
Why should anyone believe Clemens? Well, I am here to tell you exactly why.
This opinion has to do with one essential thing: Logic. Well, logic and the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty. The point of view that Clemens never did steroids is the only thing a logically, unbiased person could possible believe, and I can prove it.
Let's start with the background. There is a huge difference between Clemens and any other athlete accused of steroids. First, Roger Clemens was retired when the reports came out that he did steroids. He could have said nothing and done nothing. Instead, he immediately came out and denied he ever did steroids. He said it quickly and emphatically, leaving no room for doubt or misquotes.
Also, it is important to remember, Clemens was NOT subpoenaed before Congress. Clemens requested to go before Congress. Clemens asked for a Congressional hearing knowing that he could go to jail. A retired player asked to testify under oath about steroids and risk getting put away with nothing to gain except a shred of dignity. Why would anyone take that risk?
We can not say Clemens went before Congress out of stupidity or arrogance. Clemens attorney, Rusty Hardin, is one of the best attorneys in the country and has won many high profile cases. Hardin would not have let Clemens testify before Congress and perjure himself if Clemens was lying. Hardin believes in Clemens being innocent for the same reason I do: There is no evidence that Clemens ever used performance enhancing drugs. Therefore, I have to believe he never did.
So a retired athlete risks going to jail for lying under oath simply based on ego? I don't buy it because even if Clemens wins this trial, even if he is found innocent, most of you will still believe he is guilty. I know it and you know it. He still won't get the votes for the Hall of Fame and he still won't redeem his image. I know it, you know it, and most importantly, Clemens knows it.
Clemens said during the 2008 Congressional hearing, "I have never taken steroids or HGH. No matter what we discuss here today, I am never going to have my name restored." That doesn't sound like an egomaniac to me. That sounds like a guy who is perfectly in touch with reality.
Now let's look at the facts surrounding Clemens. He was named in the Mitchell report as a steroid user, yet Clemens has never failed a steroid test. The main reason he is named in the report is due to the testimony of Brian McNamee, a known liar. McNamee gave names of athletes he knew did steroids to avoid getting in trouble for his own lies and crimes.
So basically, the main piece of evidence against Clemens comes from a proven liar in McNamee. McNamee has about as much credibility as Pinocchio. As a matter of fact, why is it that most people believe a guy who is a proven liar over a guy who has never been in trouble with the law?
Clemens has a clean criminal record and to the best of our knowledge has never done anything illegal. McNamee is a proven corrupt dirtball, yet most people believe him and not Clemens. Why? Because the steroid era has made us all believe that anyone connected to steroids is guilty.
McNamee claims to have syringes with Clemens' blood on them from 10 years ago. Who keeps syringes for 10 years? Not to mention, McNamee kept them in a shoe box, so they are contaminated and hardly evidence of anything. Not to mention, there is no evidence that it was HGH or steroids that were in the syringes.
OK, there is one other slight piece of evidence and that is an alleged conversation between Clemens and close friend Any Pettite. This conversation took place about 10 years ago. While I do not think Pettite is lying, it is very possible that Pettite's recall is not very good.
I mean, think about it, it was a conversation from 10 years ago. Quick, tell me what you ate for breakfast on April 14th, or what you were doing March 7, 2007? Having a hard time remembering? I know I am.
What's the point? There is no way Pettite can remember the exact context or words of a conversation from 10 years ago. Most people can't remember what they did last week, and you expect me to believe Pettite remembers word for word what was said a decade ago. Please.
So again, the question is why? Why take the risk with virtually nothing to gain? Ego? I don't buy it. Arrogance? No way would Clemens attorney allow him to take the risk simply out of arrogance. To restore an image? As Clemens himself said, his image is forever ruined.
The only way someone would take this chance would be if they were innocent. I know because that is the only way I would do it. That is also the only way you would do it. Most importantly, it is the only way Roger Clemens would do it.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?