You should be.
Of course. But this thread isn't exactly a courtroom. Clemens may get his day in court. And if he's indeed innocent then he should be running to the courts right now. Also, keep in mind that just about every other person named by the trainer has corroborated the story, including Andy Pettitte who DID admit to using HGH.
Have you read the Mitchell Report? It's pretty damning on Clemens. And the reason why he has to claim he was injected by B-12 vitamins and some other junk is because there
is PROOF that he was injected by his trainer(s) with hypodermic needles. He can't deny that part, so all he can do is dispute what was in the needles. Now, you can give him the benefit of the doubt there and that's fine. But it's a pretty slipperly slope if you ask me, especially when the government investigation is thoroughly convinced of his guilt.
Come on, man. Think with your head instead of your heart on this. It's not just about muscle. People (even athletes) just do not improve like these guys did past the age of 35-40 without some kind of "help". That's what they obviously have in common. Suggestions of Clemens being on the juice have been going around for years. It's nothing new at all. Now we just have the smoking gun (at worst) and his hand in the cookie jar (at best).
Also, can't you recall a Clemens "roid rage" incident or two from the past few years?
I am going to be flat out honest with you. I am a Mets/ Red Sox's fan, so by proxy I HATE Clemens. But that doesn't make me blind to A.) burden of proof and B.) innocent until proven guilty.
McNamee was trying to avoid a jail term. A pretty long one from what I hear. Do you really think shooting Pettite with HGH 2 times was enough dirt to keep him off his knees in federal prison? No, the government needed someone big to justify all the money and time they have wasted on the Mitchell Report. Clemens lawyers, in the suit filed yesterday, claim A.) McNamee didn't name Clemens in the beginning, but was told he would be prosecuted if he didn't. B.) Changed his story and went from being a defendant to a witness. C.) They have witnesses to prove that all of this is true. The other people who have commented on the Committees procedures agree it was a draconian "McCarthy Red era" style farce - where else in American law can you call a person to testify without A.) full disclosure, B.) proper representation, and C.)basically all your civil rights thrown out the door? Let's be honest, would it really surprise you if the federal government coerced McNamee into naming Clemens? If I was told, "Be at location X on Wednesday to talk about 1998,2000, and 2001" with no other info or instruction, I wouldn't have gone either ... even if I had nothing to fear.
Point being, McNamee has been proven to be an opportunist who would sell out his supposed best friend Clemens to avoid jail time. Why is his word more convincing than Clemens? What has Clemens ever done to deserve this mistrust? I could see Bonds ... he's always been something of a prick. But Clemens, even in hated Yankee stripes, was always a standup guy. So, until someone can provide me some proof other than McNamee's "Yeah, I injected him", I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's not a love/hate thing. It's the way our law system is SUPPOSE to work. Unless they can provide additional testimony to back up McNamee, it's one man's word against anothers. And, I tend to be more distrusting of stoolies trying to avoid jail.
But, the bigger question is WHAT THE HELL DOES IT MATTER? Let's say McNamee is telling the truth. Clemens used HGH and steroids in 1998, 2000, and 2002. So what. The substances were not banned until 2003. Even Mitchell admits their use was widespread during this time period. Why are we wasting all this time and money to "out" someone for doing something that technically wasn't cheating (I say technically because it wasn't against the rules at that time)? It's all the federal governments attempt at smoke and mirrors to take our minds off Iraq, Afghanistan, recession, etc. ... you name it.
P.S. As to your comments regarding his performance in his late 30's early 40's, can you provide scientific proof that this type of performance is impossible without drugs? And, that's impossible, not improbable. No you can't. So, stop assuming someone was guilty just because they were good late in their career. It's could have been drugs, but it also could have been talent.
