Right... so everything in the report has either been confirmed through the players admitting their "wrongs," or has otherwise not been commented on (because it is probably true).

But somehow the info about Clemens is false.

And the fact that he is unable to address the"questions" now is laughable.

Clemens is guilty. It's just very obvious. Why would McNamee risk lying about clemens knowing that he could face jail time if he lied? Why would he lie about Pettitte and not Roger? Why would McNamee give such a detailed description of clemens steroid use if it's all a lie? Hell, McNamee has even had former players come to his defense, and saying he has no reason to lie. Sorry, Clemens, but I'll take McNamee's words over your denials through your lawyers and agents.

Why is it laughable? That's the one part I believe. If Clemens is preparing a legal case (and it could be a defense or a complaint), then obviously he isn't going to give his evidence now.

I'm skeptical that he's got anything, but not at all skeptical that *if* he has anything, he's also got a reason to save it for now.

It is a laughable defense because it is Palmeiro lite. He's got nothing, this is as far as he'll go.

http://misterirrelevant.com/index.php/2007/12/14/this-seems-like-questionable-journalism/

It is truly laughable and only the staunchest of clemens backers would think otherwise. What is the appropriate time? Hey Roger, here is a clue, the appropriate time is right now, not sometime after you have had time to think up and fabricate yet another lie. If you would talk to the fans yourself instead of hiding behind some dumbass agent then the fans would think more of you. What a freakin joke. You are guilty, you know you are guilty and now all you are trying to do is by time for damage control.

You'd think that, with all the agents and lawyers and flacks at their disposal, guys like Clemens and Pettitte could come up with more convincing statements. Abe is right: Clemens' denial sounds way too much like finger-waggin' Palmeiro. Pettitte at least owned up to something, but he also did a lot of whining and temporizing.

The lesser players (Bennett, Vina, etc.) are doing a much better job at their Mitchell Report statements/admissions, and they don't have an army of well-paid PR pros to help them do it.

A few things to remember here - one, this is a country where you are presumed innocent (well, unless you are tossed in to Gitmo, in which case George Bush thinks he can do whatever he wants to you). There has been no court hearing, no trial, no chance for Clemens to dispute any evidence against him.

Two, you are believing the words of a felon over Clemens, who has been proven to have done nothing wrong at all.

Three, if Clemens is indeed pursuing libel charges here or other legal recourses, he is wise not to say more than he has.

Clemens never had the significant bulk-up that Bonds has. Clemens has never tested positive. Clemens was not part of the Balco case or any other federal case into this. This is a he said/he said story, and the majority here want to believe the party that has given no reason to be believed rather than Clemens.

If you want to say he is guilty, prove it. It is as simple as that. The proof there right now is none at all.

Mark:

Are you kidding? Clemens never has significant bulk-up? Go back and watch the video of Clemens' first 20 strikeout game and look at how much smaller he was then compared to now. Also, check out the video of Sammy Sosa's first career home run, which was hit off of Clemens. It looks like Sammy isn't the only one who had something extra in his Cheerios.

this is a country where you are presumed innocent (well, unless you are tossed in to Gitmo, in which case George Bush thinks he can do whatever he wants to you).

I just love it when moronic leftists take their potshots on sports blogs.

Paul,

I just love it when moronic right-wingers can only insult and not actually defend their case.

You are right Paul Zummo, why is that necessary in a sports blog. Just another opportunity to try to state their idiotic views. Doesn't seem to matter to them that they picked the wrong venue.

Mark, as to your point, Clemens is not on trial. The presumption of innocence does not exist in the court of public opinion. Folks examine as many facts as they can and reach a personal judgment. Clemens has been a juicer in the eyes of many for years. You know little of the legal process to boot. The accusing parties have everything to lose via the false accusation, see Bonds: lying under oath. Their cooperation with Mitchell was part of the legal obligations. Clemens can say anything he likes to the press and public without fear of repercussions. The man threw a bat at someone, said he mistook it for the ball; he is a proven liar.

And it's pathetic that you drag politics onto a sports blog.