Except telling the truth that hasn't been his position since day one. Either he was lying before when he denied it initially, or he's lying now when he says he did it. I don't know if Clemens used or not, but this guy was only accused of date raping some girl he drugged; either way Clemens looks worse for being associated with him.

Lying to the media to help a friend is not comparable to lying under oath. It is fairly obvious to see where one would be more inclined to answer truthfully. Clemens used, case closed.

Brian McNamee knew and knows Roger Clemens maybe as well as anyone does. He made Clemens the pitcher he was the second half of his career and made Clemens tens of millions of dollars. As recently as May of this year, Clemens was still paying McNamee.

McNamee's testimony was obtained under a proffer with the agreement that if he was found to have lied, his jail sentence would be increased. Moreover, knowing Clemens as well as he does, McNamee had to know that if McNamee lied about Clemens using steroids, Clemens would go to the mattresses to defend himself (or give the appearance of doing so) and had the financial resources and the time on his hands to do so. One would have to accept all that and still believe McNamee was lying. I don't think so.

I'm not quite sure what the value would be of putting them in a room together...other than creating a Jerry Springer moment.

I don't know if Clemens is telling the truth or not. But he is entitled to a right to respond fully and thoroughly. If he can marshall evidence together which exonerates him or tends to make his statements more credibles, then he deserves the time to do that. Rushing to judgement in two weeks before he has a chance to do that is not fair. To say that it is "case closed..." is a bit scary to me. We don't need a star chamber.

And of course all the reports we hear are true...I assume that there are as many dishonest reporters as there are ballplayers...

Cheating on an Ethics Test? It's 'Topic A' at Columbia

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/nyregion/01columbia.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=slogin

By KAREN W. ARENSON

Published: December 1, 2006
Cheating is not unheard of on university campuses. But cheating on an open-book, take-home exam in a pass-fail course seems odd, and all the more so in a course about ethics.

Yet Columbia's Graduate School of Journalism is looking into whether students may have cheated on the final exam in just such a course, "Critical Issues in Journalism." According to the school's Web site, the course "explores the social role of journalism and the journalist from legal, historical, ethical, and economic perspectives," with a focus on ethics.

for those of you who insist clemens MUST be guilty because mcnamee had "no reason to lie" might could i suggest all yall check out the duke lacrosse players accused of rape.

remember all the people saying that the accuser had no reason to lie?

mcnamee was being heavily leaned on by the feds, remember? and as for being prosecuted for lying about clemens, he can't be prosecuted for the simple reason that clemens is never going to be able to prove that mcnamee did NOT inject him. remember that mcnamee says that roger provided all the drugs.

and isn't it odd that mcnamee had no trouble providing drugs to everyone else

and isn't it odd that roger improved in 1997 BEFORE mcnamee claimed to have shot him up. and isn't it odd that roger continued to excell after 2001 when mcnamee claims he last injected roger.

i never stop being amazed that so many of the supposedly educated, intelligent people who post here firmly believe that accused = guilty

Clemens didn't improve in 1997. His last four years in Boston were horrible. He went to Toronto in 1998 and started the year 5-6. After he was receiving injections from Mcnamee, he went 15-0 with a 2.00+ ERA. Face it...the guy's a fraud. Always has been, always will. He lives for the dramatic stage, and now he's on it, front and center. His denials remind me of Pete Rose.

I find it interesting that there is an assumption that if you are still willing to buy tickets to a game, then you just 'don't care' about the steroids issue. This whole thing just saddens and disgusts me. I just am a BASEBALL fan. I want the game to get clean. But I'm not going to not be a baseball fan any more... That is crazy. But as a person who enjoys games, and even the culture of baseball, it really dampens my spirit. I think the players need to submit to blood tests, and that the owners need to accept some responsibility for their own obvious culpability. Anyhow....blah blah blah.

Clemens didn't improve in 1997.

You are mistaken. Going 21-7 with a 221 ERA+ is a rather substantial improvement from 10-13 with a (still rather good) 139 ERA+.