I'm watching ESPN a few days ago and there's a discussion about Roger Clemens and steroids. It's kind of a three-person panel and the topic is "do we believe Roger?"
Of course, one person reminds us that the Mitchell Report mentioned Roger Clemens 82 different times in relation to performance enhancing drugs. And we're told that Brian McNamee's "testimony" is now somewhat "validated" because Andy Petit came forward and admits to some wrongdoing, which was alleged by McNamee AND McNamee is the chap who says he personally injected Clemens twice.
Now, I agree with most reasonable people that this is a lot of damning information: 82 mentions in a 400 page report and testimony by someone who has now had a piece of his overall testimony corroborated, if only slightly.
And then the woman on the ESPN panel sits back in her chair and gives her final bit of journalism: "Well, the burden of proof is definitely on Clemens."
Something tells me there are a few others who feel the same way: "the burden of proof is now on Roger."
Can I ask one very simple question here? How do you prove you didn't do something?
We all know the classic conversation:
"When are you going to stop beating your wife?""Well, I never beat my wife!"
"Is that so? Prove it!"
How does the chap prove he never beat his wife?
Let's suppose the testimony from McNamee stated that at 4:15PM on June 3rd, 2003 he injected Roger Clemens with a banned or illegal substance. What does Roger need to do to "prove" his innocence to that allegation? I guess he could go back into time and find someone who he was with at 4:15 on June 3rd, 2003 who would be able to give Roger an alibi for that incident.
And of course we all remember what we were doing four years ago at a specific time in the afternoon on a very specific day. Right?
I'm not here to tell you that Roger's guilty or Roger's innocent. But the burden of proof is NOT on Roger, no matter how many mentions there are in the Mitchell Report or the testimony of a club trainer.
I had a feeling this Mitchell Report would fall short in certain ways. It has produced a few admissions, albeit what appear to be scripted admissions of having taken such-and-such only once (or twice) and "I did so to help with the recovery form an injury" and "I only did so to help my team," etc.
I wrote a letter to Commissioner Selig—a copy of the letter can be viewed here—that presented an alternative solution. Bud wrote back and in several paragraphs thought my suggestion had merit but he wanted the Mitchell Report to run its course. Hard to argue with that then, but not so hard now.
The one thing many fans don't want is to have this whole thing linger on for months and years. To have unanswered questions about records and World Series, etc., etc.
Anyway, I'm glad the Mitchell Report came out. It was forward motion on a very important issue. But it fell short of giving the players, the owners, the fans what we really need and want: full disclosure.
Comments