tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25908126.post3635894614051214294..comments2023-10-31T08:10:56.099-07:00Comments on Sedition in Red Sox Nation: thecincinattikidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15080686427498986707noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25908126.post-81758701978186892022008-01-09T07:22:00.000-08:002008-01-09T07:22:00.000-08:00The checks aren't such a strange thing. People pay...The checks aren't such a strange thing. People pay for illegal activities by check all the time, believe it or not. It's not like he wrote in the memo line "For steroid injections." The checks are only important because they corroborate McNamee's testimony that Clemens paid him for something a certain number of times in certain time periods. Again, in Toronto, if McNamee was doing legitimate work for the team, why did Clemens need to pay him? <BR/><BR/>Pettitte's case is germane, because it goes to McNamee's credibility as a witness, which Clemens himself has tried to call into question. Pettitte admits that what McNamee now says in the Mitchell report about him is true, and not made up. It is therefore probable (not certain, of course, only probable) that McNamee's testimony under the plea deal may be accurate in other respects as well. It doesn't make Clemens guilty, but it does mean that at least part of McNamee's story is true.<BR/><BR/>It's not like McNamee's accusations are the only evidence. There are the financial records as well as additional testimony to which the Mitchell commission did not have access. Gary Sheffield and Jose Canseco also claimed to have knowledge that Clemens was taking performance enhancing drugs. If Clemens is ever indicted, we'll hear more about it than we care to, I'm sure.<BR/><BR/>Clemens can go on 60 minutes whenever he wants and say whatever he wants and doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. I have no problem with that. The key here is that Clemens has taken it a step further and filed a defamation suit -- that's what put him in the position where he must prove his innocence. <BR/><BR/>In a defamation suit, the truth is a defense. If what McNamee claims is true, it's not defamation. The presumption in court is that sworn testimony is true unless it can be proved otherwise. Therefore, Clemens and his lawyers must be able to prove that McNamee is lying (i.e. that Clemens did not take steroids and is innocent). It sucks, but Clemens did it to himself, I refuse to see any injustice here.<BR/><BR/>By the way, when did you start believing that all athletes should do what sports writers tell them? Would your hero TO file a defamation suit because the media demanded a response? Why should Clemens or anyone else care what the media thinks? In a few weeks time they'll all be occupied with something else that they feel is of earth-shaking import. Vultures are always looking for a fresh carcass. Clemens could have let it fade away (unless he was charged, and then the truth would out during a trial anyway).<BR/><BR/>For some reason, Clemens has made a conscious decision to play along with the media and try his case in the court of public opinion. He's giving them what they want: 60 Minutes interviews, a legal battle, daily servings of "evidence" about the case so lazy columnists have something to write about. This may be cynical, but I see something other than righteous indignation at work here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com