Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve
I would love to believe Clemens didn't ever use steroids. But....?
Clemens sure waited a long time to become outraged about the accusations. If it were an innocent person, they would more likely have began vehement protestations immediately upon being accused. It's all way too orchestrated.
When I saw the 60 Minutes story, His eye movement and evasive answers screamed, "liar, liar, pants on fire."
And when given the chance by Wallace to say something to McNamee, he chose to go with something like, "why did you do this after all I did for you," which is like saying "after all I did for you, why did you rat me out." Why didn't Clemens ask McNamee why he was lying about the steroid use? He never challenged McNamee on that, and it seems rather odd to me.
|
That makes sense. You have to come out right away and say something without protecting yourself legally. That makes perfect sense. Tell me anytime someone comes out and holds a press conference immediately saying they are innocent even though there are legal issues at stake. Then again, we live in a guilty until proven innocent mentality. I would think some people would like more evidence than just an accusation that is only a he said, he said kind of situation.
I think Clemens made a great point in the 60 minutes interview. If he used steroids, where is the paper trail? Where is the dealer that gave them to him? Where are the other players that know Roger used steroids? There would have to be more than just these two people that knew this was going on. Even in the Peterson case in Illinois, there are other people that saw things and had things said to them about the missing woman. There is more evidence than "this is what I saw."
Peace