Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
It’s relatively obvious that Dutch Leonard merely included Speaker in the allegations because he was angry at Speaker and wanted to hurt him.
Roger was acquitted, but in high profile cases, that is often not the final word in the court of public opinion... see OJ for an example where the majority of people disagree with the jury and discount its findings.
That he has, but OTOH he's one of very few known writers who's actually had the sense to distinguish between the cases against Bonds and Clemens, and has done so with respect for the actual facts. It makes sense to vote for both of them if you don't care about steroids, or if you're a "steroid discounter". And it also makes sense to vote against both of them if your standard of evidence includes hearsay that was heard and soundly rejected at trial by a series of acquittals. But what makes little or no sense is to reject hearsay in other cases (Bagwell, Sosa, etc.) and yet accept it in Clemens' case. And that's what many of the "anti-steroids" writers are clearly doing.
It's as if Clemens' trial didn't even take place at all.
Hearsay does not mean "the witness testifying has little credibility."
All of the witnesses stories were laid out under oath and in very, very specific detail per the questioning in the Congressional depositions. And the trial didn't bring forth new evidence. Though I guess that's a point to be made: they spent four years and tens of millions of dollars investigating/trying him, and could find no new evidence against him.
James has turned into Willie Mays with the Mets. Or maybe it's not quite that bad. But geez.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (9 members)
Page rendered in 0.4798 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed