I suggest you and all the LoHud bloggers here read the ORIGINAL STORY published October 14, 2001 (and reprinted in the Post by George King and Clemente Lisi on Mitchell Report Day, December 13, 2007 as seen at http://www.nypost.com/seven/12.....612457.htm )

Differences in the text of the story: The MANAGER of the hotel said ” ‘it LOOKED LIKE he was having sex with a woman’ in a hotel swimming pool”; “the manager saw McNamee and the woman in a sexual position in about 3½ feet of water” [and I'm sure he allowed for distortions due to the refractive index of that depth of water!].

There’s more, of course. Ultimately, McNamee was NOT charged in the case, rendering him technically “cleared of wrongdoing” as his lawyer contended at the time.

Not in the court of public opinion, I guess. Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee have this in common, too.

What evidence is there? The only thing I have seen is McNamees statement. Clemens denies it. Right now, legally it’s 50/50.

If I tell you my best friend shoots heroine, is it true? Because I said it? He is my best friend. I should know. Why would I lie about my best friend? Do you consider this concrete evidence?

As I’ve said, I don’t know if Roger is guilty or innocent. If he’s guilty, he’s even dumber then I ever expected, because he will be hated forever.

My point is anyone who has an ‘informed’ opinion is wrong. We can guess, but there is not enough evidence either way to make an informed opinion.

Rogers supporters are hoping he’s innocent.
Rogers haters are INSISTING he’s guilty.

Come on – that is just as liberal an interpretation of the “facts” as my position, which you claim to find objectionable – either both of our positions are objectionable, or both are opinions based on our own interpretation of what has been made public to date.

There is no evidence against Clemens? That is just plain wrong as a statement of fact – you may not approve of the quality of evidence, you may not believe that this evidence is true, or meets a reasonable standard, but to state that there is no ‘evidence’ is just wrong.

You are correct that there is no independent corroboration of the evidence against Clemens to date, but you are choosing to attack the source of the evidence as a key element of your claim that there is no evidence. That claim is directly undermined by Pettitte’s decision to corroborate what McNamee claimed – again McNamee’s claims against Pettitte were uncorroborated evidence by your standard – except for the rather inconvenient element that his claims were actually true.

You think that I shouldn’t be surprised by the quality of Clemens performance in the Wallace interview. My response to that would be that Roger had at least 2 weeks to prepare, he chose the interviewer, he chose the format, he chose the location – and yet despite his experience of dealing with the media for 24 years he gave nonsense answers (why don’t I have an ear growing out of my forehead) and was absolutely unwilling to have a rational discussion about the claims made against him – remember Mike Wallace did not surprise him on his doorstep with these claims.

You have chosen to interpret Clemens behavior on the phone call in one particular light – you say that his team were there to ensure that he did not tamper, nor say anything wrong – so why did Roger not open the call by letting McNamee know that he had his legal team there, and that the call was being recorded? I would put a question to you on this – if McNamee had said – ‘c’mon Roger you know what I injected, we discussed this as part of our training regime’ – do you think Roger’s team would have been so quick to share the call’s content?

In response to your final point on his performance in front of the world’s media yesterday, it would repeat many of the points raised / answered above, but again, yes, whether you would like to believe this or not, I would expect Roger to be able to be a credible responder in front of a group of reporters. I certainly wouldn’t expect him to openly lie would you? Roger Clemens doesn’t give a “rat’s ass” about the HoF – that is as blunt a lie as we have been told in the last 48 hours don’t you think?

You think most attorneys would beg to differ? I think most attorneys would let the paymaster decide what their opinion is, it is after all why every guilty man has representation – doesn’t McNamee have an attorney after all?

Again, you want to presume innocence, I have let the weight of the evidence presented to me persuade me otherwise. I am amused by your belief that what is good for the goose isn’t good for the gander, but given your enjoyment of the Fox Network’s intellectual output, perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.

You must be very gifted to be able to know so much based on Rogers collective ‘performances’.

In contrast, Clemens has every reason to lie and deny steriods use.

nite.

I guess I have done much more research on this matter than you have and since its bedtime I don’t have the time to educate you. My best advice would be to go through the posts in yesterdays blogs and educate yourself.

If you truly feel that there is enough evidence to consider Clemens guilty, then I really don’t know what to say. I am fairly certain that most attorneys would beg to differ.

and to answer your question, I am choice “a”.

so apparently, to quote Jeff Foxworthy…. you are NOT smarter than a first grader.

Having made the world’s media sit through an utterly pointless 17 minute phone call, you are comfortable with the view that Clemens’ attorney’s have a taped confession from McNamee that he was coerced by the Feds, but have chosen not to share that with us yet?

Again, what possible purpose would the Feds have to concoct the conspiracy against Clemens that supports this position?

And apologies for the a, b, c choices above, I responded in anger to your post – I shouldn’t complain about your tactics, then repeat them – so I will go with (a) for myself as well on that question.