A continuum.

So after my previous post about the Congressional hearing of Roger Clemens, I have to add a little bit more. One way or the other, one side of the equation is true, and only one side of the equation is true. Either Clemens took performance enhancing drugs, or he did not. Let's look at the testimony one at a time.

Brian McNamee:
As the primary accuser in the Clemens case, McNamee is in an interesting position. He openly admitted to injecting Clemens with performance enhancing drugs - and proceeded to flagrantly lie about some of the circumstances surrounding the whole thing. The only reason that McNamee was believable in his statement that he injected Clemens is the coroborration of Clemens' friends and former teammates Andy Pettite and Chuck Knoblauch. This raises only one question - if McNamee was telling the truth about his role in Clemens' alleged HGH and steroid use, why would lie about the circumstances - particularily in light of the physical evidence surrounding some of the issues (ie: the Canseco barbecue which Clemens definitely did not attend).

Roger Clemens:
The only defendant in this issue is the reputation of former major league pitcher, Roger Clemens. Clemens spent his day in court denying all allegations of the use of performance enhancing drugs, and calling McNamee a liar in everything but name. Truthfully, for one short period, Clemens was believable. McNamee's testimony was highly suspect, his credibility doubly so. With the exception of the one significant problem with his deposition that I mentioned and commented on earlier, Clemens was a believable witness. Except for Andy Pettite and his wifes despective depositions.

Andy Pettite:
Clemens' friend and former teammate gave a deposition in which he stated bluntly that Clemens admitted use of performance enhancing drugs to him. Clemens responded by arguing that Pettite had mis-heard him. Mistakes happen, right? Not according to Mrs. Pettite in this case. In her sworn deposition, she said that Andy had told her of his conversations with Clemens which corroborated McNamee's story. So again, I ask what cause Pettite would have to lie to authorities in order to harm Clemens - his friend? Obviously, there is no reason I can see. More damning still is that when posed the same question by Congress, Clemens had no reason either, saying Pettite must have misheard him, or misunderstood, or misremembered. This defense, sadly, the more it is repeated, the less believable it is, as, given the closeness of the friendship between the two, such a conversation would likely have led to others for clarification, or simply continued discussion? Further causing problems for this defense is the deposition of Mrs. Pettite.

Mrs. Pettite:
Has the regrettable role of playing the hangman for Clemens in this issue. Her deposition is simple - that her husband, Andy, had recounted to her conversations with Clemens in which Andy said Clemens admitted to the use of performance enhancing substances. In backing up her husband's deposition, she does, assuming that she's telling the truth, confirm that Pettite believed Clemens said that he personally was taking performance enhancers. The only reason for Mrs. Pettite to lie in this case would be to back up her husband. To lie in a congressional deposition when a simple "I don't know anything" would have been sufficient is beyond stupid, and so there is no reason to assume that she would have done so.

All that taken into consideration, a small part of me wants to believe that Clemens is clean. That said, however, the responsibility of a realist is to take idealistic ideas like that and destroy them. As such, barring further evidence to call into question the depositions of at least one of Andy and Mrs. Pettite, I have no choice but to believe them - meaning that I cannot believe Clemens, no matter how much I would like to be able to. That said, I truly hope that some such evidence comes to light.