Roger Clemens Not Guilty on All Counts

[packs]

The jury didn't decide he didn't use steroids though. They decided it wasn't proven he lied about using steroids. There's a big difference. It's hard to prove someone lied about something you can't prove without a doubt they did.

The point of the Mitchell Report was both to inform baseball what was going on and to inform the fans of what their favorite players have been up to. If you refuse to acknowledge any of the report's information because it can't be proven, then I think you are missing the point. At the same token you can't prove anyone didn't use steroids.

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by packs

The jury didn't decide he didn't use steroids though. They decided it wasn't proven he lied about using steroids. There's a big difference. It's hard to prove someone lied about something you can't prove without a doubt they did.

The point of the Mitchell Report was both to inform baseball what was going on and to inform the fans of what their favorite players have been up to. If you refuse to acknowledge any of the report's information because it can't be proven, then I think you are missing the point. At the same token you can't prove anyone didn't use steroids.

But the Mitchell Report was based on Brian Mcnamee's testimony atleast for Clemens being on it. But if a jury finds Clemens not guilty, then they must think Mcnamee's testimony is in doubt. So if they can't back his testimony in court, then what proof is there that Clemens actually used?

Also I think the Mitchell report was a huge joke and 90% biased against NY teams.

[CMIZ5290]

How can anyone with a head the size of a medicine ball have his health in front of him?

[packs]

The jury has to consider facts. The Mitchell Report was based on conversations between investigators, personnel and players. The burden of proof in a courtroom is different. If you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that everything McNamee said is true, that doesn't mean it isn't true.