[FreePaul]

Roger Clemens dilemma seems to be that of an innocent man publicly accused. Nothing he says or does will satisfy the self appointed guardians of behavior. He either didn't deny soon enough or too soon. He didn't defend himself vigorously enough or was too strong in his own defense. He didn't say the right thing to his accuser. Whatever he does some will say that he should have ________(fill in the blank).

As we have seen, some recent offenders have said "yes I did it" and received accolades for coming clean. It certainly seems to be an inexcusable offense to deny something that "the media" has taken on as fact.

[WL-law]

"As we have seen, some recent offenders have said "yes I did it" and received accolades for coming clean. It certainly seems to be an inexcusable offense to deny something that "the media" has taken on as fact."

The problem is that its the evidence that points to Clemens' guilt, irrespective of the conclusion drawn by the media.

Clemens' phone call is indicative of guilt, not innocence.

The idea that multi-millionaires would let non-authorized untrained people give them injections of legal medicines, is frankly laughable. However, it makes sense if it's an illicit substance.

Clemens' career, not only the chart of success but also his bizarre psychological breakdowns in high-pressure games, suggests steriod use.

Also, he's just plain dumb enough to do all of it.