a pitcher worth 18,000 words

has there ever been a time in your life when you thought someone did something, but you weren't sure? but then, there was an alleged eye-witness, who gave sworn testimony to confirm your suspicion? when the person accused came up with more and more stories and facts to explain himself, did you find yourself believing him more, or less?

the more roger clemens tries to convince me and all of us that he never used steroids, the more i find myself not believing him. in clemens' agent's recent 18,000-word statistical report published monday, many facts are presented, with the supposed intention being to "prove" roger never used steroids. but it's flawed logic to believe this based solely on this report. consider first the claim that clemens' peak performance was from near the end of the 1996 season to the beginning of the 1999 season. if this is true, doesn't that actually support brian mcnamee's assertions more, considering that he said he began injecting roger in the butt back in 1998? it's also said within the report that clemens' career was extended due to a change in pitching styles and (later) through contractually-shorter seasons with limited travel. of course, this is all true, but the fact that it's true still does not mean anything in relation to whether or not he used steroids. he still could have juiced in conjunction with doing these other actions. then the report has a bunch of charts and numbers that compare clemens to other hall-of-fame caliber pitchers who pitched into their 40's who haven't been accused of cheating. the leap of logic here is "these guys were great without steroids, so roger was too." obviously, this is ludicrous to assume that because others have pitched into their 40's without steroids, therefore clemens must also have pitched into his 40's without steroids. and besides, given that roger was actually much more effective in his 40's than most of those other guys, isn't that just one more piece of damning, not exonorating, evidence?

clemens' crusade of innocence now intrigues me far more than whether or not he even used steroids. he keeps drawing me back in with his repeated denials, each with a few more bits of inconsistency and confusion. to me, the 18,000-word report seems nothing more than argumentum verbosium. while i certainly can't blame clemens for trying to defend himself against what he believes to be false accusations, i think there are better and more convincing ways to go about it. roger, come up with one story and stick with it. like your accuser did.