The ladies and gentleman of this jury have been carefully selected on the basis of their ambivalence toward the nation’s pastime. That’s why witnesses must pause to define elementary baseball nomenclature like “foul pole.” To clarify what it means for an athlete to be “in the zone.” To explain that the game is played both indoors and outdoors, and that Fenway Park is home to the Boston Red Sox.

My wife and I went to the Wilson Alvarez no-hitter in Baltimore back in 1991, and she couldn't figure out why everyone was so excited once the game was over

My wife and I went to the Wilson Alvarez no-hitter in Baltimore back in 1991, and she couldn't figure out why everyone was so excited once the game was over


Neither can I.

During cross-examination, the prosecution tries to prove that Clemens’ need for late-season stamina is a result of the heat and humidity by asking inane questions like “In the summer, would you agree, the temperature rises?” Prosecutor Gil Guerrero thinks he’s landed a punch when he points out that Clemens’ innings pitched fell off in 1994, but unfortunately he seems unaware that a strike in 1994 resulted in the season being canceled. At last, flummoxed, he asks the witness: “You understand he’s not on trial for how great he was in baseball?”

“You understand he’s not on trial for how great he was in baseball?”

Well, considering that the only two things that would excite you would be the newest coolstandings.com post and a 1% lowering of the capital gains tax, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised at that response.

WASHINGTON — Was Roger Clemens the victim of a vast and diabolical conspiracy to frame him as a doper and trap him for perjury? Or did the former Yankee pitcher simply lie under oath to protect his myth because he was unable to accept responsibility for using banned drugs?

“If Brian McNamee had been trying to manufacture evidence don’t you think he would have done a better job than that?” Guerrero said.

He outlined the scope of the government investigation – 179 interviews, 93 agents, 65 interview locations – and pointed to its subsequent inability to find any evidence stronger than Brian McNamee’s testimony. Over four and a half years, Hardin said, there’s nothing tying Clemens to performance-enhancing drugs other than statements from a shady witness.

So the bad quality of the evidence is actually an argument that it's reliable?

And of course the Daily Emery sums up the trial this way

So the bad quality of the evidence is actually an argument that it's reliable?

So the bad quality of the evidence is actually an argument that it's reliable?

There have been a lot of news organizations going far out of their way to spin any testimony in an anti-Clemens fashion. An example is ESPN's article when Debbie Clemens testified. The author (Lester Munson?) went on for paragraphs criticizing Hardin's decision to put her on the stand with pictures of the palatial house, a description of the number of bedrooms, and discussion of her and Roger's golf handicaps, then, as an almost forgotten aside, mentioned that she completely contradicted McNamee's testimony.

Eventually we found for the insurance company but the idea that a jury could find that "stupidity=honesty" is not that far fetched to me.

The Daily News desperately wants to see Clemens convicted. They're basically a cheering section that advocates/spins for the government/McNamee.

Durham will also bring up the fact — bizarre but undisputed — that Clemens continued to employ McNamee long after the trainer injected the defendant’s wife Debbie with human growth hormone.

Clemens was using McNamee, Guerrero argued, as his source of performance-enhancing drugs and "to inject him and to keep his mouth shut." When Clemens no longer needed McNamee, the prosecutor suggested, he "tossed him by the wayside."

Kind of funny, though, how the prosecution has multiple lawyers working on an allegedly minor perjury case, as if this were the OJ trial.

I'll bet that at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, in whatever courthouse is nearest to your home, a non-famous drug supplier will be answering tough questions under oath about whether he attended 0% or 5% of somebody's pool party.

Right. They flock to high-profile defendants like moths to a flame. Celebrities have a rap of getting preferential treatment, but in many cases it seems to be the exact opposite. Who but a high-profile figure would find himself in the particular mess that Clemens is in

Where would Clemens go to get his reputation back after being found guilty of showing up for a pool party as it was winding down fourteen years ago?