Here is what Goose said:
"Are we going to reward these guys for cheating? Even though he [Clemens] was found innocent, it was because of the bad testimony. No one believed (Brian) McNamee...'"
Much as I like the Goose, this is irrational. The reason why is not complicated:
- The Mitchell Report's accusation that Roger Clemens took steroids is entirely based upon the accusations of Brian McNamee.
- McNamee's testimony indeed was "bad testimony."
- This is because on the matter of Roger Clemens, McNamee has constantly contradicted himself in every appearance he has made, be it in court, in Congress, being interrogated by Congressional investigators, etc.
- The reason one cannot send Roger Clemens to a prison of either the penitentiary or baseball variety was beautifully described by one of the jurors:
- Despite spending time and money, federal investigators could not unearth a single person - other than the comically dishonest McNamee - who claimed to have seen Roger Clemens taking a PED.
There has been a variety of other exculpatory evidence that the media barely reported. My favorite was a story told by former catcher Charlie O'Brien which suggests Clemens was a rather straight arrow when it came to cheating:
"The former catcher testified Wednesday he once approached Clemens on the mound during a game with a scuffed ball and said, 'This is a great ball to use.' He said Clemens responded, 'I don't need that.'"
I don't exactly think Whitey Ford or Catfish Hunter would have been above such trickery. Or Goose, judging from his refreshingly honest response to the question of whether he would have taken PEDs:
"Gossage admitted he 'probably would have' taken performance-enhancing drugs if the circumstances and timing of his career and the steroid era had been different."