Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
The evidence was that Pettitte openly admitted his mistakes and confirmed the report on him was true. The evidence against Pettitte was being named in the report.
Later on, Pettitte said during testimony that Clemens told him about using HGH. During cross, Pettitte's memory of the conversation reverted to him not being sure anymore.
I have friends. It's not a stretch for me to see myself walking back comments about them if I think I might be jeopardizing them by syaing anything at all.
|
Exactly, he ended up with meaningless statements about how he was 50/50 on if he'd heard a conversation right and blew the case against Clemens by leaving only an accusation from a convicted perjurer and no evidence. Speculation about which of his stories (even though Pettitte is so honest!) is true and which is false is just speculation and people's beliefs. By the standard applied to Clemens here, I'd have to believe most anyone accused of anything was guilty of that thing. Compare Clemens' situation to how this board will exonerate Ortiz, for whom the evidence is greater than it is for Clemens but people like him so he gets a pass. Evidence is a good standard to use, because among many reasons it helps to steer towards the center and around people's narratives of good guys and bad guys.
The best thing against Clemens is that his career trajectory tracks with McNamee's charges and is highly abnormal. But that ain't much evidence either.