Quote:
Originally Posted by G1911
Absolutely true, I should have phrased it as "a failed test" instead of "failed tests". My point is made here - the board will leap to explain away failures and dismiss actual material evidence for Ortiz's guilt to let him off the hook, yet simultaneously leap to deny evidence is even needed to blame Clemens and complain if anyone asks for evidence.
MLB claimed false positive were possible after the results leaked (which is true, was true after, and is still true today). I think it safe to assume that failing a test is a piece of reasonable evidence one is guilty, not ironclad absolute proof, but very obviously actual evidence to use. It is more evidence than has ever been produced for Clemens' guilt, and both have highly suspicious career trajectories during the steroid era.
|
The bolded is the statement I find most questionable. In addition to witness testimony, the prosecution had needles and cotton balls from McNamee that tested positive for both Clemens' DNA and anabolic steroids. The defense argued that McNamee could have doctored it and the chain of custody was improper. The prosecution produced forensic expert testimony that it would have been very difficult to fake that evidence.
Ultimately, the jury found that the prosecution didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But there
was physical evidence linking Clemens to steroids, and it might have been sufficient if the burden of proof were lower.