Stark speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the report

I’ll just quote at length from Stark’s latest. We can’t repeat this point enough about the whole Mitchell investigation.

So you probably don’t even care that Clemens’ lawyer was using words like “slander” to characterize all this. You probably don’t even care that the evidence is more tenuous than you’d think.

You probably don’t even care that two attorneys who were surveyed Thursday, both of whom now work in the sports world, say they’re extremely dubious that the allegations against Clemens would hold up in court. Not even in a civil case.

You might find that surprising, considering that Clemens is one of the few players in this report whose alleged use of illegal substances was actually witnessed by a living, breathing human being (trainer Brian McNamee) who then spoke with the Mitchell crew.

But one attorney — a man who doesn’t represent players, by the way — said the entire case is “all based on one guy [McNamee], and there’s no documentation.”

True, there are checks written by McNamee to the human smoking gun, Kirk Radomski. But the report tells us, right there on Page 174, that Radomski admitted that McNamee never told him that Clemens (or Andy Pettitte) used steroids or HGH. It was merely implied, Radomski said.

Those implications were good enough for George Mitchell — obviously. But the other attorney we surveyed said that in an actual court, a judge would tell a jury that the testimony of a witness like McNamee, who had made a deal with the government, was “not sufficient for conviction. There must be independent corroboration.”

So what’s the corroboration? Information supplied by another witness who made a deal with the government. Uh-oh.

I’m no defender of Roger Clemens. He’s reaped what he’s sown over the years. But I am a fan of baseball, and today was a sad, sad day for the game because of this unnecessary report.