if he didn't do steroids, there are a hell of a lot of events that will need to be explained. Occam's Razor, baby
I picked the "I think he did them but have no proof" option. While it's unfair to Bonds that I assumed his guilt, while now I'm giving Roger benefit-of-the-doubt, Bonds didn't play for my team. I'm man enough to admit that I want Roger to be innocent for selfish reasons. I just don't think he is. As I've said before, it doesn't really matter whether he is or isn't. The way people felt about him before the news broke made it all too easy to put the cheater tag on his head. Even if he swears on the stand, tells his side of the story, no physical evidence is provided contrary to his cause, and he makes a compelling case, he's always going to be viewed as guilty, even if it's not the truth.
Poor Don is going to ruin his monitor trying to write in, "Common sense says that he couldn't have taken them." One, three, and four are all reasonable options, although people who vote for number four are fence-sitting pussies.
Rest comfortably. Barry's protestations aside, he actually admitted taking the stuff. The ship has sailed on that, and it gets overlooked with him too often. His argument was that he thought it was flaxseed oil and arthritis cream, but he admitted using the Cream and the Clear.
If option 1 had also said "but I have no proof" I would have picked that, since I have been convinced that was juiced since the 2000 World Series, but as written I picked 3, since I certainly don't claim to have any proof that he did anything.
I don't have evidence that would stand up in court, but I think I do have a few items which are telling.
I'm convinced and have been convinced for years now. I just don't really see how there's any way around it.
I thought he used them but the events that have transpired have brought me closer to thinking hedidn't. Ifd he's guilty he is just digfging himself a biger hole, I can't believe he is that stupid though he may be. I still lean towards guilty but I want to wait until the current situation plays itself out.
Good point, but it still doesn't change the reason I said what I did. I'll be totally honest, if Roger had never pitched in pinstripes, I'd have always considered him a Red Sox, and I would assume he was guilty without any proof whatsoever. Just like San Fran fans last year, my attitude is more along the lines of "he might be a cheater, but he's my cheater". I'm not proud of it, but it's the honest truth, and I'd rather be honest than pretend to be above my homerism.
I hate to call someone I like a hypocrite but seriously that is what this sounds like and nothing more. Sad really. Like I said during the summer, nothing worse than calling Bonds a cheater then cheering Clemens.
one caveat: Bonds is an all-around POS. While Clemens is not my favorite person and I think he may be slightly deranged, he hasn't done some of the awful things Bonds has done. Doesn't change the fact that I'm convinced Bonds did lots of stuff and I'm 99% certain that Clemens did stuff, but it does affect the likability factor, and it's easier to defend someone you don't hate.
Ironically I am the exact opposite, I don't mind Bonds at all, but Clemens annoys me to no end, and this has nothing to do with steroids. That thought was clinched when he became the highest paid "prostitute" in sports, he made Brett Farve ongoing retirement thought look innocent.
