Everyone is missing the point. It's not up to Clemens to "prove" anything... his accusers have to prove their case, otherwise he's innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it works in America, but it seems like the 50% of Americans with double-digit IQ's always forget that. For example, I could publicly say, "Mike is a child mollester". Would that mean that you ARE a child mollester unless you could prove that you're not? Of course not...you don't have to prove anything in that case... it is up to the person making the accusation to offer solid proof.
PS: even if Clemens did have the burden of proof, which he doesn't, a polygraph doesn't prove anything... they are notoriously unreliable, and can be beaten or give false positives which is why they are inadmissible in court.
Your words ring somewhat true, Mr. Goatboy.
Why do you attack IQ's...?
I don't know what mine is, but I have several degrees plus doctorate...but that, too, is not the point.
Do remember this, for our Mr. Clemens, in particular:
"With every statement made, if true or not, there is germinated a seed of truth and belief in the minds of the beholders.
True or not; the burden of it being Clemens to prove or disprove or not, his Hall of Fame Goose may very well be cooked, fair or not.
If I were hnim, and was not guilty, I would be out there taking every test in thge book and simply prove my innocence. It'd go a long way in the book of the BB HOF writers/voters.
He'd be doing something noone else has done, and he'd win big points in doing so.
Mike
