Is it naive of me to think that “innocent until proven guilty” is profoundly meaningful? That this principle is and should always continue to be a sacred tenet of our society?
So why don’t we behave that way. Why, if Roger Clemens is truly and completely innocent of illegal enhancement use, did he have to consult with his lawyers first before holding his press conference?
Mike and Mike on their ESPN radio show this morning tried to convince their listeners that it is normal and acceptable for someone to retreat upon accusation, to make their first phone call be to their lawyer, who will then do the right thing, which is consult other lawyers, ponder, consider, strategize, before finally, after much deliberation, declare the accusations unfounded.
Do they have any idea how guilty it makes them look? Does anyone remember the Ollie North trials where, upon being asked a question, North whispered to his attorney who whispered back, and they carefully constructed his thoughtful response, which was, “I don’t recall.” Come on! Do you expect to have any credibility after such a charade?
And yet they say that what Clemens really wants out of this fight is his reputation restored. Well, I listened to the phone conversation he provided between himself and his accuser, and it was weak, at best. I heard his press conference, and I haven’t seen such ambiguous dancing since my high school prom. If you cared about your reputation at all, wouldn’t you have come out right at the beginning, the next day after the Mitchell report came out, and said, “Bullshit!”?
But according to the talking heads, you can’t do that. Even in your innocence you must have a legal strategy. Is this what we’ve come to? Should the truth require a spin doctor?