Dear Editor:
You have often heard the expression usually found in old western movies that the accused would be given a fair trial and then hanged. At the present time, however, there is a celebrated athlete who is falling victim to the same process.
Roger Clemens, one of the greatest pitchers of all time, has been indicted for making untruthful statements relative to whether he did or did not receive strength-enhancing medicine. Mr. Clemens states that he did not inject himself or have himself injected with illegal drugs, and when he testified before Congress, he stood by that statement.
In the meantime, as we wait for his trial to occur, virtually every sports writer and announcer has concluded that Clemens is guilty and that he could have saved himself by not testifying before Congress, and it is also suggested that he would be wise, even at this late hour, to make a plea deal with the government. What these learned experts fail to realize is that by making use of these moves, he would be tacitly admitting guilt. Perhaps their assumption of his guilt caused them to fail to realize this.
What these commentators, writers, and announcers do not comprehend is that a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law in this country. Despite the reams of evidence that has been reported to have been garnered against him, the innocent plea by Mr. Clemens must be honored until it has been irrefutably proven to the contrary at a trial. The greater part of our society seems to believe he is guilty because, in their opinion, his declaration seems hard to believe. Notwithstanding the prevailing feeling by most that it does not seem reasonable that he could be innocent, would it not be fair to allow that Roger Clemens is telling the truth?
Howard Lawson