For many people, the most convincing evidence of Roger Clemen’s guilt is not what is contained in The Mitchell Report, but his failure to immediately express personal outrage and deny the allegations. Particularly considering he was aware of at least the strong possibility he would be included in the report, it is inexplicable that he did not schedule a press conference that afternoon and vent his outrage at being falsely accused. We all know how angry Clemens can get. This is the man that got thrown out of a critical playoff game for rampaging on an umpire for an unfavorable strikezone. Are you telling me he felt any less unjustifiably treated by The Mitchell Report?
Moral outrage at false accusation is such an ubiquitous human reaction the particularly guileful attempt to leverage it to their advantage. Consider Bill Clinton wagging his finger and decrying “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”. Or, closer to home, Raphael Palmiero’s finger pointing denial of steroid use in front of Congress.
I notice the Clemens public relations firm even recognizes the severity of the problem his lack of an immediate, forceful denial has caused in the battle for public opinion. The latest headlines read Clemens was just “numb” over the Mitchell Report. I doubt it will work. Once that moment is gone, it can never be recaptured. Like innocence lost.
Speaking of, you might notice that my good friend “J.W.” has yet to respond to my calling him out as a fraud. Oh, J.W. has read it. A couple of times. My site access logs reveal that fact. So why hasn’t he defended his reputation with the same fervor he defended censorship by MLBlogs? Like Clemens he’ll make a fool of himself over balls and strikes but not honor? I know personally I would rampage on someone if I spent an hour of my time to engage in the dialog on their site and they called me a fraud: “Are you off your meds? I am not affiliated with MLB in any way. You’re paranoid, man. Get some help.”
But then, I sign my name.
I’m sure J.W. is trying to come up with a plausible explanation. The problem is, it is too late. The moment for moral outrage at being falsely accused has passed, a couple of times now. I interpret that as evidence of what is called in the legal profession “consciousness of guilt”.
— Michael Norton