This is not a hearsay situation.
I'll reprint here my comments on another, parallel thread:
If someone said to the Mitchell investigators, "I didn't see it happening myself, but so-and-so told me he saw it happening," that would be hearsay. The problem with hearsay is that we can't judge the credibility of the source, and in particular, if we don't make the source of the information sit through questioning that seeks either to establish or refute his credibility, then the accusation is inherently unreliable.
But when someone says, "I was there and I saw it happen," or "I was there and I held the hypodermic needle and injected Roger Clemens in his buttocks", that is not hearsay. That is a first-hand statement from an eye witness. And that is the evidence against Clemens.
Now, you can say that Roger denies that person's statements. But it is not at all unusual for the wrongdoer to issue blanket denials. The question now is, who is more credible, the accuser, or Roger?
The fact is, each of these players was given the full and fair opportunity to come to the investigators and tell his side of the story. And almost all of them refused. That in itself is very telling.
In criminal cases, you have a right not to incriminate yourself, and the law prohibits the prosecution from drawing any inferences from your refusal to talk, as a means of protecting your right against self-incrimination. But most folks who let strong accusations go unrefuted end up convicted.
And the privilege against self-incrimination doesn't even apply outside the criminal context. In civil cases and other, non-court matters, inferences are typically drawn from a refusal to talk or otherwise cooperate. That's because we normally expect an innocent man to want to clear his name and protest his innocence. An accused who refuses to talk deprives us of his own admission of guilt, but we naturally draw the conclusion that he is guilty nonetheless.
According to the Mitchell report, a person who has established that he has first hand knowledge has accused Clemens. It is also noteworthy when someone is candid enough to admit their own complicity. Those types of witnesses are typically deemed very credible. And in the face of that very credible evidence, Clemens has refused to cooperate, refused to sit for questioning.
Any reasonable person would reach the natural conclusion: GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!
Not hearsay. Not unfair to conclude guilt. At this point the ball is in Roger's court and if he really expects anyone to believe him, he'd better get busy. The indignant denial game didn't work for Bonds, didn't work for Palmeiro, didn't work for McGwire. It won't work for Clemens, either. If he's not careful, his adoring fans will turn on him every bit as quickly as Michael Vick's turned on him.