Midlo good point. I would say in a court room, that witness would be as strong as a presecutor could ask for. However, in that same court, the defense would argue that the witness is lying, and that the witness lied because of XYZ motive. The defense would further argue that Clemens was tested for steroids multiple times by the MLB, under the agreed collective bargaining protocal, and was found clean.
It would be up to a jury/judge to decide which evidence is stronger.
If a guy was being tried for murder and a witness saw the man do it, however DNA evidence says the contrary, what evidence do you base your opinion on?
If your talking about banning someone from baseball for life, I think you need more cooberating evidence than the testimony of one guy(criminal). Especially when scientific evidence exist to the contrary.
That is the problem with this report, there is no due process, the report has no teeth. Sure the players had the opportunity to defend themselves, but that is not what this report was about, this report was an investigation into the use of steroids, not the other way. I'm guessing that the players attorneys understood this and stayed away.
If the accusations against Clemens are true, than more information will probably come available that will lead to stronger proof.
I'm not a big Clemens fan, in fact, I don't care for him at all, but If I were the commish, I would need to see the fire, not just the smoke.
I personally think Clemens did it, but If I was the commish, I don't think I could do much about it.
Because he passed my test.