The case against Roger Clemens seems very weak to me. The statistical evidence proves nothing.
A couple of congressmen seemed to think that it was incriminating that Clemens' buddy Andy Pettitte accused him of using HGH, and Clemens was unwilling to call him a liar. Clemens merely said that Pettitte was mistaken.
I disagree. Even if Pettitte was not mistaken, it is telling that his accusation was very weak. He had no knowledge of Clemens using steroids. If Clemens had confided with his buddy about HGH, wouldn't he also be likely to confide in steroid use?
Even if Clemens did use HGH briefly in 1999, I don't think it is any big deal. HGH doesn't even help a pitcher much, as far as I know. I don't see any smoking gun. Clemens should be innocent until proven guilty.