My husband and I (along with a zillion other people) have been following the Roger Clemens saga. We both also like "Forensic Files" and that type of thing, so it's all dovetailing here.

I try to avoid the subject around my husband. He doesn't much like Roger. I keep pointing out (because I'm stupid and I have to) that just because you don't like somebody doesn't mean he's guilty of anything.

I always have to play the devil's advocate, and I drive Bob crazy by arguing both sides. Well? Isn't that the fair way to do it?

Either a talented, successful man is so arrogant that he thinks he can outwit science and justice; or another man is so greedy or warped that he is willing to fabricate "evidence" to bring an athlete down.

Forensice scientists are smart enough to prove which is true, I believe. Gone are the days when you could just smear animal blood on a coat of many colors and convince someone that death had occurred.

Just my two cents.