Clemens in the court of public opinion

An article appeared in The New York Times on Sunday, here, regarding Roger Clemens' relative success or failure "in the court of public opinion."

It seems to me that the article, to a large extent, misses the point (and it's not just that I'm upset they didn't call me for comment).

Whether Clemens' PR is working seems to me to be dependent, in the final analysis, on whether he's guilty or not. If he did use steriods, he's taking a huge risk by being so public in his denials, since other shoes are bound to drop as this moves forward (or, as a lawyer for Clemens trainer, Brian McNamee, asserts of Clemens' attorney: “Rusty Hardin is walking Roger Clemens into jail.").

On the other hand, if he's actually, god forbid, innocent, he's doing exactly the right thing: working hard against considerable odds to sow the seeds of doubt with public and media audiences who, because of his personality, were predisposed against him in the first place (and, as a Mets fan, I count myself as a Piazza-loving Clemens-hater). In that case, it's a brilliant maneuver, akin to Joe Chesire's brilliant defense of the Duke lacrosse players against similar odds.

Part of the problem, of course, is that -- like Barry Bonds -- we all believe Clemens is guilty, particularly those of us who are achy and over 40. (for an article on the perils of such a viewpoint, see my Forbes opinion piece on Clemens and Bonds, here).

Point to be made: in a high-profile legal matter, PR and message choices are in large part dependent on the strength of your underlying case. Or, as the old saying goes: "When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When neither is on your side, pound the table."

It remains to be seen whether Clemens' PR tactics are just table pounding, or a brilliant effort to move conventional wisdom toward the truth.