Clemens: Much ado About Nothing (for MLB)

Roger Clemens appeared before a congressional panel this past Wednesday in an attempt to clear his name in the whole Mitchell Report/steroids affair.
Few questions were answered in the four-hour long hearing, but perhaps some new questions were raised.
Right off the bat, Brian McNamee's credibility comes into question because of not only his part in this whole torrid situation, but because he lied on several occasions before the hearing or the Mitchell report.
McNamee presented "physical proof" that he injected Clemens by turning over a used syringe and some gauze that he believes will show that Clemens' DNA is on them.
To me, this only presents another question.
First of all, Clemens has already admitted to being shot up by McNamee, but the two differ on just what the substance was that was in the syringe. McNamee, of course, claims that it was steroids or human growth hormones. Clemens insists that it was a B-12 shot.
My question is even if they do find the DNA of Roger Clemens on the syringe or gauze, how does that prove what the needle contained? Unless there is some type of residue on the inside of the syringe, how can they prove that it was steroids? And, even if they do find steroid or HGH residue in the needle, who's to say that McNamee didn't plant the residue inside it? So, to me, the "proof" is really no proof at all.
The next question is where was Andy Pettite during this hearing? If Pettite does believe that Clemens admitted to him that he did something illegal, then why didn't McNamee's attorneys see to it that Pettite was there?
And, as Clemens suggests, if Pettite misinterpreted what was said during this conversation that the two of them had, why haven't Clemens and Pettite ironed out what was exactly said so that Pettite could have showed up in Roger's defense?
This is the most troubling question to me. With all that Clemens is going through to try to prove his innocense, wouldn't he want his best friend, a man that everyone involved agrees is an honest man, and would therefore be perhaps the most credible witness in this mess, there to help clear his name? To me, Pettite's testimony is the key to this whole circus.
Third, one of the congressmen held up a large poster-board that had pictures of Clemens throughout various stages of his career, and it was pretty much agreed upon that whether he was pitching for Toronto, the Yankees, or Houston, there was no obvious change in the build of Clemens' body.
To me (and others that were watching), that suggests that there was no steroid use in this time period, which was more than 10 years long.
Now, you could say that none of those pictures were from his Boston days. That is true, but if you consider that Roger Clemens built the bulk of his reputation, and had quite a good deal of success, with the Sox, that obviously it was talent, not steroids, that made him the pitcher that he was in those days.
I have yet another unanswered question. Roger Clemens has been pitching in the major leagues for more than 20 years. From what I have heard, there is somewhere between three and five different dates, or time periods, that are in question. Even if Clemens is guilty of taking something illegal on these dates that are in question, can those few instances be given the credit for a 20-plus year hall-of-fame career? I think not.
In Roger's defense, it has been well documented for years and years how much of a gym rat he is, and how much time he invests in working out. It has even been said that on days that he pitches, he spends an hour riding an exercise bike after the game.
And on top of all of this, he has given countless speaches to high school and college student-athletes where his message has been that there are no shortcuts to success, it's all about hard work, and that it has been proven that steroids will break your body down in the long run.
I think that if Roger Clemens was a 'roid head, he would have never achieved the success in baseball that he has, and his body certainly would not have stayed as strong as it has over the course of his career.
I'm not saying that Clemens is innocent, but there are a lot of reasons to believe him. And just one known liar that is trying to give us reasons not to.
And, through it all, what will all of this prove? What will be the penalties for those involved? As for now, if Clemens is lying, of course he could be facing perjury charges and jail time.
But, aside from that, from a baseball vantage point, what are the consequenses? Major League Baseball knows that it can't prosecute someone for doing something before it was against the rules. So, what does it all mean?
I think that even if they find Clemens took steroids, that there is little that MLB can or will do about it.
What Congress does about it is a different story.