Roger Clemens was found not guilty Monday, but, really, does anyone think he's innocent? 
 
 The winner of 354 games and seven Cy Young Awards was acquitted on all charges that he obstructed and lied to Congress, and the jury came to the decision quicker than a day-night doubleheader. 
 
 The question now is whether this will change voters' opinion when Clemens appears on the Hall of Fame ballot in December for the first time. 
 
 "The verdict will not change my vote," said Boston Globe baseball columnist Nick Cafardo, who covered Clemens throughout his career with the Boston Red Sox. "I always felt Roger Clemens was a Hall of Fame pitcher and still do." 
 
 Said Yahoo baseball columnist Tim Brown: "The jury decision didn't change my opinion either way. The facts of the case certainly led me to the opinion that Roger Clemens did in fact use performance-enhancing drugs. I won't vote for anyone that I believe enhanced his career by cheating. I won't vote for Clemens." 
 
 This could turn out to be a split decision and thus leave Clemens out of the Hall of Fame, at least initially. Candidates must get 75% of the vote by eligible members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America for induction. 
 
 "To be honest, I don't know what to think," Chicago Tribune baseball columnist Phil Rogers said. "It's going to take awhile to digest this verdict. It clearly helps the Rocket's chances for the Hall, but it doesn't discredit the Mitchell Report. At least I don't think it does. 
 
 "Like I said, this was a messy situation, and the Hall of Fame deliberations just became a lot more confusing." 
 
 The Mitchell Report, commissioned by Major League Baseball to investigate the history of performance-enhancing drug use in the sport, alleged Clemens doped in 1998, 2000 and 2001. After the report's release in December 2007, Clemens issued multiple vigorous denials. 
 
 Mark McGwire, with 583 home runs, did not appear in the Mitchell Report but avoided answering questions about doping in front of Congress in 2005 and admitted in 2010 to using steroids. His best showing on the Hall of Fame ballot in six tries came in 2010 with 23.7% of the vote. 
 
 Clemens will be joined on the ballot by fellow first-timers Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa, each of whom also has been linked to performance-enhancing drugs. 
 
 It'll be fascinating to see if they're viewed any differently than McGwire on their first ballot. 
 
 Clemens at least has the support of some current players. Said Los Angeles Angels starter Jered Weaver: "He had a great career, man. A lot of kids, including myself, looked up to him for what he did in his career. For him to come away unscathed is awesome." 
 
 Well, unscathed might be a bit strong, but at least Clemens is not a convicted felon, a charge Bonds still is fighting. 
 
 The next true jury will be the Hall of Fame vote. I'll vote for Clemens. I'll vote for Bonds. I'll vote for Sosa. We have no idea who was and wasn't cheating, but the rampant steroid use made it almost a level playing field. 
 
 "I think that it's impossible to ever find out everybody who was doing steroids in that era," New York Times writer Tyler Kepner said. "And if you can't find out everybody who did it, you have to accept the era for what it was. 
 
 "And Clemens dominated his era." ||||| As someone who reported on Roger Clemens on a daily basis longer than any journalist in the country – from June of 1983 when he was drafted through 1996 when I was a beat writer for both the Quincy Patriot Ledger and Boston Globe, I can tell you this, Clemens was and is a Hall of Famer and he should eventually get elected to the Hall. 
 
 There will be resistance to him at first, but he’ll garner enough votes to keep his Hall of Fame chances alive. Somewhere over the 15-year eligibility window, he will earn a place, I believe. 
 
 Did Clemens take performance-enhancing drugs? He probably did. For how long? We can only go by the evidence in the Mitchell Report, which indicated that during his time in Toronto after four subpar seasons with the Red Sox, there was evidence he engaged in that activity. 
 
 He certainly wasn’t alone in taking those enhancements, and obviously, so many players got away with it with their names never sullied. 
 
 You can love or hate Clemens, but one thing was undeniable – he was a great pitcher. You can joke and smirk about his claim to being a workout warrior – but he was. Those of us who witnessed it first hand for many years understand how hard he worked at being the best. 
 
 Later in his career he crossed the line. 
 
 Clemens was found not guilty on perjury charges levied by Congress about taking steroids and HGH. Obviously, Clemens had a great attorney in Rusty Hardin. And he also had an accuser who had less credibility than he did – Brian McNamee. 
 
 That’s where Clemens won the case. 
 
 McNamee simply could not be believed. 
 
 Clemens, we’re sure, dropped a few million dollars on this case,. And we’re sure the government did as well. 
 
 It seemed like a futile process from the start. Why would the government go this far and spend this much money to nail one professional athlete when Clemens was likely the tip of the iceberg on a rampant problem in baseball during that time? 
 
 And why would the government go into a case with such a weak accuser in McNamee, knowing full well, that a good defense attorney could make him look so bad and so shady? That’s what the Clemens team did. 
 
 We certainly understand that Congress can’t let someone get away with lying under oath, but there were always more important battles they could have waged. Instead they went after a big-name athlete to make a point, which in the end, they didn’t make. 
 
 Did the verdict clear Clemens’ name? It did not. 
 
 Most people still believe Clemens took something at some time. All he ever needed to do was admit that, like his buddy Andy Pettitte did, and Clemens likely would have been forgiven and waltzed into the Hall of Fame a lot sooner than he will now. 
 
 He won 354 games, which ranks ninth all-time, and he won seven Cy Young Awards, was 12-8 in the postseason, and 3-0 in eight World Series starts. He struck out 4,672 batters, third most. He pitched two historic 20-strikeout games 10 years apart vs. Seattle and Detroit in 1986 and 1996. 
 
 You can take those numbers and try to subtract what you perceive to be performance-enhancement years. 
 
 And if you play that game there’s still one conclusion you have to draw – a Hall of Famer beyond a reasonable doubt. ||||| Linda Cataffaro/New York Daily News Roger Clemens can be excited again about his victory in court, but will Hall of Fame voters be as excited? 
 
 Roger Clemens may have been acquitted of all charges in court Monday, but the verdict on the Baseball Hall of Fame won’t come for another seven months. 
 
 Clemens is one of six former superstars who will appear on the Hall of Fame ballot for the first time this winter, joined by Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Curt Schilling, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio. 
 
 
 
 LUPICA: CLEMENS WALKS AT PERJURY TRIAL, FANS TAKE LOSS 
 
 
 
 Like Clemens, Bonds and Sosa have had their names attached to performance-enhancing drugs, making for what promises to be a fascinating vote. 
 
 
 
 Voters have shot down steroid-era candidates such as Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro in recent elections, so Clemens, Bonds and Sosa figure to have a rough road ahead of them when it comes to the Hall. Monday’s verdict didn’t seem to change voters’ minds — regardless of which way they were leaning. 
 
 
 
 MADDEN: CLEMENS NOT WORTHY OF HALL DESPITE BEATING RAP 
 
 
 
 “My opinion was formed well before this started; nothing that came out in the trial changed my opinion,” said Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports. “Being not guilty of perjury and the other counts is not the same as the standard we apply. I have not voted for any of these guys yet. I’m not saying I won’t in the future — I don’t know. But nothing changes. 
 
 
 
 “I really doubt anyone will be persuaded either way by it, any of the voters. Or really anybody who’s followed it closely, any fan or outside person. The information was out there, for the most part. I don’t see it having a real impact.” 
 
 
 
 CLEMENS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF PERJURY 
 
 
 
 Tim Kurkjian of ESPN voted for both Palmeiro and McGwire, and he has planned all along to vote for Clemens. 
 
 
 
 “I am going to vote for Roger Clemens as of now because he’s the greatest pitcher I have ever seen and he won seven Cy Youngs,” Kurkjian said. “I was leaning toward voting for him, anyway, even if he had been found guilty. If he had gone to prison, I might have had to reexamine this, just as I reexamine this stuff all the time. This is the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do in 32 years covering baseball, trying to figure out what we’re supposed to do with these guys when it comes to the Hall of Fame.” 
 
 
 
 CLEMENS JUROR: PROSECUTION FAILED AT TRIAL 
 
 
 
 Kurkjian believes Clemens “did something, but they just couldn’t prove it.” Still, he looks at steroids as “an era-wide issue,” adding that “a whole lot of people did something during that era and no one seemed to be stopping them from doing it. 
 
 
 
 CLEMENS TIMELINE: FROM MITCHELL REPORT TO NOT GUILTY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Like Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds will see his name on Hall of Fame ballot when voting rolls around in January. (Paul Sakuma/AP) 
 
 
 
 “I’m certainly not condoning what anybody did, but I voted for Palmeiro and McGwire, and I’m way in the minority on that,” Kurkjian said. “As of now, I’m voting for Roger Clemens, but I’d be really surprised if he got in on his first year eligible. To me, the writers have already spoken; if you have a connection, you’re not getting in. I’m on the other side of the fence and I think about it every day.” 
 
 
 
 David O’Brien of the Atlanta Journal Constitution said he wouldn’t have voted for Clemens before the verdict and his opinion hasn’t changed. 
 
 
 
 “In my view, he was close to being a Hall of Fame pitcher when he left Boston, but he became a better pitcher at a time when he had no right being a better pitcher,” O’Brien said. “For the same reason I think Barry Bonds was a Hall of Famer before he became a home run freak; he was the best player in the game. I wouldn’t vote for him, either.” ||||| Nothing changes. 
 
 ROCKET SCIENCE How did Roger Clemens get here? Look back at his How did Roger Clemens get here? Look back at his career in pictures 
 
 If you believe that Roger Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs, I seriously doubt that the “not guilty” verdict on Monday is going to persuade you he was clean. It’s sure not going to persuade me. 
 
 Whether I vote for Clemens for the Hall of Fame, though, is another question entirely. And frankly, I’m not sure that even a conviction would have influenced my thinking, which is conflicted at best. 
 
 Clemens was found not guilty of obstructing and lying to Congress by denying that he used performance-enhancing drugs. Doesn’t mean that he never used PEDs. Just means that the government couldn’t prove that he lied about it. 
 
 No surprise there: Perjury convictions are difficult to obtain, and one became even more difficult in this case with the federal prosecutors performing like the legal equivalent of the “Bad News Bears.” 
 
 The money that the government spent trying to convict Clemens and Barry Bonds in separate trials makes a free-agent bust such as Alfonso Soriano look like a bargain, but I’ll leave others at FOX to comment on the government’s fine work. 
 
 The relevant baseball question now is Clemens’ legacy, and the initial judgment will be rendered when he appears on the Hall ballot for the first time in 2013, joining Bonds and Sammy Sosa, two others who have been connected to PEDs. 
 
 Those who support Clemens, starting with his oh-so-sincere attorney, Rusty Hardin, will continue to portray the pitcher as an innocent, hard-working embodiment of the American dream. 
 
 Those tired of all the lies of the steroid era will take a more cynical view, knowing that Clemens’ tireless work ethic and late-career surge possibly were the result of more than just his powerful will. 
 
 I’m in the latter group, and as a Hall voter, I am not bound by the standards of a federal juror. The Hall does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt for those who wish to withhold support for alleged users of PEDs. Voters can apply almost any standard they want. 
 
 Still, I’m not quite sure what to do with Clemens. 
 
 The primary eyewitness against Clemens — and the principal source of the allegations against him in baseball’s Mitchell Report — was the pitcher’s former trainer, Brian McNamee. And Clemens’ attorneys had as much fun attacking McNamee’s credibility as Clemens did facing light-hitting infielders with the bases loaded. 
 
 The Mitchell Report, never all that convincing to begin with, now is damaged beyond repair. Still, that’s a long way from saying that Clemens is exonerated, complicating his candidacy for Cooperstown. 
 
 Hall voters are instructed not only to consider a player’s record, playing ability and contributions to his team(s), but also his “character, integrity and sportsmanship” — words that can be interpreted in any number of ways. 
 
 A player must receive 75 percent of the vote for induction. Mark McGwire, an admitted user of PEDs, has yet to receive more than 23.7 percent of the vote. Rafael Palmeiro, a candidate who tested positive, has yet to receive more than 12.6 percent. I have yet to vote for either. 
 
 There is less hard evidence against Clemens than there is against McGwire and Palmeiro. In fact, there is very little hard evidence at all unless you believe McNamee — which I do, at least to a degree. 
 
 Clemens never tested positive for PEDs. He sure did not admit to using them. No, he forcefully denied each allegation — as did many others who later were found to be users. 
 
 So, which way will I vote? 
 
 “No” on the first ballot — as I’ve written before, I vote “no” on virtually every player from the steroid era as a way of distinguishing them from the greats of the past. Is that an unfair penalty for candidates thought to be non-users? Yes, but all of the players were part of a union that had the power to implement change. 
 
 After that is where it gets tricky. 
 
 My general rule after the first year is that mere suspicion is not enough for me to withhold a vote; one should only consider the facts at hand. I voted last year for Jeff Bagwell, knowing that some of my colleagues would refrain, suspecting that Bagwell used PEDs. Bagwell jumped from 41.7 percent of the vote his first year to 56 percent in his second. 
 
 Clemens, in some ways, is not much different than Bagwell. The evidence against Bonds from the BALCO trial, including positive tests, is stronger. A federal jury convicted Bonds on one charge of obstructing justice for impeding a grand jury investigation into illegal steroid distribution. The judge in the case declared a mistrial on three other counts. 
 
 Guilty, not guilty, positive, negative, alleged, confirmed. 
 
 It can drive you nuts, no? 
 
 As a voter, I try to approach each candidate, each year, with an open mind. But as I’ve written before, virtually every argument, for or against, is full of holes. In the end, all a voter can do is vote his or her conscience. And worry, as I do, about the meaning of keeping some of the generation’s biggest names out of the Hall of Fame.
– A jury has legally acquitted Roger Clemens; will the Baseball Writers of America do the same? That's the question everyone is asking today. This winter Clemens will be on the Hall of Fame ballot for the first time, and though his numbers are obviously unimpeachable, voters have so far given suspected juicers the cold shoulder. Here's what people are saying: "I just can't vote for him," MLB.com columnist Richard Justice tells Bloomberg. "He was unbelievable as a teammate and a competitor when I was around him, but I have this naïve notion of the Hall of Fame. Does he deserve to stand up there with Frank Robinson and Hank Aaron?" "Nothing changes," Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports writes. If you believed Clemens used steroids before, you probably still do now, and "the Hall does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Still, he may vote for him—just not on the first ballot. "To be honest, I don't know what to think," Chicago Tribune columnist Phil Rogers tells USA Today. "It certainly helps the Rocket's chances for the Hall, but it doesn't discredit the Mitchell Report." Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe has a verdict of his own: "Hall of Famer beyond a reasonable doubt." Sure, Clemens probably took steroids, but "he certainly wasn't alone in taking those enhancements, and obviously, so many players got away with it with their names never sullied." "He's the greatest pitcher I have ever seen," Tim Kurkjian of ESPN tells the New York Daily News. "I was leaning towards voting for him even if he had been found guilty."