Report: Roger Clemens didn't test positive in 2003 - ESPN

"Roger Clemens' lawyer says the pitcher was not among the more than 100 players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003."

Ya gotta love lawyers and their shenanigans. This statement, while true enough, is tantamount to a lawyer issuing a statement proving conclusively that his client couldn't have killed anyone on Tuesday, when in fact the client was accused of Monday and Wednesday murders. Clemens was never accused of using in 2003, and his mediocre performance indicates he probably was not. McNamee's accusations cover only two periods: (1) the second half of 1998; (2) the period from mid-2000 until the end of the 2001 season.

McNamee's testimony alleged that Clemens, after experiencing a rough start in 1998, was juiced in the second half of 1998, his last year with the Jays. Clemens is not accused of using steroids in 1999 or the first half of 2000, during which time he was with the Yankees, was separated from McNamee, and had a major decline in performance. McNamee joined Clemens in New York in mid-2000 and claims that Clemens was juicing again in the second half of 2000 and all of 2001. Whether that is true or not, Clemens did experience a tremendous resurgence. McNamee and Clemens were separated after 2001, and Clemens then had a major decline in performance. In 2001 the Rocket won the Cy. In the 2002-2003 era, he got no votes at all in the Cy balloting and had an ERA above 4.00 for the period.

I detailed Clemens' 1998-2001 performance and its correspondence to McNamee's accusations here.

The other suspicious period in Clemens' record is 2004-2005, when he had another spectacular comeback. After his two mediocre years at the end of his Yankee run, he went to Houston. First year there: 18-4, Cy Young. Second year there: 1.87 ERA at age 42! This period, however suspicious it may be, is not covered in the McNamee testimony, and nobody has stepped forward to make any accusations about that time, at least not so far as I know.