Who should we believe? That's a good question

Believe it or not, Monday's poll question on ESPN's "First Take" was a real stumper.

"Who do you believe in the Roger Clemens steroid scandal?"

The choices were Clemens or Brian McNamee, the trainer who alleged he injected the pitcher with banned substances.

"Neither of the above" was not an option.

So Sunday, after Clemens' appearance on "60 Minutes," I tended to believe McNamee. Monday, after Clemens' press conference, I tended to believe Clemens. Today's tendency remains to be seen.

Well, on all such matters I generally refer and defer to Rod Stewart's "Reason to Believe."

"If I listened long enough to you … I'd find a way to believe it's all true … Knowing that you lied straight-faced while I cried … Still I look for a reason to believe."

It's a tough find, however. Belief requires trust, and trust is in short supply these days. Not just in the Clemens case, in baseball, in sports, in America.

Newspapers? It used to be "Don't believe everything you read." Now it's "Better not believe anything you read."

If that sounds cynical from the inside out, so be it.

Anyway, Clemens whined to Mike Wallace, "I don't get the benefit of the doubt."

Join the club, big fella. In our culture, so few receive the benefit of the doubt because so many have abused it.

Consider the people shaping the Clemens case -- politicians, athletes, journalists and lawyers.

Take any one of them and he comes from a place the public has little faith in. Combine them and it's enough to make you want to pull the comforter over your head until they all go away.

Clemens looked straight-faced into the "60 Minutes" camera and denied using any form of illegal drugs.

Even if you wanted to believe him, could you?

When McNamee accused Clemens during baseball's steroids investigation, he did so with the understanding that lying would lead to a perjury charge.

The temptation was to accept his version, but could you?

George Mitchell, a respected former U.S. senator, conducted the probe that ultimately implicated dozens of players.

You'd like to put faith in the Mitchell Report, but can you?

Journalists watched Clemens on "60 Minutes," studied his body language, analyzed his facial expressions and drew conclusions.

You want to assume they're objective, but can you?

Let's not even get into the lawyers who are filing or threatening lawsuits.

The temptation is to … OK, no, that isn't even tempting.

What I'm saying is, it has become increasingly easier to suspend belief than to believe.

From backrooms to boardrooms to locker rooms to newsrooms to courtrooms, everybody is guilty by association: Clemens by the epidemic of cheating players, Mitchell by corrupt politicians, and journalists and lawyers by unethical colleagues.

This isn't fair, of course. The majority of each group consists of the good and honest. But few of us have time to sort out the scrupulous from the scoundrels.

"If you give me time to change my mind … I'd find a way to leave the past behind … Knowing that you lied straight-faced while I cried … Still I look to find a reason to believe."

Until one is found, we'll all just have to continue to believe what we want to believe.

Or better yet, to not believe anything.