THE ROGER CLEMENS case presents parents, coaches and teachers with an opportunity to engage young people in stimulating discussions on issues that transcend baseball, such as why steroid use is wrong, the satisfaction of honorable competition and understanding the concept of “presumption of innocence.”

A discussion of steroid use can encompass four distinct points:

• Medical evidence confirms that steroid use can cause great harm to one’s body.

• Many psychologists and psychiatrists are on record as saying that steroid use can cause great harm to one’s self-esteem.

• Innumerable examples, including Clemens and many other baseball players named in the Mitchell Report, confirm that steroid use will cause great harm to one’s reputation.

• Steroid use involves an unethical strike at a core principle of fair play: Players who use steroids pressure teammates and opponents to consider use, merely to keep up.

The notion of fair play is central to any discussion of steroid use. Young adults might consider a salient point proposed by ethicist Michael Josephson to anyone who heeds a conscience: Victory without honor is profoundly unsatisfying. Surveys conducted with former athletes and coaches for The Encyclopedia of Sports Parenting made clear that for many who move the goal posts in pursuit of success, a “scruples strike” occurs at some point; many in this group report that the strike is powerful. “As I reflect back on the recruiting violations and my ‘do anything to win’ approach, I realize now — too late — that it wasn’t worth it,” was the way one surveyed ex-coach lamented his transgressions.

Shakespeare addressed this issue when he wrote:

A peace above all earthly dignities,

A still and quiet conscience.

The phrase “presumption of innocence,” central to our system of justice, is often misunderstood. When we consider the Clemens circumstances, the concept needs to be clear. The Constitution does not require all U.S. citizens to presume the innocence of an accused criminal, or anyone suspected of breaking the law. It does, however, require a jury in a criminal case to make this presumption, until the evidence unequivocally proves otherwise. Such a presumption of innocence rightly reduces the chances of an innocent person’s being wrongly convicted.

This discussion may help young adults understand the real meaning of “presumption of innocence” by drawing the important distinction between the right of public discourse and the obligation of a jury to not wrongfully incarcerate the innocent. Young adults may be reminded that while this system is not always perfect, it is infinitely more just than the alternative. Presuming that those accused of criminal acts are guilty, and thus forcing them to prove their innocence, has no place in a democratic society.

And how does this relate to the Rocket?

For us members of Red Sox Nation, who have always claimed the high moral ground, it should mean that we can speculate but be fair-minded in our speculation. For us parents, it should involve seizing the opportunity to talk with our kids about issues that are more important than any game.

Daniel E. Doyle Jr. is the founder and executive director of the Institute for International Sport ( www.internationalsport.com) at the University of Rhode Island and author of The Encyclopedia of Sports Parenting ( ddoyle@internationalsport.com).