While there may be more to the story, to intimate a deer might not have been involved simply because neither individual (not witnesses to the accident itself) "saw any that day" means absolutely nothing in the context of the discussion. Deer are shadowy creatures who appear out of nowhere...just ask anyone who's hit one with their vehicle. If there's other physical evidence at the scene which intimates a different scenario than the one David Freese himself has given, then questions need to asked.

I'm sorry but I don't see why we should care. If it was any of us no one would care. Why pick on him. Am I missing something?

Living in that exact area of the accident, I have been keeping track of near misses with deer that I personally have been having this year. That week, I had four near misses that easily could have been deer collisions. Two were at night and two were during the day. This is nothing but a witch hunt that's only purpose is to stir an empty pot for circulation purposes.

Per some reader inquiries, the original Eureka-Wildwood Patch breaking news alert/article about this accident can be found at http://eureka-wildwood.patch.com/articles/cardinals-david-freese-wrecks-rover-to-avoid-deer-in-wildwood

To even attempt to raise a doubt regarding the account of the accident using the circumstances in the story is highly irresponsible and an obvious attempt to make an issue where none is justified. Much stronger evidence would be needed than 'no deer were seen that day' and 'skid marks'. This makes me lose all respect for McClellan. Anyone who drives roads in the area knows that deer materialize from nowhere and disapper just as quickly. Skid marks would be expected.

Let McClennan have a close encounter with a deer and see where his skid marks are.