Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs Andy Pettitte a better professional athlete for admitting he used HGH?
Results so far:
| Yes | 51% | 63 votes | Total: 123 votes | |
| No | 49% | 60 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesFinally someone steps up and takes responsibility for their actions. Finally someone looks America in the eye and says, "I was wrong." Someone doesn't dodge media questions or get angry when the overwhelming evidence is presented to him. Finally someone proves (once again) that two simple words, "I'm sorry," can actually mean something when they are genuine and sincere.
Andy Pettitte earned some respect from me for admitting he used Human Growth Hormone (HGH) in 2002 and again in 2004. I forgive him. While it was wrong, it is so refreshing to see someone take responsibility for their actions.
Pettitte says he only used HGH to help recover from two separate arm injuries. Whether or not that is the complete truth, who knows. But we're taking baby steps here - at least someone is admitting to something. As well, Pettitte said he came clean about his use in 2004 while under oath. Finally someone respects the idea of "being under oath" as a time that one needs to actually tell the truth. The two other abnormally huge faces of the steroids cases, Bonds and Clemens, will likely learn this the hard way when they are brought up on perjury charges - Bonds later this year.
And as for Roger Clemens: the evidence is almost undeniable. If prosecuted for steroids use in a court of law, I can't imagine any jury other than OJ Simpson's not convicting Clemens. Yet he still angrily, confrontationally denies any wrong doing. Did you happen to catch his Congressional hearing? He must have licked his lips 150 times. Boy, I'd sure like to play poker with that guy.
Pettitte set an example that will hopefully become the norm: if you make a mistake, just admit it. A year from now, you'll barely hear Pettitte's name associated with steroids, but you can rest assured Clemens' name will still be on everyone's lips.
At his press conference, Pettitte was asked if he was concerned about what the fan reaction to him would be, specifically at visiting ball parks. He said he was, but he was prepared for the worst. To paraphrase, he made his bed and is prepared to lay in it. Well I for one will not boo him if we happened to be at Wrigley Field on the same day. Instead, I'll cheer as he takes the mound. Finally a professional athlete stepped up. That's all we want as fans. Just step up and be a man.
Learn more about this author, Sean Curtis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Andy Pettitte is sorry now, or at least that's what he'd like you believe. He's apparently found healing in the truth, and resolve in the face of a steroid scandal that has forever tarnished the reputation of Major League Baseball.
The problem is that Pettitte only felt the need to rationalize his use of human growth hormone (HGH) two days after he was named in the Mitchell Report. The 35-year-old left-hander then said in a statement that he had only used HGH over a 48-hour period while trying to recover from an elbow injury, and that he did so out of obligation to get back to the team as soon as possible.
"Though it was not against baseball rules, I was not comfortable with what I was doing, so I stopped," Pettitte offered. "This is it - two days out of my life; two days out of my entire career, when I was injured and on the disabled list. If what I did was an error in judgment on my part, I apologize. I accept responsibility for those two days."
A short time after Pettitte made that statement, he also revealed he had used HGH in 2004. But that admission only came from an affidavit to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and again made it appear that Pettitte was merely trying to protect himself, rather than the integrity of the game of baseball.
Furthermore , Pettitte left his "friend" Roger Clemens to take the heat from Congress. Clemens, however, has vigorously and repeatedly denied using performance-enhancin g drugs. So one of them has made false statements under oath, but with Pettitte supposedly telling the truth, it makes Clemens the scapegoat in what has clearly become a drug epidemic.
As fans, where we draw the line? How can we accept that Pettitte, who called for the cameras only in the wake of a media frenzy, actually issued a heartfelt apology and not a script written word-for-word by his agent? How do we take any comfort in knowing that, had there been no such thing as the Mitchell Report, Pettitte would have simply kept his mouth shut?
The truth is, men like Andy Pettitte are an embarrassment to the game of baseball and to the world of professional sports. Telling the "truth" isn't helping anyone now, and it certainly hasn't cast Pettitte in a new light. He's still a player that cheated. A guy that could've gone the extra mile, but came up well short.
Pettitte could have told the truth all along, but he chose not to. That's not something that should be ignored, less make his steps from the dugout to the pitcher's mound any lighter now that things are out in the open.
The sad thing is that Major League Baseball skirted the drug issue. So many people looked the other way at a time when the first steps could have been taken to prevent a full-blown problem. Now broader interest and intense scrutiny have players like Andy Pettitte protecting their own reputation instead of the league proclaiming its cleanliness.
I hate to be the one to tell Andy Pettitte, but two wrongs do not make a right.
Learn more about this author, Stephanie Sigafoos.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Baseball
- Will the Cleveland Indians ever win the World Series?
- Should baseball's Cleveland Indians change their "red man" MLB team logo?
- Can old baseball players really compete with players 25 years younger than them?
- Should Major League Baseball develop a salary-cap system?
- Do baseball salaries buy championships?
- Should player violence against umpires be a league matter or criminal?
