MVN - Most Valuable Network

27 Responses to “Andy Pettitte admits using HGH”

1. Jeff Kallman says:
   

   December 15th, 2007 at 5:53 pm

   If I’m reading the appropriate passages of the Mitchell Report correctly, Pettitte’s interest in hGH tied to his elbow trouble. That’s a critical point (I’ve said it before, in the appropriate contexts)—we’re not talking a motive to get an edge on the mound, we’re talking about a motive to get beyond an injury. (That, remember, was the original reason Ken Caminiti thought about and tried a steroid.) And I think that, whenever the final call on the juice generation is made, you’ve got to ponder motivation when passing a judgment call.

2. Evan Brunell says:
   

   December 15th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

   Oh I agree. But here’s the complexity in that, Jeff: someone could lie about motivation, no?

   I’m not saying Pettitte is lying. I think he’s telling the truth. But what if Clemens used it to get an edge, not to help the team and heal faster? Could he just say he was hurt and wanted to heal faster even if it’s not the truth

   Do we forgive at that point?

3. Mo says:
   

   December 15th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

   The point is, there are degrees to every crime. For some you get a citation and a fine, for some you get jail time, and for a few, you get the chair. I think Pettitte’s crime was of a much lower level than many in the report (HGH twice to rehab) and he may have saved himself alot of grief by being the first of the few big names in the report to come clean. Clemens on the other hand, will probably put up a big fight, like Pete Rose, and end up on the chair (no HOF for you).

4. Jeff Kallman says:
   

   December 15th, 2007 at 6:35 pm

   I think Pettitte’s being honest, too. And God only knows people can lie about just about anything. Just ask the Pete Rose who lied all those years . . .

   But you’d have to take it case by case. And since Clemens has yet to comment about it directly, there’s a big question mark, as you suggest.

5. Michael Edelman says:
   

   December 15th, 2007 at 8:36 pm

   I was surprised to hear that he ever used PED’s in the first place because I always considered Pettitte to be a classy, respectable guy. Although, given how close he was to Clemens, who was using PED’s throughout his tenure with the Yankees, it later made sense. I give credit to Pettitte for admitting his use rather than denying it like Clemens.

   However, given that Pettitte used PED’s, I find it hard to believe that he worked out with Roger Clemens for nine years, and never even tried PED’s to enhance his workouts. He had to know Clemens was using them and Pettitte’s personal trainer supplied them.

   And to all those Yankees fans who said they liked him better now that they knew he used HGH to recover quickly, that logic is crazy. And according to that crazy logic, I guess if he’s telling the truth, he really isn’t committed to his team, huh? He gave up after two days.

6. Michael Edelman says:
   

   December 15th, 2007 at 8:39 pm

   Furthermore, using HGH to recover more quickly is STILL cheating, regardless of whether or not you consider it cheating to a lesser degree. Just like Clemens’ supposed steroids use, it gives Pettitte an unfair advantage that other, honest players don’t have. Please stop justifying it by saying it’s lesser cheating. Cheating is cheating.

7. James says:
   

   December 15th, 2007 at 9:20 pm

   The bottom line here is that he used HGH…it’s illegal…so to me…it doesn’t matter. He’s a ‘professional athlete’ which means he’s required to play on an even playing field.

   He didn’t. I get it…it’s a world of competition. I don’t cheat at my job…do you?

   So, let me ask you all the question that REALLY matters here…that we are all overlooking….

   Would he have been so ‘honest’ if he was never part of any report?

   We all know the answer is no. Being truthful with a gun to your head is a whole lot different to being truthful on your own volition.

   Pettitte should be judged just as harsh as Clemens, Bonds, or anyone else…

8. Sam says:
   

   December 15th, 2007 at 9:44 pm

   This is the aftermath of the Mitchell Report that I was not looking forward to … the discussion

   Every ballplayer that stepped on the field during the last 20 years has been seperated from the rest of the history of the game … Bonds and Clemens should go in the HoF because they were the best during their time … but because of the time they played in … they should never be compared to the greats of the past … no player should be … not A-Rod and not Pujols … these guys can never escape the doubt because of the time they played in … in my mind the words “the greatest ever” should no longer be used to discribe any player … cause we don’t know anymore

   That’s all the Mitchell Report truly accomplished … it showed the problem for what it was and it forever changed how we look at this era … I’m not saying that because of the Report and because of the roids we should just forget about this era … we just need to look at it differently and not try and hold it up in comparison to other eras … the game was played differently and effected in different ways

   And I especially don’t wanna hear this whole discussion over how individual players have had their legacies destroyed … who the hell cares? the whole period has been destroyed and no player who has stepped on the field has escaped it

   I guess I’m dreaming … it’s kind of inevitable that the discussions will rage on now that “names have been named” … but IMHO it doesn’t matter … I wish we could just label the era as it deserves to be labeled and just move on into the next one with the best intentions possible

   Personally I wish the season started tommorrow so we could get on with watching baseball and enjoying the game for what it is instead of talking about this crap all winter long

9. David Hannes says:
   

   December 15th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

   I don’t completely believe Pettitte–but at least he admitted to doing something. AFAIK, HGH was not illegal when he used it and, if not, I think he should not be punished or fined, other than perhaps be required to give a few speeches to kids about the harm of it.

   I think they will be able to prosecute Hendricks because of it…I suppose it is protected under “attorney/client” priviledge.

   Clemens, in my mind, is a bold face liar. I hope he never gets anywhere near Cooperstown.

10. Michael Edelman says:
    

    December 15th, 2007 at 9:50 pm

    HGH wasn’t illegal when Bonds did it either. I don’t think that prevents people from realizing that he cheated. And James is right, he doesn’t deserve praise for being honest. He only owned up to it because he was caught, and who knows if he’s being honest now or not. Just like the Mitchell Report didn’t find everyone who cheated, it likely didn’t find to full extent to which the people listed in it cheated.

11. Yankeefan says:
    

    December 15th, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    I’m glad Andy owned up to his mistake in judgement. It shows his class. I think given the era, we should accept that it happened, learn from it, ban what has to be been banned, create the appropriate policies to ban and discourage use, and punish those who violate after the policies are in place. However, we need to move on and stop the witch hunt for those who violated prior to official polices banning PED’s. Clemens should be in the HOF. As for Bonds, he is in another category based on his alleged criminal conduct of lying to a grand jury and being a jerk. I think being a jerk and/or lying to the public makes him unpopular and should not keep him out of the HOF (ie Ty Cobb), but a conviction for lying to a grand jury keeps him out of the HOF.

12. Michael Edelman says:
    

    December 15th, 2007 at 11:56 pm

    Come on, Bonds gets vilified for HGH use before it was made illegal because he’s a jerk, but Pettitte doesn’t because he’s supposedly a “classy” guy who cheated, was dishonest about cheating, then when he was caught red handed, he consulted with his lawyer for a day before he releases a statement admitting to using HGH, but only twice. And in the statement, he never says what he did was wrong.

    We know for a fact that Petitte cheated, he admitted to it, but none of us know the true extent to which he cheated. Pettitte hasn’t been honest for half a decade, and we’re supposed to believe him now when he admits to the bare minimum of what he was caught doing? Come on, talk about a double standard. If Pettitte was on the Red Sox you’d be singing a completely different tune.

13. Michael Edelman says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 12:08 am

    And for the record HGH actually is illegal, both federally and in MLB. MLB has had a policy for over 30 years stating that the use of any prescription drugs without a prescription is illegal, and federally it’s illegal to use HGH without a prescription. Pettitte broke both federal and MLB laws/rules and so I wouldn’t be surprised if he is suspended.

14. Michael Edelman says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 12:17 am

    “I guess reports are saying I’ve used performance enhancing drugs,” he added. “I’ve never used any drugs to enhance my performance in baseball. I don’t know what else to say except to say it’s embarrassing my name would be out there.”

    -Andy Pettitte in 2006 when Grimsley implicated him

    Yup, what an honest, classy guy. Stop looking at him with rose colored glasses so thick that you’re practically blind.

15. James says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 12:17 am

    This is the aftermath of the Mitchell Report THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

    What are we talking about here?

    We are talking about baseball.

    Think back…when you were a kid, and you and your pops were talking about baseball…comparing ballplayers.

    We’re robbed of that with our kids…because they can’t be compared.

    Not now…probably not ever.

    At the same time, that’s what baseball is all about. I remember talking to Dad about guys like Joe Jackson, and Pete Rose…and why or why not they should be included.

    We even had a good conversation about Roger Maris. My Dad grew up in the 154 game schedule…and had views on it as a lifelong Yankee fan.

    This is part of what baseball is all about…

    Life.

    It’s to be talked about…figured out…and move on.

    Bud Selig can’t even screw that up…

16. Brian says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 12:19 am

    Pettitte admitting this gives validity to Brian McNamee’s testimony. This puts Clemens in an even worse spot and I’m more inclined to believe McNamee now.

17. Sean says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 9:49 am

    Again it is proven that the lawyer here in Texas representing Pettitte and Clemens is a lying sack of… Never being much of a fan of either I at least have a hell of a lot more respect for Andy Pettitte for at least coming clean, be it in full or partial we don’t know however Giambi’s continued apology while not mentioning for what was also his saving grace.

    Nothing’s ever going to make me forget Clemens throwing that half wooden steak piece of bat at Mike Piazza. Actually prior to that event I was a fan of Clemens due to his Texas Native and not so much a fan of Piazza, thinking him a smug prick prior to this event. At the time of that happening I blamed “roid rage” and continue to feel as though that were the case; i.e. drug induced.

18. Brigs says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 10:13 am

    Your heroes of yesteryear used to pop ephedrine like it was candy. Should we kick all the old-timers out of the hall? Players will do whatever they can to get an edge. I’m sure these days they’re pounding Red Bulls for an energy boost. You know, caffeine is a performance enhancing drug. I suppose generations of athletes are tainted for drinking coffee. They may as well tear down the HOF.

    Or

    We could calm down and realize that using a substance that hasn’t been banned is not against the rules. If something is questionable, ban it. Then punish people who use it. Until then, you have no right to be upset.

19. James says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    Red Bull and caffeine is illegal?

    Does baseball really HAVE to ban something that is illegal to use in the real world?

    It’s moderately jokeworthy…

20. Jere says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    I don’t think cheating and not admitting it until after you’re caught is classy at all.

21. Jeff Kallman says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 1:46 pm

    James—-*chuckle* I bet nobody yapping in those years about the 154-game schedule versus the 162-game schedule, when Maris caught and passed Ruth, troubled themselves to look it up that Ruth originally broke a single-season home run record held by a guy who played in a 112-game season. And nobody yapped about Ruth getting an unfair scheduling advantage, even if a lot of people at that time thought the coming of the bomb was going to wreck, ahem, “scientific” (legitimate, as those avatars would have had it) baseball properly played . . .

    (P.S. I’m still inclined to believe that, with the exception of likely masterminds Chick Gandil and Swede Risberg, George Will was right about Shoeless Joe and the rest of the Black Sox: more dumb than dishonest. If only Shoeless Joe hadn’t initially accepted that payoff envelope . . .)

    Michael—-Strictly speaking, Pettitte wasn’t exactly lying in 2006 if you think about it. Tie that 2006 statement to what he said Friday. There is a distinction between looking to heal a little quicker from an injury (what’s inherently wrong with wishing a quicker recovery?) and looking to give yourself an edge on the mound.

    Brigs—-When Bowie Kuhn tried taking Jim Bouton to the woodshed over Ball Four, one of the first things Kuhn wanted to know, supposedly, was more about the greenies that Bouton discussed in the book. And that was where it ended, apparently.

22. Mark says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    I really don’t think Andy should be judged as hard as guys like Bonds or Clemens. I agree that using to get an edge or using to heal are both cheating. However, I think you need to look at the circumstances of each case. He used it twice while Bonds and Clemens obviously used it more than that, and also used it to get a edge over the competition. You also have to look at the fact that Bonds and Clemens have both denied using. Andy admit he used HGH and he shouldn’t be treated the same as those others who continued to deny it or used it to gain an edge over other players.

23. Jere says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    From a Lupica article, here’s what Pettitte said a year ago: “I’ve never used any drugs to enhance my performance in baseball. I don’t know what to say except that it’s embarrassing that my name would be out there.”

    So he’s a liar and a cheater. Again, I don’t see this as class, I see it as the exact opposite. Although I do always respect your opinions, Evan.

24. Savvas says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    The Mitchell Report in itself is stupid. The only reason for it was so Selig can say that something was actually done about the steroids era. Instead of placing blame on the players, the blame should be placed squarely on Selig who completely ignored that players were taking steroids because of all the money baseball was raking in due to the success of these players. Bud Selig is just as guilty as anyone and if anything his legacy should be tarnished more than any player or anyone else in baseball during this time period. His success and the success of baseball during his time as commissioner is directly linked to the success the players were having due to the steroids. The media as well as a majority of the public are criticizing the players and are not putting enough blame on Selig.

25. Jeff Kallman says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

    Jere—To repeat: Tie that 2006 statement to what Pettitte said two days after the Mitchell Report. (I said Friday earlier—my mistake.) There is a distinction between looking to heal a little quicker from an injury (and what’s inherently wrong with wishing a quicker recovery?) and looking to give yourself any overall edge on the mound. Strictly speaking, Pettitte wasn’t lying about whether he used anything to enhance his performance.

    And, bear in mind, we don’t really know the extent, if any, to which such substances do enhance performance in most terms. We may not know such an extent for a very long time, if at all. (We can point to as many if not more instances where the journeymen who indulged showed little if any statistical anomaly between their usage periods and their non-usage periods; there are a few who actually showed overall statistical dips in their usage periods compared to their non-usage periods.)

    Like it or not, David Segui (who’s been honest about his own usage from the moment he thought he was one of the redacted in the Grimsley affidavit) has a point when he says that if you sucked (his word) before you juiced you’re probably going to suck during or after.

    So you look at motivation, granted that humans do lie and Andy Pettitte is only one man. (His elbow trouble hasn’t exactly been one of the best kept secrets in baseball over the past several years.)

    And whatever you think of actual or alleged performance-enhancing substances—none of us here wants them in the game, of course; none of us has endorsed them, so far as I can determine—you can and should draw a certain line between those who sought nothing more grave than more rapid or certain injury healing and those who sought some sort of performance edge.

    For want of a more congruent comparison, think in terms of the thief who steals a parcel of food merely to feed his children in hard times versus the thief who steals because it is his profession. The former is comprehensible, and we may sympathise; the latter is reprehensible, and we do condemn.

    As for Mr. Selig, if nothing else this era of actual or alleged performance-enhancing substances has enhanced one thing for certain: the thought that never again must baseball’s stewardship be placed in the hands of an owner incumbent of former. (For that matter, it probably shouldn’t be placed in the hands of a former player, manager, team or league executive, or umpire. Maybe the sole exception should be Whitey Herzog—the only man in baseball who actually tried a proactive battle against the drug presence in baseball, however clumsily at times, just as Christy Mathewson may have been the only man in baseball at the time to try a proactive battle against the gambling presence before it got so far as the 1919 World Series. If he ever hints that he might like the gig.) Baseball is learning the hard way what it really lost when A. Bartlett Giamatti died too soon and Fay Vincent—flaws and all—was putsched.

    —Jeff

26. Sean O says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    Jeff-
    how is sitting inactive on the bench instead of pitching not an enhanced performance? If he used illegal substances to get back to playing, it’s wrong, nuf ced.

27. Jeff Kallman says:
    

    December 16th, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Sean—I note you said “to get back to playing,” and not “to be playing.” But a motive of healing when injured is very distinct from a motive of getting a performance edge after you’ve healed and you’ve hit the mound again. The former isn’t cheating; the latter—pending what we may finally learn in fact about what such substances will or won’t actually do for your performance—is.

    You have to account for the entire picture, as best you can, taking it case by case as best you can, before you simply dismiss this or that employer of actual or alleged performance-enhancing substances as just a stinking cheater. And, if you want to see a genuinely earnest effort at getting the substances as far away from baseball as they can be gotten.

    —Jeff

Leave a comment