Why is Pettitte getting a pass?

[Brooklyn]

This came up in the Clemens / testifying before Congress thread, but I thought it deserved its own thread.

I'm having a hard time understanding why Pettite is still being thought of as an "honest, stand up guy"

Here is a quick summary of Pettite's roll in HGH / steroids

1. He denied everything
2. He was named in the Mitchell report by McNamee as using on 2 to 4 occasions
3. He admitted using HGH twice in 2002
4. He then admitted he lied, and had used HGH two times in one day in 2004
5. He threw his father under the bus by saying the steroids were supplied by his father. And he said that his father obtained the steroids in an illegal manner, making his father a drug pusher, albeit it a very small one
6. He threw his friend Clemens under the bus by saying Clemens told him he used HGH. He didn't have the courage to say these accusations to Clemens' face, and begged out of the hearing.


Here is a summary of Pettite's character:

1. He is a cheater, evident by using HGH on at least 2 occasions. I don't think we can rule out more, as he seems to come forward when it is convenient for him.
2. He is a liar, as evident by first not admitting using it, then by saying he only used it for two days in 2002. Quote from Pettite right after the Mitchell report was released: "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."
3. He betrayed his close friend, and betrayed his father. I can't imagine why he would have said his father provided him the HGH. Would anyone there rat out their own family? I don't feel much better about his ratting out his close friend.

And a summary of Clemens' character:

1. He is a cheater, assuming you don't believe him
2. He is a liar, assuming you don't believe him
3. He betrayed his wife.

Granted, Clemens' lies are worse because he is persisting with them and possible perjuring himself, which Pettite didn't do. But I'm having a really hard time seeing how Pettite is a stand up guy in all this

[DoubleX]

I believe Pettitte has now admitted to everything. He's a very religious guy, so when he swears on the bible that he's telling the truth, I'm going to believe him.

If Pettitte did indeed dabble with HGH on a handful of occasions to treat injuries (which he admits to), is that such a grievous infraction? How many of us haven't used poor judgment and done something we shouldn't have done? I'm sure there are people on these boards that have driven above the speed limit, driven without a seatbelt, parked illegally, drank alcohol under age, used a fake ID, experimented with illegal drugs, or driven after drinking too much (which I find especially irreprehensible). Is Pettitte dabbling with HGH on a few isolated occasions that much worse than some of these things? Should he have done it? Of course not. But we're not talking about a rampant user here, we're talking about a guy that slipped up a few times and that lives amidst a culture where doing these kind of things are rampant. Pettitte is a sign of the problem, not the problem, and there are likely dozens, if not hundreds of players out there that dabbled to much greater excess than Pettitte.

The odd thing is that while we think HGH is so taboo now, I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years or so, HGH is commonly prescribed by physicians to help reduce the effects of aging. This trend has already begun.

[BoofBonser26]

I believe Pettitte has now admitted to everything. He's a very religious guy, so when he swears on the bible that he's telling the truth, I'm going to believe him.

That hasn't been good enough to establish innocence in, oh, I don't know...maybe a million previous trials?

[DoubleX]

That hasn't been good enough to establish innocence in, oh, I don't know...maybe a million previous trials?

You're assuming though that in all those million previous trials, everyone has been as religiously devout as Pettitte, and that's not the case at all. For some, swearing on the bible is really a huge deal, and I believe Pettitte falls into that class. I could be wrong though, but if Pettitte wanted to lie while under oath, why not just stick to his original story that he did it twice only 2002? Why bother adding any new information? He likely came clean because he religious beliefs make him fear the almighty should he be lying while swearing on the bible.

[Old Sweater]

Interesting subject Brooklyn. I've been thinking the same thing since everyone seems to be painting this lillywhite picture of him. Then like you said rat on your Dad?????..........


Then is Pettitte going to be able to tap dance around this?

[edit] Positive steroid test results
First positive test result: 50 game suspension
Second positive test result: 100 game suspension
Third positive test result: lifetime ban
All suspensions are without pay

Or is Pettitte looking at this?

Conviction for use of prohibited substances
First offense: 15 to 30-day suspension or up to a $10,000 fine
Second offense: 30 to 90-day suspension or up to $50,000 fine
Third offense: One year suspension or up to $100,000 fine
Fourth offense: Two year suspension
Any subsequent offense(s): The level of the discipline will be determined by the Office of the Commissioner, consistent with the concept of progressive discipline

Or is MLB just going to let Pettitte slide since there was not a positive drug test?...........with just his admittance of using HGH in 2004.


This could turn into one long and lonely season for Pettitte especially in the clubhouse.

[BoofBonser26]

You're assuming though that in all those million previous trials, everyone has been as religiously devout as Pettitte, and that's not the case at all. For some, swearing on the bible is really a huge deal, and I believe Pettitte falls into that class. I could be wrong though, but if Pettitte wanted to lie while under oath, why not just stick to his original story that he did it twice only 2002? Why bother adding any new information? He likely came clean because he religious beliefs make him fear the almighty should he be lying while swearing on the bible.

Thousands, if not millions, of people have lied after swearing on the bible. There are varying levels of devoutness to those people, but some pretty hardcore religious folks have lied anyway. It's just not a good indicator of honesty, even if it seems tempting to treat it as one.

[digglahhh]

XX,

How do we know the extent of Andy's true religious conviction? Have we not seem prominent members of clergy swear on the Bible only to proven guilty of horrible acts that egregiously violate the most basic of moral codes endorsed by that very book?

Or, further, me being an atheist, would you suppose that I was lying on the stand because I only swore on something I consider a work of fiction? That's tantamount to discrimination, isn't it?... You are offering a greater, de facto, level of trust to a person on the basis of his/her religious conviction, are you not?

Calling Pettitte anything along the lines of honest, stand-up, or classy is textbook Orwellian doublespeak. The sin, if you will, was not in the use of poor judgment per se, it was in the attempt to cover it up. He didn't admit, or confess (to use a religious term) his acts freely at all. He confessed and repented only upon being found to be guilty, that is when his attempt to hide what he did, never admit it and never express regret failed! Excuse me for not extolling the virtues of he who waits until his head is on the chopping block to express remorse for his deeds.

I've asked before, and I'll ask again, if Andy is classy and honest, what do you call somebody who never cheated in the first place?...

[DoubleX]

Thousands, if not millions, of people have lied after swearing on the bible. There are varying levels of devoutness to those people, but some pretty hardcore religious folks have lied anyway. It's just not a good indicator of honesty, even if it seems tempting to treat it as one.

Of course it's tempting to treat it as one. It's the basis for our entire judicial system. We have to presume that when a person is testifying under oath, they are being truthful, or else the system crumbles. What would be the point otherwise? Sure people lie under oath, but those people believe it or not, are actually in the minority. So unless there is reason to believe otherwise, the presumption is that a person is telling the truth under oath. Clemens is a good example of a person in which there is reason to believe otherwise due to the amount of conflicting information. Testifying under oath is the best indicator of honesty our system currently has (except maybe polygraph tests, but those too have their flaws). Under your belief, it appears that we can trust no one. Under that model, we couldn't have a judicial system.

[leecemark]

You're assuming though that in all those million previous trials, everyone has been as religiously devout as Pettitte, and that's not the case at all. For some, swearing on the bible is really a huge deal, and I believe Pettitte falls into that class. I could be wrong though, but if Pettitte wanted to lie while under oath, why not just stick to his original story that he did it twice only 2002? Why bother adding any new information? He likely came clean because he religious beliefs make him fear the almighty should he be lying while swearing on the bible.

--If he is so upright why did he lie in the first place? Once you've been caught in a lie your credibility - at least on that suject - is forever lost.

[DoubleX]

XX,

How do we know the extent of Andy's true religious conviction? Have we not seem prominent members of clergy swear on the Bible only to proven guilty of horrible acts that egregiously violate the most basic of moral codes endorsed by that very book?

There's a HUGE difference between the acts you're referencing and using HGH on a handful of occasions. If those clergy members have committed those acts, I'd say they've thrown out their religious convictions to begin with and that their morality is far more corrupted than Pettitte. It's ridiculous to equate the two.

Or, further, me being an atheist, would you suppose that I was lying on the stand because I only swore on something I consider a work of fiction? That's tantamount to discrimination, isn't it?... You are offering a greater, de facto, level of trust to a person on the basis of his/her religious conviction, are you not?

I am, because religious people place a lot more emphasis on the meaning of that book and the potential reprecussions from lying than you do. It's a flaw in the system, but that's remedied somewhat in the fact that you would still fear the potential for criminal punishment for lying, and that's where your motivation to be truthful would come in. Devout people fear that in addition to potential punishment from god.

Calling Pettitte anything along the lines of honest, stand-up, or classy is textbook Orwellian doublespeak. The sin, if you will, was not in the use of poor judgment per se, it was in the attempt to cover it up. He didn't admit, or confess (to use a religious term) his acts freely at all. He confessed and repented only upon being found to be guilty, that is when his attempt to hide what he did, never admit it and never express regret failed! Excuse me for not extolling the virtues of he who waits until his head is on the chopping block to express remorse for his deeds.

Did Pettite ever outright deny using HGH on prior occassions? I honestly don't know. But if it never came up, why bother bringing it up? I bet you've done things you shouldn't have done, so perhaps you should now use this board as your public forum for owning up and apologizing for all the wrongs you've committed. If you wait until I find the dirt on you, well then you obviously are not a virtuous person. The fact that you haven't admitted to everything you've done, even if no one is asking, makes you a bad person.

I've asked before, and I'll ask again, if Andy is classy and honest, what do you call somebody who never cheated in the first place?...

I'm increasingly believing that in baseball during this era, such a person is needle in a haystack.

[DoubleX]

--If he is so upright why did he lie in the first place? Once you've been caught in a lie your credibility - at least on that suject - is forever lost.

When exactly did Pettitte lie? I think people are confusing lying with withholding. Pettitte original withheld. He didn't say anything for years, and when the Mitchell Report was released, he came out within a day and said the information in the report was accurate. I don't remember him making some sweeping statement saying that such was entirely inclusive of what he did, though I may be mistaken. So from my recollection, Pettitte's original statement was limited to confirming what was in the Mitchell Report, no more and no less, and thus he was being truthful.

Show of hands - how many people here, if in Pettitte's situation, would have even come out within 24 hours of the Report's release and admit to the accuracy of the information? Come on, get those hands up all of you high quality people without shame.

What I think many of us heathens (myself included, and I say that term in jest), might not be able to comprehend, is just how powerful swearing to god can be for a religious person. I don't know Pettitte personally so I don't know how religious he is, but as a Yankee fan I've followed his entire career, and he's long been portrayed as a religious person. For such people there can be a big difference between saying something and saying something while swearing to god. Many of us might not understand that or be able to emphathize with it, but it doesn't mean that it isn't so.

Like I said above, Pettitte withheld from my memory, he did not outright lie. There's a big difference. If he wanted to lie while under oath, why would he even bother to state additional details? Why not just stick to his original admission which was limited to the Mitchell Report's details? What probably happen is that while under oath, he was asked a question like "were there any other occasions when you used HGH?" and Pettitte, posed with that question for the first time, and posed with it under oath, gave his honest answer. Who knows, if he sat down with a reporter after the Mitchell Report and someone then asked him "did you use on any other occasions?" he may have told the whole truth then. The basic point here is that he didn't lie, he withheld and limited his original comments to what was in the Mitchell Report. No one directly asked him if there were any other occasions. He probably should have been entirely forthcoming originally, but ask yourself - would you have been even as forthcoming as Pettitte was originally and so soon after the Report came out?

If there is a policy now that everyone must disclose every wrong they've committed, even without being confronted with it, then I think we all have a lot of things we need to fess up to.

[Brooklyn]

When exactly did Pettitte lie?

Right after the report, Pettite said: "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."

That was clearly a lie

I could be wrong though, but if Pettitte wanted to lie while under oath, why not just stick to his original story that he did it twice only 2002? Why bother adding any new information? He likely came clean because he religious beliefs make him fear the almighty should he be lying while swearing on the bible.

Adding the new information got him out of testifying. He mentioned that he got it from his dad, and his dad was now suicidal, and he needed to be with him rather then be at the hearing. I believe the only reason he came forward with new information was to avoid sitting in front of Congress and, more specifically, in front of Clemens.


Just to be clear, the issue that he took HGH in the first place doesn't bother me as much as he lied about it and threw his father under the bus, but is still viewed by many as an upstanding guy.

[DoubleX]

Right after the report, Pettite said: "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."

That was clearly a lie

In light of this, I agree that he did originally lie. I still think that his testimony under oath deserves the benefit of the doubt because of the legal reprecussions of lying, as well as the religious reprecussions that he might believes will come from lying while swearing on the bible. Again, if testifying under oath didn't have a greater significance for him, why would he even bother given more details than he had previously? It's likely because he was motivated by fear of both criminal and religious reprisal should he be lying in that instance. It's the same reason why people tend to believe McNamee - because under oath, he has the motivation to not lie due to the punishments. Now Clemens is a different story because given the circumstances, there is more reason to believe that he's lying under oath.

Just to be clear, the issue that he took HGH in the first place doesn't bother me as much as he lied about it and threw his father under the bus, but is still viewed by many as an upstanding guy.

I don't know if he's still viewed as an upstanding guy. Some of the Congressmen, such as Waxman, painted him that way yesterday, but I think Pettitte's reputation is permanently stained, and there will always be a lot of people, like there are in this thread, that believe Pettitte still hasn't said everything. People will forever question Pettitte and his integrity, and that's a big deal, IMO.

I would like to add though, that if Pettitte is forever given the Scarlet A for withholding information, than what do we do with the glut of players that haven't been exposed or have not yet admitted to anything? There are a lot of players out there who are still hiding a lot more than Pettitte, and might not even be nearly as forthcoming as Pettitte originally was when first outted by the Mitchell Report if they were in that situation. Is it fair to kill Pettitte over this when there are likely hundreds of other ballplayers out there that used performance enhancers but have thus far been able to avoid being in Pettite's situation?

[leecemark]

--Brooklyn accurately captures the situation as I see it. Pettite's initial response was better than most, but he still did lie. Honestly I think my response would be to say "yes I did use and I regret it". I probably wouldn't have volunteered additonal information beyond what was in the report, but I wouldn't have told a flat out lie about it either. This in not even neccessarily a moral stance. Its just that the best thing to do when you have dne wrong - or at least when your wrong doing comes out - is to admit it and apologise. If you do that and then shut up most people are going to forgive your actions (assuming they are TOO heinus - which Pettites weren't). Even if they don't your part of the story gets quickly in the rear view mirror.

[Doctor X]

My thoughts [No one cares.--Ed.]

Drop the Religion: It starts to make my hands itch . . . I feel the urge to discuss syncretic aspects of henotheistic [Get on with it!--Ed.] . . . right, bottom line is, as many have noted, that "religious conviction" is not worth the paper is it printed on. Many [Straw--Ed.] "devout" witnesses have lied . . . and many have not. It is, at this point in law, a way to make witnesses responsible for their testimony--perjury. So the fact he does or does not believe this much or that much in a religion is irrelevant to the veracity of his statements.

Pettite the Hero? Goat? Rat? Vole?

People love their sports heros. They will look for excuses to rehabilitate them. See Dan "Who Need Science?" Burton's efforts to ignore Roger's lies. When a sports figure makes a mistake, owns up to it, it makes fans want to forgive him. Rational? Probably not, but this is an exercise in emotion and not critical thinking.

It works the other way: as I am sure many have noted, there are dedicated Roger Lovers and Roger Haters who will cherrypick information to support their beliefs. Furthermore, failure to show contrition can harm a figure in the minds of those inbetween. Another example: Pete "Charlie Hustle" Rose. Imagine, for a moment, he came clean decades back. Man would require a personality transplant, but bear with me.

Giamatti may have still banned him from baseball, justifiable. Now imagine--here, take a hit on this . . . no, do not drink the bong water!--Rose spends, say, ten years lecturing people/athletes on the temptations of gambling. Imagine he only blames himself for his mistakes and encourages people to take responsibility.

Would there not be a movement to "unban" or at least make him HoF eligible? I think so! There would still be debate, I am sure, but the line between the "pro" and "con" would be pushed far over to "pro."

Of course Rose did not do this. So who defends him? Really?

Thus with Roger. From a public opinion standpoint, if he simply said he used to recover and extend his career, help his teamates, he is very sorry, "I am embarrassed," if he did all of that . . . I think he would have suffered damage, but in five years he would be fine. Compare that to Mark McGuire . . . he cannot even buy a sandwich in St. Louis.

It is all about perception. Fans are willing to forgive the contrite.

--J.D.