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 (http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071215&content_id=2327350&vkey=news_nyy&fext=.jsp&c_id=nyy)
4. He then admitted he lied, and had used HGH two times in one day in 2004 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3243667)
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 (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3244837&sportCat=mlb). 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.

[digglahhh]

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.



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.



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

I've been pretty up front about my transgressions, I think. I've done many of the things you've alluded to in your post, many quite worse. I have not kept it a secret that I have sat on the defendant side of a criminal court room.

But, such acts I may have committed in the past aren't really relevant to my qualifications to offer sound opinions on a baseball message forum. That is to say that they are irrelevant in all practical sense to my relationship with the BBF posting body. The same can't be said for Pettitte. The specific transgression in question is something he hid in face of concern (real or dog and pony show) expressed by the institutions in which he makes his living.

Me not telling you exactly how I paid my college tuition does not amount to a lie by omission because that information isn't pertinent to our purposes here. Pettitte not being forthcoming about his transgression does amount to a lie of omission because he didn't volunteer relevant information when transgressions of the sort were being investigated by his employer (or employer's parent organization).

I'm not saying that Andy needs to volunteer if he was unfaithful to his wife, or that you have to tell me if you stole a candy bar when you were a kid. I'm just saying his admission wasn't noble by any definition. I'm not saying that he hasn't behaved in a manner that is relatively laudable - compared to other cheats, rather I'm saying that being the most honest of the cheaters is something of a dubious distinction, and not something worthy of praise.

Maybe when in court, I should ask to swear on Marx, or a copy of Illmatic...

[curveball]

Pettitte is getting a pass because instead of perpetuating lies, he chose to come clean. He took HGH for crying out loud, he didn't commit any heinous crime.

Had Clemens come clean, he probably would have also been easily forgiven. The biggest problem I have with him is that he continues to prop himself up. He only speaks of how he has achieved everything through hard work, lived his life with the highest ethical standards, keeps talking about his records, and how trusting he was, etc... Has Clemens ever said anything negative about himself? The guy is an egomaniac.

[whoisonit]

Fans are willing to forgive the contrite.

--J.D.

Not true, in my opinion. Look at Jason Giambi.

Pettitte was contrite after, first, lying. He is Yankee royalty, so the fans are giving him a free pass.

Contrast this with Giambi, who admited his wrong doing from the start. He has been crucified for years. Every time he is hot, there are wishpers of him being back on the juice. Nobody, I repeat, nobody has ever called him a 'class act' for his honest admissions.

The Yankee fans, and the fawning sports media, are hypocrites in this regard.

[dl4060]

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.


There have been millions of people who have lied under oath. Countless numbers of them have doubtless been just as religious as Petite.

As an atheist I find the idea that 'devout' religious types can be counted on to tell the truth when swearing on a bible more so than non-believers swearing on something else deeply offensive. Religious types do not have better morals than us heretics. I find it pathetic and absurd when weak men like Paul Byrd and Andy Petite use the fact that they are "good christians" to defend themselves. It is weak, cowardly, and says very bad things about who they are. Christians are certainly no better than anyone else. The fact that many of them seem very willing to ram their beliefs down my throat and attempt and force me to pledge allegiance to their false deity is a testament to this.

[tommybaseball]

[QUOTE=curveball;1113499]Pettitte is getting a pass because instead of perpetuating lies, he chose to come clean. He took HGH for crying out loud, he didn't commit any heinous crime.

Let's be clear about a few things. Pettitte came clean for one reason and one reason alone- HE GOT CAUGHT!
He's getting a pass because he wears his religion on his sleeve and nobody in Congress, Democrats or Republicans who turned yesterdays circus into a joke, have the stones to go anywhere near that issue.
There are fewer lowlifes in society than hypocrites who preach to others from a soapbox and then get caught in actions that are supposedly against their beliefs.
I wonder where this discussion would have went yesterday had it been a Muslim's deposition that said that one day he would have to face Allah rather than a Christain who said that one day he would have to face God?
It's completely ridiculous that Pettite gets a pass on this.
He's a liar who spilled because his ass was in hot water.
Period.

[whoisonit]

This thread is begining to take on a deeply offensive, shockingly intolerent, anti-Christian bigotry.

Will the moderators please step in ?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Is it out of hand? For the purpose of this site, probably. While Pettite and others (not here that much) have made his religion an issue, any discussion here should be used as a precursor to judge Pettite based on his religious convictions.

Just as politics for politics sake is not really to be discussed here (and, yes, I am referring to another thread in CE at present. You want to dis party politics? Get a blog.) let's keep the discussion about the hearings themselves and not what we personally think about the memebrs of congress or the players involved.

[Brooklyn]

I believe there are essentially two types of people when swearing on a bible. Those that believe they should do the right thing. And those that believe in saving their own rear end.

It doesn't matter what religion you are, you can fall in either category. There are plenty of atheists that will do the right thing. And there are plenty of devoutly religious people who, when push comes to shove, will do what they think is necessary to save themselves. And of course vice versa.

I don't know enough about Pettite to know what he really believes in. But I know that his religion doesn't play into my decision factor. The fact that he did lie before, did drugs that he admitted was wrong, and finger pointed his father all lead me to believe that there is no reason he wouldn't lie again, even under oath

[digglahhh]

Pettitte is getting a pass because instead of perpetuating lies, he chose to come clean. He took HGH for crying out loud, he didn't commit any heinous crime.

Wait, taking PEDs isn't some heinous crime?

Tell that to self-righteous tar and feather crowd that populates this board, and the mainstream media.

Better yet, tell it to Barry Bonds!!

[whoisonit]

I believe there are essentially two types of people when swearing on a bible. Those that believe they should do the right thing. And those that believe in saving their own rear end.

It doesn't matter what religion you are, you can fall in either category. There are plenty of atheists that will do the right thing. And there are plenty of devoutly religious people who, when push comes to shove, will do what they think is necessary to save themselves. And of course vice versa.

I don't know enough about Pettite to know what he really believes in. But I know that his religion doesn't play into my decision factor. The fact that he did lie before, did drugs that he admitted was wrong, and finger pointed his father all lead me to believe that there is no reason he wouldn't lie again, even under oath

This is a balanced assesment. I agree with everything you said.

[Doctor X]

Not true, in my opinion. Look at Jason Giambi.

Really? He won a "Comeback Player" award or some such nonsense. I am not saying he has become an avatar of sports heroism, but even amongst my fellow Glorious Red Sox fans, I only hear the occasional joke.

My few Yankees Fan friends do not seem to hate him. Granted, this is all anecdotal, but I do not hear the venom I would expect.

Pettitte was contrite after, first, lying. He is Yankee royalty, so the fans are giving him a free pass.

See? I would disagree with the "royalty." He was always Clemens' sidekick. I will defer to actual Yankees fans, so you may have a better perspective. I am writing about degree--I do not think Giambi is hated, nor do I think will be Pettite. Some of it may depend on who, exactly, it is. Bonds, for example, had a lot more at stake so attracted more negative attention. The test I cannot run is a Clemens still playing for the Yankees--please! Give him $25 million! PLEASE!!!--and having been contrite.

GRS will still "boo" him, but Y fans? Maybe you have a better perspective. Of course we will never know.

The Yankee fans, and the fawning sports media, are hypocrites in this regard.

Well . . . no argument there! :cap:

Because . . . if Schil or Big Papi ever tested positive . . . it would be . . . DIFFERENT!!! They NEEDED it!!

--J.D.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Arguments about steroids and their role in baseball is hardly contained to two teams. Let's not let our own biases cloud reality here or give too much credit to the voices of certain teams. It still only goes so far. And no one has gotten an actual pass outside of what the rules are. Giambi is still skewered.

It seems so many are crying for admissions of guilt because so many seem players to be flaunting what they did then denying it. Which is more hateful for a lot of people than using, itself. Petitte's not really getting a pass, but he's given a lot of people what they want. Everyone's waiting for an I Told You So and he's given it to them.

[Doctor X]

Arguments about steroids and their role in baseball is hardly contained to two teams.

But . . . but . . . there ARE only two teams!!11!! :cap:

Let's not let our own biases cloud reality here or give too much credit to the voices of certain teams.

In all seriousness and jokes aside biases do rule. I am new HERE but a few years prior to these revelations much of the discussion of whether or not, say, Clemens was suspected of using steroids unfortunately broke down to Clemens Lovers and Clemens Haters. A significant number of both sides contained rabid fans from both of the Two Teams [Tm.--Ed.]

Rational? Fair? This is not about either--it is about perceptions. Perceptions are giving Pettite the supposed "free pass." Frankly, what has made the debate on PED and steroids has been the involvement of major players. For better or worse one of them happens to have played for both of the Two Teams, and also has been hailed as one of if not the best pitchers since [Insert historically phenomenal pitcher HERE.--Ed.] The irrational fans--as in . . . lots of them--will be inflamed further by that. "Roger Haters" are jealous/upset that he has the reputation of excellence and, frankly, some of that jealousy/hatred comes from whom he played for and when.

Giambi is still skewered.

By whom? Granted, this is a board dedicated to analysis so the Blind Fandom rampant on radio and your local bar will not cut it; however, how is he being "skewered?" I do not hear it. I cite the Two Teams [Franchises available.--Ed.] because if anyone should be doing the "skewering" it should be fans of one of those teams. As above, aside from the jokes and mutterings . . . nothing. Now part of it may be because he is near the end and not much of a factor, nor is expected to be a factor. But fans are that irrational.

Seriously. Was he a HoF candidate? Did he not continue to play and make $$$? Did not reporters and fans hail his "comeback" after his apology for doing things that would require an apology? Compared to Bonds, the comment is "well, at least Giambi came clean!"

Petitte's not really getting a pass, but he's given a lot of people what they want. Everyone's waiting for an I Told You So and he's given it to them.

Which is kind of what I was saying: Giambi gave people that, as did Pettite.

--J.D.

[leecemark]

Not true, in my opinion. Look at Jason Giambi.

Pettitte was contrite after, first, lying. He is Yankee royalty, so the fans are giving him a free pass.

Contrast this with Giambi, who admited his wrong doing from the start. He has been crucified for years. Every time he is hot, there are wishpers of him being back on the juice. Nobody, I repeat, nobody has ever called him a 'class act' for his honest admissions.

The Yankee fans, and the fawning sports media, are hypocrites in this regard.

--Except Giambi never actually even said what he was apoligising for. That is hardly coming clean. Everybody knows (or thinks anyway) Giambi was a big time juicer. He was already under heavy criticism and he comes out a apolgises while not actually admitting to anything. That kind of mealy mouthed, half ass apology is not what starts someone on the way to forgiveness. It just made him the punchline of a few more jokes.

[whoisonit]

--Except Giambi never actually even said what he was apoligising for. That is hardly coming clean.

You know what ? You're right. I stand corrected. I actually forgot about that strange meandering apology that never once had a point of contrition. Ha.

I guess now I might hold off on this comparison until I see what type of evasive platitudes come from the disingenuous, overrated, money is my true messhia, Pettitte when the obsequeious beat reporters lob him softballs this spring.

[leecemark]

--You know what I'd like to see? I'd like Bud Selig to step up and say that MLB did a really lousy job of policing this situation for many years. That is was a wide spread problem and that they aren't going to waste any more time ivestigating who did what back before rules and testing were implemented. The focus should be on doing everything possible to get and keep the game clean going forward. I'd also like to see those who used step up immediately afterward and admit that they used and that it was a poor choice on their part. I don't need to hear all the details of what, when and how much they used. Just a simple admission that they tried some things in an attempt to make themselves better ballplayers and that they want to put it behind them. Maybe then we can get the focus back on baseball.

[whoisonit]

I'd like to see him do that as he stands side by side with his co-conspiritor Don Fehr.

I also would have liked to have seen these two treated the same way the 2 creeps were yesterday, when they appeared before congress.

It's time to drag every guilty name through the mud, admitt all our beloved records have been molested, they can't be changed back, there is a stain on the entire era that history will judge, and move forward in a manner that ensures nothing like this will ever happen again.

(and I do mean ALL, including the new consecutive game streak)

[digglahhh]

You know what ? You're right. I stand corrected. I actually forgot about that strange meandering apology that never once had a point of contrition. Ha.

I guess now I might hold off on this comparison until I see what type of evasive platitudes come from the disingenuous, overrated, money is my true messhia, Pettitte when the obsequeious beat reporters lob him softballs this spring.

Weren't there legal issues tied to that, like he couldn't mention specific things because of the status of grand jury investigations or whatever. Like he made his (vague) apology as if it was while the real story was still under some sort of embargo. I'm not sure, I could be, in the words of Clemens, mis-remembering.

Bush actually used the word "misremember" once too. Maybe it really is a word in Texas!

(and I do mean ALL, including the new consecutive game streak)

Viva sensationalism!

[whoisonit]

Viva sensationalism!

Not everyone chooses to live in denial.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Not everyone chooses to live in denial.

And not everyone chooses to be as cynical as you.

[whoisonit]

And not everyone chooses to be as cynical as you.

Facing the facts of life is not cynasim my freind, it is realistic. Denial of the facts does not solve a thing. It does in fact, always, make the situation worse.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Facing the facts of life is not cynasim my freind, it is realistic. Denial of the facts does not solve a thing. It does in fact, always, make the situation worse.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that people don't take PEDs or that I'm denying it. What I am saying is that the effect of this cynicism is that players who are clean and do extraordinary feats (50+ homers in a season, amazing career or season records), will be suspected because of what they accomplished, almost as if there has to be a ceiling of what is a natural human accomplishment. I don't want to do that. That is what I call cynicism.

[whoisonit]

I don't want to do that. That is what I call cynicism.

Denigrating an argument with which you disagree by dismissing it as cynical is itself the hieght of cynisim. Isn't that ironic ? Wait - it gets better - you're statement "I don't want to do that" is tantamount to saying "I can't handle the truth", which is; living in denial.

Nobody wants to see inocent, honest ballplayers tainted, but then they should have come forward. IF there are any spotless players from this grotesque era, they have only themselves to blame for the stain they now have.
The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Well, they did nothing, evil triumphed, so they carry the weight on their God given shoulders just as much as MacGuire and Bonds on their syntheticaly bloated shoulders.

[Brian McKenna]

... Has Clemens ever said anything negative about himself? The guy is an egomaniac.

This is what many are missing. His friends and everyone near him knew this. That's in part why McNamee kept the needles and such. Clemens will burn any and all in his way - he will probably never admit anything - he won't take any pardon because that would be accepting guilt - he won't accept any blame - he'll continue to taut the great Roger Clemens - in short he'll keep lying. And it's not even convincing anymore. Roger Clemens is the illegitimate son of Pete Rose.

[digglahhh]

Facing the facts of life is not cynasim my freind, it is realistic. Denial of the facts does not solve a thing. It does in fact, always, make the situation worse.

So, Cal Ripken taking PEDs is now a fact?

What is this, is that jerk from That 70's Show gonna hop out and tell me I'm being Punk'd or something.... (Please somebody enlighten me if there is a more current pop culture reference that should replace the one I just made)

Please state your definition of "fact."

BTW, I believe the optimal ontology here is (healthy) skepticism, not to be confused with "cynisim" (sic). I'm not all into being "Team Grammar Police," but in a discussion dealing with philosophy and baseball, repeatedly misspelling both cynicism and McGwire is not a good sign...

[DoubleX]

I don't know enough about Pettite to know what he really believes in. But I know that his religion doesn't play into my decision factor. The fact that he did lie before, did drugs that he admitted was wrong, and finger pointed his father all lead me to believe that there is no reason he wouldn't lie again, even under oath

Why is the finger pointing his father such a big deal? This is a revelation that came out when he gave his deposition under oath right? So the questioning probably went like this:

Investigator: Are the references by Brian McNamee in the Mitchell Report to your use of HGH accurate?

Pettitte: Yes.

Investigator: Did you use HGH on any other occasion?

Pettitte: Yes.

Investigator: When?

Pettitte: 2004 while rehabbing.

Investigator: Were there any other occasions?

Pettitte: No.

Investigator: Where did you obtain the HGH from in 2004?

Pettitte: From my father.

So if Pettitte didn't tell the truth then, you'd be chastising him for lying. Seems like he can't win either way with you. He tells the truth, you condemn him for throwing his father under the bus. If he doesn't and tries to protect his father, you'll condemn him for lying. Seems like an oxymoronic standard. So what is it? He should tell the truth but lie about getting it from his father? Is that ok with you, one truth and one lie?

All these kind of things to me lend creedence to his testimony under oath. To summarize why I believe he's telling the truth under oath:

1) If he wanted to lie, why even bother adding new details under oath? Why not just lie and say that his original statement was the entire truth, instead of backtracking and making himself look like a liar to people like you?

2) Telling the truth exposes his father, and I'm sure that's not an easy thing to do at all.

3) Telling the truth could result in criminal charges for his friend Clemens. That too must not be easy.

4) Let's weigh what he'd have to lose by lying at this stage by what he'd have to gain? If he lies, he might face criminal charges, and perhaps spiritual reprecussions depending on his beliefs. On the flipside, if takes the easy way out and lies, he preserves his father's integrity, he doesn't hurt Clemens, and he doesn't make himself look foolish by backtracking. Put these all together and logically, it just doesn't make sense that he would be continuing to lie under oath, and yet still hurt people including himself. If he wanted to lie and face possible criminal punishment, why hurt people? Why not just lie and not hurt people and face the same criminal punishment. Put this all together, and logically he's likely telling the truth. If you don't believe Pettite, then you shouldn't believe McNamee either because he certainly has issues with backtracking (lying in the past to investigators, misplacing the date he allegedly injected Clemens in '98, changing his story on Knoblauch from a few times to over 50). Again, you seem to have a double standard here.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Denigrating an argument with which you disagree by dismissing it as cynical is itself the hieght of cynisim. Isn't that ironic ? Wait - it gets better - you're statement "I don't want to do that" is tantamount to saying "I can't handle the truth", which is; living in denial.

Nobody wants to see inocent, honest ballplayers tainted, but then they should have come forward. IF there are any spotless players from this grotesque era, they have only themselves to blame for the stain they now have.
The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Well, they did nothing, evil triumphed, so they carry the weight on their God given shoulders just as much as MacGuire and Bonds on their syntheticaly bloated shoulders.

Oh, that's hilarious. I'm being cynical by questioning cynicism.

The situation can't be that simple. If what you say is true, there has to have been something causing the clean players to not want to rat out their unclean teammates, if they have any, or even they even know.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I'm not all into being "Team Grammar Police," but in a discussion dealing with philosophy and baseball, repeatedly misspelling both cynicism and McGwire is not a good sign...

Heh heh heh heh.

[whoisonit]

BTW, I believe the optimal ontology here is (healthy) skepticism, not to be confused with "cynisim" (sic). I'm not all into being "Team Grammar Police," but in a discussion dealing with philosophy and baseball, repeatedly misspelling both cynicism and McGwire is not a good sign...

You're bringing up grammer and spelling because you disagree with what I'm saying ? Wow, this is another low point in your posts.

This is the second time in as many days you leave me unimpressed with your leval of maturity. Well, at least this time you're not calling me names !

Who tells you when it's time for lights out, your mom or a warden ?

[whoisonit]

Oh, that's hilarious. I'm being cynical by questioning cynicism.

I thought it was a nice twist, no ?


The situation can't be that simple. If what you say is true, there has to have been something causing the clean players to not want to rat out their unclean teammates, if they have any, or even they even know.

[/Quote]

Like what ? Maybe they are just an insular small community and they go with the group. Perhaps it is that simple. Do you really think they didn't know ?

[whoisonit]

Heh heh heh heh.

Come on now, you're better than that, I know you are.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Perhaps it isthat simple. Do you really think they didn't know?

No, but your conclusion is far-reaching here. If you're saying that the whole institution of baseball is to blame for the past two decades, then what is supposed to be done about that? Do we need to punish clean players because they didn't help clean up the sport?

[SamtheBravesFan]

Come on now, you're better than that, I know you are.

Well, excuse me for thinking it was funny. I happen to wonder about the amazing tendency of people misspelling McGwire's name with a u. It's uncanny.

[whoisonit]

If by punish, you mean remove records ? Because I don't know what else you might have in mind. NO- Thats silly, as I'm sure you know. As for those who did not speak up - well we all have to answer for our decisions. They made theirs - silence and protection of imoral unethical comrades. So now they have to pay the price. Thats how life works.

It is time for all the leaders in baseball, administration, union, management & players to admit this era is tainted. We have to move on. Pretending that only those named in the mitchell report are the only guilty ones and at that, only some of their records are inflated, is living in denial ( back where I started !).

[whoisonit]

Well, excuse me for thinking it was funny. I happen to wonder about the amazing tendency of people misspelling McGwire's name with a u. It's uncanny.

It's a mental block.

[Doctor X]

I will just note that "missremember" is a perfectly cromulent word. . . .

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u264/DoctorX_photos/emot-eng101.gif

--J.D.

[digglahhh]

You're bringing up grammer and spelling because you disagree with what I'm saying ? Wow, this is another low point in your posts.

This is the second time in as many days you leave me unimpressed with your leval of maturity. Well, at least this time you're not calling me names !

Who tells you when it's time for lights out, your mom or a warden ?

Well, both kinda, we like to role play.

I'm not attacking your posts based on grammar. I'm attacking them based on the substance.

Here's a recap of what happened:

- You mentioned that all the records were tarnished by PEDs/PED users, specifically making mention of the consecutive games record. Implicitly, you accused Ripken of using PEDs.

- I claimed that making specific mention of Ripken's streak sensationalized your opinion (an opinion which is otherwise common, and rather legitimate).

- Sam said you were being cynical

- You said you were not, and that others (Sam, I, etc.) were in denial of facts.

- I asked when it was established as a fact that Ripken took PEDs, and remarked about specifically telling instances of your grammatical mistakes.

- You claimed I attacked your posts on the basis of grammar and made some crack about my maturity, when it is apparent to all third parties that you are the one exposing yourself as incapable of having a substantive discussion with intelligent adults.

If you are disappointed at my level of maturity, how am I to react to the level discourse running afoul at the premier baseball forum in the (cyber)land? I'm going with, aghast.

In the future, feel free to use the ignore function. For now, I won't respond to you any further.

Really, I'm not going to respond to him/her further. No need to intervene, mods.

[digglahhh]

Well, excuse me for thinking it was funny. I happen to wonder about the amazing tendency of people misspelling McGwire's name with a u. It's uncanny.

Mets and Braves fans gotta bond somehow... :highfive:

[SamtheBravesFan]

If by punish, you mean remove records ? Because I don't know what else you might have in mind. NO- Thats silly, as I'm sure you know. As for those who did not speak up - well we all have to answer for our decisions. They made theirs - silence and protection of imoral unethical comrades. So now they have to pay the price. Thats how life works.

It is time for all the leaders in baseball, administration, union, management & players to admit this era is tainted. We have to move on. Pretending that only those named in the mitchell report are the only guilty ones and at that, only some of their records are inflated, is living in denial ( back where I started !).

Look, I agree with we have to move on too. Most of us don't pretend that the Mitchell Report named all the PED users. But what is the price that the clean players pay? That their accomplishments are tainted in the eyes of people like us because they aren't forthcoming about their actions or those of others?

[DodgerBlue81]

Well I'm glad he did what he did. He's the biggest reason why it's now hard to find any fools who believe Clemens.

[whoisonit]

Look, I agree with we have to move on too. Most of us don't pretend that the Mitchell Report named all the PED users. But what is the price that the clean players pay? That their accomplishments are tainted in the eyes of people like us because they aren't forthcoming about their actions or those of others?

I guess to keep it simple, I'll give you the short answer; yes. Why is that wrong ?

[SamtheBravesFan]

I guess to keep it simple, I'll give you the short answer; yes. Why is that wrong ?

Well, I don't believe that it's any of our business to know what players do or don't do. Why are we entitled to know?

[whoisonit]

Well, I don't believe that it's any of our business to know what players do or don't do. Why are we entitled to know?

Umm, because we're the fans ? We buy the tickets ? We're the only reason the game exists as a business ? We have a right to demand the business we spend our money at be honest ?

[csh19792001]

This is what many are missing. His friends and everyone near him knew this. Roger Clemens is the illegitimate son of Pete Rose.

Ironically I know this to be true from someone that knew Roger Clemens personally. My mentor went to Spring Woods with Clemens in HS, graduated in 1980, and was very close with Debbie. They're still close. She said Clemens has remained true to his colors; he was mendacious and egomaniacal then, and clearly, nothing has changed.

McNamee is a scumbag, Clemens is equivalent but he's always been given the silver spoon and the free pass.

Like Bonds, Clemens' reputation is now shot and he'll get what he deserves in the end.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Umm, because we're the fans ? We buy the tickets ? We're the only reason the game exists as a business ? We have a right to demand the business we spend our money at be honest ?

So that means there has to be a gaurantee that clean numbers are being generated.

When a fan goes to see a game, I doubt that even 1% of the people going there get philosophical and want to see the spirit of competition. They want to see the team they're rooting for win. Of course, that means that runs need to be generated. Along the way, stats are added by everyone. That is what people ultimately care about.

Along that line, this means that PEDs are just a condition of this time because clean players did not defend the sanctity of clean numbers. Like amphetimines were a condition in the 1950s and 1960s and illegal drugs were a condition of the 1970s and 1980s, PEDs are a condition of the 1990s and 2000s. PEDs DO need to be gotten rid of. However, that doesn't mean that these numbers generated are of any less purity than other eras.

[Doctor X]

Nothing prevents cheating like removing the benefits of it.

The arguments of "well we cannot catch them all," and "what about _____ in the past" remind me of arguing we should not chase murderers because we cannot catch them all and a bunch got away in the past.

To Protect the Children [Tm-Ed.]--remove the incentive to use PEDs--you have to remove the benefit. Right now, the punishment is . . . well . . . in a few years you still have your record and go to the Hall of Fame.

Maris has the single-season HR record . . . unless you want to argue for Ruth based on number of games, et cetera.

Aaron has the career HR record . . . unless you want to count that Japanese player.

It really is not terribly complicated.

Pete Rose is one of the best deterents to betting on baseball: despite his HoF numbers he will never be there. There is no "in a few years" people will look at his plaque and not know his history.

Otherwise, you have to deal with the pressure for "younguns" to try to make the majors and produce numbers to stay there.

. . . and I want a pony. . . .

--J.D.

[SamtheBravesFan]

*sighs* I give up.

[runningshoes]

Pettitte is getting a pass because he helped reel in the big fish.

That doesn't mean he deserves one, but that's why he's getting one.

[Doctor X]

*sighs* I give up.

Good move.

--J.D.

[Sweet Lou]

But . . . but . . . there ARE only two teams!!11!! :cap:
Yer right, the White Sox, and the Cubs, or so my White Sox friends would say!

:highfive:

-Lou

[Brooklyn]

Why is the finger pointing his father such a big deal? This is a revelation that came out when he gave his deposition under oath right? So the questioning probably went like this:

Investigator: Are the references by Brian McNamee in the Mitchell Report to your use of HGH accurate?

Pettitte: Yes.

Investigator: Did you use HGH on any other occasion?

Pettitte: Yes.

Investigator: When?

Pettitte: 2004 while rehabbing.

Investigator: Were there any other occasions?

Pettitte: No.

Investigator: Where did you obtain the HGH from in 2004?

Pettitte: From my father.

So if Pettitte didn't tell the truth then, you'd be chastising him for lying. Seems like he can't win either way with you. He tells the truth, you condemn him for throwing his father under the bus. If he doesn't and tries to protect his father, you'll condemn him for lying. Seems like an oxymoronic standard. So what is it? He should tell the truth but lie about getting it from his father? Is that ok with you, one truth and one lie?



That is part of the problem with doing illegal things and lying about it. It is a slippery slope.

I'd have a lot more respect for Pettite if, in December when the Mitchell report was released, he came out and told the truth at that time. Here are some of his quotes from December:




"If what I did was an error in judgment on my part, I apologize," "I accept responsibility for those two days."
"I had heard that human growth hormone could promote faster healing for my elbow," Pettitte said. "I felt an obligation to get back to my team as soon as possible. For this reason, and only this reason, for two days I tried human growth hormone."
"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."
"I wasn't looking for an edge; I was looking to heal. "
""If I have let down people that care about me, I am sorry, but I hope that you will listen to me carefully and understand that two days of perhaps bad judgment should not ruin a lifetime of hard work and dedication"
"I have tried to do things the right way my entire life, and, again, ask that you put those two days in the proper context. People that know me will know that what I say is true."


To summarize, he lied about only doing it twice. He didn't admit he had an error in judgement, just that it might be. He gave a half hearted apology. he said he wasn't looking for an edge, just to heal - doesn't he think that is an edge?

If he had come out in December and said something like this, I'd have a lot more respect for him: "Yes, I tried HGH in 2002 and 2004. Reflecting, it was clearly an error in judgement and I apologize to anyone I may have let down" . That may be asking a lot for him to admit to using it in 2004 when there was no finger pointing of that, but the only way I'd really believe a proved user is if he admits to it and admits to something that he clearly didn't have to. If Pettite had said that, I'd have a lot of respect for him and believe that he didn't use it more than that.

Even if him admitting to using it in 2004 was too much to ask, I'd have more respect for him if he just said he tried it, but didn't continually repeat that it was only two times in 2002.

We don't really know why he admitted to 2004. Perhaps he did want to come clean. Perhaps he thought (correctly) that it would get him out of the hearing. Based on his history, I'm not confident that he didn't use more than he has admitted to date.

[digglahhh]

Look, I agree with we have to move on too. Most of us don't pretend that the Mitchell Report named all the PED users. But what is the price that the clean players pay? That their accomplishments are tainted in the eyes of people like us because they aren't forthcoming about their actions or those of others?

I'd just like to point out that is indeed the dynamic that played out in that glorious period of American history known as McCarthyism.

Perhaps we should also be reminded of the words of William Blackstone, about it being better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer.

[tommybaseball]

Look, I agree with we have to move on too. Most of us don't pretend that the Mitchell Report named all the PED users. But what is the price that the clean players pay? That their accomplishments are tainted in the eyes of people like us because they aren't forthcoming about their actions or those of others?

Well, I finally found something that we can at least partially agree on. It is truly a shame that those who played it clean will fall under a common cloud of doubt. I find it difficult to find fault with those who choose not to be a rat.
I do not choose, however, to just move on and make believe that all is ok. Cognitive Dissonance is not something that I will ever be associated with again.

[whoisonit]

I find it difficult to find fault with those who choose not to be a rat.


I understand this sentiment, but the thing is, what are we to make of the collective silence ? How do we look at this era and say - 'oh, his stats are ok -he was clean, he just wanted to be a stand up guy to his buddies, but this other guy - well, he was silent because he was part of it' ?
The closing of ranks helped create this perversion of the game's holy grails, it's records & statisics. Who then is blameless ? Who was clean ? Who decides who was clean ? The scarlet letter is on every player.

[ESPNFan]

Pettitte is getting a pass because he helped reel in the big fish.

That doesn't mean he deserves one, but that's why he's getting one.

We have a winner.
Pettitte sold out his friends and family when it wasn't entirely needed. If he was on my team right now he would be persona non grata. Bigtime.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I understand this sentiment, but the thing is, what are we to make of the collective silence ? How do we look at this era and say - 'oh, his stats are ok -he was clean, he just wanted to be a stand up guy to his buddies, but this other guy - well, he was silent because he was part of it' ?
The closing of ranks helped create this perversion of the game's holy grails, it's records & statisics. Who then is blameless ? Who was clean ? Who decides who was clean ? The scarlet letter is on every player.

How could it be on every player when we have no way of knowing.

[whoisonit]

No we don't. That is my point shoeless. How can we know ?

[SamtheBravesFan]

How could it be on every player when we have no way of knowing.

I think he thinks that all players in baseball knew of steroid use by their teammates.

Is that it, who?

[whoisonit]

Yes, sorry, I thought I said that.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Yes, sorry, I thought I said that.

Well, I was just trying to clear that up, that's all.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

No we don't. That is my point shoeless. How can we know ?

Did I misread your words, misunderstand the meaning. I thought when you said ........the scarlet letter is on every player that means they are all users or that is what we believe.

[whoisonit]

Did I misread your words, misunderstand the meaning. I thought when you said ........the scarlet letter is on every player that means they are all users or that is what we believe.

No - what I mean is we have no way of knowing who was clean and who wasn't. What we do know is they all maintained a wall of silence. To say the member's of this small. insular society, (MLB players), didn't know PED's were rampant simply doesn't pass the plausibility test. Their decision to do nothing, to remain silent as the sport was degraded, stains them all. It was this wall of secrecy that helped create the overwellming scandal we now have. Therefore, users and enablers alike have earned the 'scarlet letter'. (managers, coaches, team management, the union, MLB administration and no doubt some media jock sniffers earned it as well - but I was just talking about players).

[SHOELESSJOE3]

No - what I mean is we have no way of knowing who was clean and who wasn't. What we do know is they all maintained a wall of silence. To say the member's of this small. insular society, (MLB players), didn't know PED's were rampant simply doesn't pass the plausibility test. Their decision to do nothing, to remain silent as the sport was degraded, stains them all. It was this wall of secrecy that helped create the overwellming scandal we now have. Therefore, users and enablers alike have earned the 'scarlet letter'. (managers, coaches, team management, the union, MLB administration and no doubt some media jock sniffers earned it as well - but I was just talking about players).

OK I got it now.