The accusations against the seven-time Cy Young Award winner from his former trainer, Brian McNamee, were contained in last week's Mitchell Report. Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell said McNamee said he injected Clemens with steroids in 1998 while with the Toronto Blue Jays, and steroids and human growth hormone in 2000 and 2001, while with the New York Yankees.
"I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life," Clemens said Tuesday in a statement issued through his agent, Randy Hendricks. "Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take.
"I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator Mitchell's report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment."
I don't think he's telling the truth , and I consider him to now be worse then Bonds (who I still like) because he has seen the public scorn heaped on Barry.
AussieDodger wrote:I don't think he's telling the truth , and I consider him to now be worse then Bonds (who I still like) because he has seen the public scorn heaped on Barry.
Are you kidding me?? Worse than Bonds?? I put them both on the same level and think that any objective individual should do the same..
Worse then Bonds in the sense that he has seen what has happened to an obvious steroid cheat in Bonds who has copped a public shellacking , also McGwire getting a crazily low first vote to the HOF , and yet he still denies it. I think if he came out straight away and said "yes I did it" people would/should applaud his honesty because so few others have admitted it.
Pogotheostrich wrote:Clemens lie is insulting but I actually think I'm more insulted by the Pettite/Vina lies of "I only did HGH and it was to get healthy."
Yeah seriously and "to help the team". Don't forget also that they only did it that one time!!!
And people eat this up which is hilarious!!!
"Honey, I only cheated on you once, and I did it to help our family." "Your Honor, I only robbed one bank, and I did it to help my family." "But sir, I only watched pron at work once, and I did it to help my work productivity."
JTWood wrote: ... "But sir, I only watched pron at work once, and I did it to help my work productivity."
I'm sure those will go over very well.
I watch pron at work all the time and I've never gotten into any trouble at all. Sorry, I couldn't resist... I know typos just happen and I should have let it go.
But back to the point of the topic (yet again) comparing Petitte actions to Clemens actions. I think I've read 95% of the posts in the various threads, and there are two strongly divided sides to the issue. Those who think Pettite is as bad as Clemens, and those who think the situations are vastly different.
Put me firmly in the camp of those who think they are different. My opinion is that Clemens actions were far worse than Pettites. We are all human and make mistakes in life. If you do something once that can be a mistake. If you do something over and over again, it shows clear intent.
So, I will go back to the pron issue. Oops, I mean porn. My understanding is that many companies will NOT fire you for one offense. Why? One reason is that you can stumble on things by accident. If I stumble on a porn site, but move right on, I imagine every company's policies will forgive that. And I'm pretty sure that for a one or two real transgressions with porn (not just stumbling on it) many (most?) companies will warn/discipline a worker rather than just fire them. But a habitual viewer of porn on company assets and during company time won't be tolerated.
The other thing people have argued on these boards is why trust Pettite that he only did it twice? After all, Clemens was his best friend/workout buddy. There too I side with the folks who say innocent until proven guilty and the folks who have argued that there would be no reason for the guy providing the HGH (sorry, name slips my mind) to tell all about everyone but for Pettite hold things back. If Pettite lied in his statement about what he did, and that comes out in the future, well then he becomes both a liar and a habitual user and no better than Clemens.
What Pettite did was wrong. But life has shades, it isn't a clear black and white world. Clemens was way, way more wrong then Pettite.
JTWood wrote: "Honey, I only cheated on you once, and I did it to help our family." "Your Honor, I only robbed one bank, and I did it to help my family." "But sir, I only watched pron at work once, and I did it to help my work productivity."
I'm sure those will go over very well.
Don't know why I'm adding to the porn analogy in my last post. But I realize I have more to say and that JTWoods other statements actually illustrate the opposite of what he wants them to say. I think his statements show how I believe right and wrong is not always so clear cut.
Are these people equal? "Honey, I only cheated on you once, but can you forgive me because I want to work to save our relationship." vs. "That ex-husband of mine had three long term affairs while we were married. Each time he told me he would never do it again. I can't believe I waited until the third time to leave him."
How about these two: "Guilty of robbing 15 banks over 8 months" vs. "After five years of imprisonment for stealing bread for his starving sister and her family, the man is released from prision in 1815. He steals again, but then reforms himself. The additional theft is reported to the authorities, which now look for him as a repeat offender. He assumes a new name and spends years doing nothing but helping others and being as honest as possible, yet is still pursued by the law." Jean Valjean of Les Misérables.
Andy Pettite is no Jean Valjean. But one of the main points of Les Misérables is that you can't apply a simple right/wrong or good/bad to life. Most things are more shaded than that. People can be good and bad, people can mistakes. People can change their ways and reform themselves.
So, yeah, I'm one of those who think less of Pettite than I did before, but I don't think of him like Clemens either. But if more evidence came out against him, those feelings would change again. Until such evidence comes out, I'll side with Pettite over Clemens any day of the week.