Seriously, why is he giving this press conference? Is he seriously trying to justify his lies again? I was hoping he was going to announce how he disgraced himself and the game....and how he has chosen to retire because of it. Guess not... .
despite the fact they keep saying: "andy has been forthcoming." yeah, andy's been forthcoming with lies. this story with andy disappoints me far more than the roger deal. maybe because i expect more from andy with the way he carries himself and the things he communicates. i had no problem with him using and admitting...i had a problem with him coming out saying, "i have to tell the truth now...i only used twice..." .......and that being a lie.
I don't get this. He did apologize to the Yankees and Astros for the embarrassment he caused, but other than that, he's avoiding any kind of question related to his testimony and what he said about Clemens. Seems really pointless.
Agree on all points. The scariest part of the hearing last week, for me, was listening to the Congressmen gushing over Andy's honesty and openness. His entire confession in December, which everyone labeled as "so noble," was proven to be a complete lie. Yet it seemed like the committee members and media just ignored that altogether. Bizarre. And now Lord Pettitte is giving a sermon again...
Yeah, that's what bothers me the most. He lied in his admission by tempering it BIG TIME!! But his testimony is the one with credibility. ????
If you haven't seen Jerome Solomon's piece in the Chronicle today, check it out. One of the most well reasoned media pieces I've seen regarding this. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/5549181.html
It seems to be that Andy only used when he was injured, trying to get back to being healthy - whereas Roger allegedly used for a competitive advantage.
But we know the reasons for Clemens to lie to the media and to Congress. We know the reasons McNamee would lie to investigators and to Congress. We know the reasons Pettitte would lie to the media. But what possible reason does he have to lie to Congress?
Wouldn't it be the same as Clemens and McNamee? Just because Pettitte came out to the media and admitted to some HGH use doesn't make him any more credible to me just because he halfway admitted/lied.
Totally agreed. BTW, no one is praising Andy for lying. People praise him for eventually telling the truth, which is a point Solomon missed. No whether you believe Andy's version of the truth and/or his motivations, thats another story. I do believe him over Roger.
But how do we know he's telling the truth? That's the point. His story consistently changes. Roger's story appears unlikely, but for the most part, it's stayed the same.
His story has changed once? He said he only did it twice as stated in the Mitchell Report to the media, then told congress he did it again in 2004. What else has he changed about it?
Please let us know once Andy's actually told us the truth. He flat-out lied when he came out with his "admission" after the Mitchell Report, how do we know if he's telling the whole truth today?
But he was praised for coming out originally and "admitting" to his use. Yet, here we are two months later and he's a confirmed liar and he's still getting the benefit of the doubt while Roger's being burned at the stake? His credibility is as shot as anyone else's, IMO.
Its up to each of us individually whether we believe him or not. Some of us do, some of us don't. To each his own, but there are legitimate reasons either way to feel the way you do. So you feel its unlikely, yet you are going to give credit to one man for keeping up that farce while at the same time condemning another for at least coming forward with some truths, even if it is not what you want to hear?
I don't really agree with you at all. To me, he thought he could get away with what was just published in the Mitchell Report since his dad was the only other one who would know. To congress, he admitted to doing them again - there wasn't evidence against him that forced his hand on this. He came across to me and others as if he was just going to tell the complete truth.
I believe Andy when he confirmed McNamee's account and I believe him when he admitted the useage in 04. Do you not believe that or do you believe he is hiding more? Or do you believe him now and are more bothered with the fact he didn't tell the whole truth to begin with?
If he lives "the truth," as he so eloquently puts it, why did it take the release of the Mitchell Report for him to admit he used? While I can't confirm it, the timing of his initial confession suggests he would have denied usage until the point in which testimony came out against him.
