Andy Pettitte to retire...

[a700hitter]

Sure' date=' but that's entirely conjecture. After the Mitchell reported he omitted mentioning his steroid use in later years, but it's certainly possible that once Congress subpoenaed him, he used it as an opportunity to correct his previous error because he felt he did the wrong thing in 2008. Now obviously we're speaking in the realm of opinion, so talking in uncertain terms is obviously welcome, and you could very well be right. But in my opinion, formulating an opinion on something that may or may not be accurate isn't justified.[/quote']"Correct his previous error"? Do you really believe that he forgot that he had used HGH more than twice? I don't. As for your saying that my opinion is "not justified", my opinion Is based on his actions, so it is as valid as anyone else's opinion. It's certainly more valid than concluding that an athlete is a good guy based on his PR persona. I've known of a few guys with great PR personas that were really not good people.

 

I started to think that Pettitte was a phony and hypocrite the minute he came back to NY. He left for a very big contract saying that he wanted to be close to his family. After that contract, he came back to NY for big bucks. Did he no longer like his family? Had they relocated to NY? If not, why did he come back to NY? Maybe his decisions were motivated by money. That's my opinion, and that's one of the many reasons why I think Mr. Family man and devout Christian is a phony and hypocrite.

[Dipre]

Andy Pettitte used human growth hormone to recover from an elbow injury in 2002, he said he tried HGH on two occasions, stressing he did it to heal faster and not enhance his performance. He emphasized he never used steroids.

 

HGH wasn't banned by baseball until January 2005 and still isn't tested for in MLB to this day.

 

Wait wait wait wait wait.

 

Since when is HGH not a steroid?

 

HGH is an anabolic steroid.

 

This definition comes directly from the Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry:

 

Human Growth Hormone: Steroid hormones related to the male sex hormone testosterone. They promote the development of masculine characteristics and increase muscle growth. Anabolic steroids have been used medically for various conditions but are also used illegally by sportsmen and women and by bodybuilders. They have a number of deleterious side effects and are a controlled drug in the UK and many other countries. Their use is banned by nearly all major sports regulating bodies. They can be detected in blood and urine by gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy.

 

Two things:

 

First, saying that he used HGH but "didn't use steroids" is absolute fallacy, since HGH is a steroid. Second, i have read Petitte's statement several time and nowhere does it say that he "didn't use steroids", so either you're making it up, or both him and his PA team are uninformed idiots. My money is on you "misreading" or outright making it up. Correct me on which of the two it is.

 

Secondly, it doesn't matter whether or not he used them before they were banned, he did use them, now i'm on the opinion, like Y228, that since the use of steroids was rampant, discovering that someone did in fact use steroids doesn't necessarily change my opinion of them as an athlete. Still gotta hit the ball, still have to hit your spots.

 

That being said:

 

This is not a judgment about the legal ramifications of whether or not he cheated, but rather a knock on his character, because he never "came clean" until after he was mentioned in the Mitchell report, making it very plausible to assume it was indeed a damage control move.

 

 

And by the way, the fact that HGH wasn't "banned until 2005" doesn't mitigate the fact that before he used HGH, the distribution or acquisition of steroids without a prescription was (and still is) illegal as per the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.

 

Not only is your logic faulty, but you're trying to rationalize Petitte's transgression as "harmless" when he broke the law. Enlighten me on how any of the points in this post make sense.

[yankees228]

"Correct his previous error"? Do you really believe that he forgot that he had used HGH more than twice? I don't. As for your saying that my opinion is "not justified", my opinion Is based on his actions, so it is as valid as anyone else's opinion. It's certainly more valid than concluding that an athlete is a good guy based on his PR persona. I've known of a few guys with great PR personas that were really not good people.

 

I started to think that Pettitte was a phony and hypocrite the minute he came back to NY. He left for a very big contract saying that he wanted to be close to his family. After that contract, he came back to NY for big bucks. Did he no longer like his family? Had they relocated to NY? If not, why did he come back to NY? Maybe his decisions were motivated by money. That's my opinion, and that's one of the many reasons why I think Mr. Family man and devout Christian is a phony and hypocrite.

 

My 'correct his previous error' comment didn't refer to him forgetting about taking steroids, but rather that he chose not to mention it and decided later on that was a mistake. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just trying to provide an alternate theory. And your opinion about Pettitte, as it applies to the situation with Congress, seems to be justified by what you perceive his motivation to be, rather than what his actions were.

 

As for Pettitte's person as a whole, sure, all that is reasonable, and I don't take umbrage with you feeling that way. But that part of the discussion simply isn't very important to me, because unless they're committing some egregious acts off the field, what they do in their personal lives is rather unimportant to me. All I ever really cared about with Andy Pettitte was that he pitched well.

[a700hitter]

My 'correct his previous error' comment didn't refer to him forgetting about taking steroids, but rather that he chose not to mention it and decided later on that was a mistake. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just trying to provide an alternate theory. And your opinion about Pettitte, as it applies to the situation with Congress, seems to be justified by what you perceive his motivation to be, rather than what his actions were.

 

As for Pettitte's person as a whole, sure, all that is reasonable, and I don't take umbrage with you feeling that way. But that part of the discussion simply isn't very important to me, because unless they're committing some egregious acts off the field, what they do in their personal lives is rather unimportant to me. All I ever really cared about with Andy Pettitte was that he pitched well.

Even according to your version of the events, he wasn't forthright after the Mitchell Report, but you think he decided to come clean with Congress because it was the right thing to do. If he was the good Christian that he claims to be he should have been forthright after the Mitchell Report. He didn't merely fail to disclose after the Mitchell Report. He affirmatively lied saying that he only used twice. Again, it's not something a good Christian would do. I have nothing against bad Christians. I am not a churchgoer. However, I despise religious hypocrites such as the bible-thumping Pettitte. I choose to believe that he changed his tune when Congress subpoenaed him, because the penalties for lying to Congress are severe, not because he thought it was the right thing to do.

 

Like you, I don't care what a player does in his personal life. However, when we are righting a guys player obit and he is called a class act, when in fact he was and is a scumbag, I will speak up. If we want to talk about him as a performer, I have no disagreement that he is a borderline HOF performer, but as a person he was not and is not a class act. If you only care about how he performed, why does it bother you that I post my opinion that he's a scumbag?

 

My opinion of Pettitte might change if someday he donates his liver or a kidney to a total stranger.

[Divinity]

Wait wait wait wait wait.

 

Since when is HGH not a steroid?

 

HGH is an anabolic steroid.

 

 

First, saying that he used HGH but "didn't use steroids" is absolute fallacy, since HGH is a steroid. Second, i have read Petitte's statement several time and nowhere does it say that he "didn't use steroids", so either you're making it up, or both him and his PA team are uninformed idiots. My money is on you "misreading" or outright making it up. Correct me on which of the two it is.

 

 

It says it right here in this ESPN article

 

Pettitte was not linked to steroids in the report, and said he had never used them.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3156305

 

It sounds like you're implying there is no distinction between HGH and steroids.

It's just plain wrong to put growth hormone in the same category as anabolic steroids. In the sports version of the war on drugs, Bonds was shooting heroin while Hairston was smoking marijuana.

 

What's the difference between steroids and HGH? For starters, we know that a baseball player can beef up on steroids and improve his athletic performance. But most clinical studies suggest that HGH won't help an athlete at all. The other key difference is that while steroids cause a bevy of nasty side effects—testicular shrinkage, an increased risk of stroke—taking HGH doesn't seem to be that bad for you.

 

So far, no one has been able to connect the increase in lean body tissue caused by HGH with enhancement of athletic performance. Unlike steroids, growth hormone hasn't been shown to increase weight-lifting ability; in the lab, it has a greater effect on muscle definition than muscle strength. And it doesn't seem to help much with cardiovascular fitness, either.

[Keeper]

So far' date=' no one has been able to connect the increase in lean body tissue caused by HGH with enhancement of athletic performance.[/quote']

 

You're talking out of your ass. I guess when Barry Bonds became a god in his late 30's and early 40's, the HGH had nothing to do with it.

[Divinity]

You're talking out of your ass. I guess when Barry Bonds became a god in his late 30's and early 40's' date=' the HGH had nothing to do with it.[/quote']

 

Just going by what I've read.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2162473/

[a700hitter]

The "HGH was not cheating" is a ridiculously stupid argument. If the players thought it wasn't cheating, why did they all hide the fact that they used it? The answer is, because everyone considered it cheating.

[Spudboy]

NO human being is perfect. Why is it so terrible for Pettitte to turn to Jesus for guidance' date=' comfort and peace? Many people do it every day.[/quote']

 

I'm gagging now.

 

I don't think that anyone here has anything negative to say about any person being religious.

 

However, if that person claims to have taken the moral high road and then is proven to be a piece of s***, well, they are, at least, a hypocrite. And spare us all the sanctimonious ******** rationalization that everyone has flaws.

[Spudboy]

if anything' date=' that makes it even worse for Pettite, that he really didn't have to rat his friend out, but he did. Like I said, don't care that he did it, but I don't think it shows class.[/quote']

 

Solid logic here.

 

And, Pettitte looks and sounds stupid. So if he pulled am Alex Karas and said "I dunno", who would have doubted him?

[a700hitter]

I'm gagging now.

 

I don't think that anyone here has anything negative to say about any person being religious.

 

However, if that person claims to have taken the moral high road and then is proven to be a piece of s***, well, they are, at least, a hypocrite. And spare us all the sanctimonious ******** rationalization that everyone has flaws.

Spud, you have a knack for summing things up very succinctly.

[yankees228]

Even according to your version of the events, he wasn't forthright after the Mitchell Report, but you think he decided to come clean with Congress because it was the right thing to do. If he was the good Christian that he claims to be he should have been forthright after the Mitchell Report. He didn't merely fail to disclose after the Mitchell Report. He affirmatively lied saying that he only used twice. Again, it's not something a good Christian would do. I have nothing against bad Christians. I am not a churchgoer. However, I despise religious hypocrites such as the bible-thumping Pettitte. I choose to believe that he changed his tune when Congress subpoenaed him, because the penalties for lying to Congress are severe, not because he thought it was the right thing to do.

 

Like you, I don't care what a player does in his personal life. However, when we are righting a guys player obit and he is called a class act, when in fact he was and is a scumbag, I will speak up. If we want to talk about him as a performer, I have no disagreement that he is a borderline HOF performer, but as a person he was not and is not a class act. If you only care about how he performed, why does it bother you that I post my opinion that he's a scumbag?

 

My opinion of Pettitte might change if someday he donates his liver or a kidney to a total stranger.

 

It doesn't bother me at all, but I was bored with nothing to do and was interested in discussing the point about him naming Clemens.

[Dipre]

It says it right here in this ESPN article

 

Pettitte was not linked to steroids in the report, and said he had never used them.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3156305

 

HGH is directly correlated to increased testosterone levels. It's an obvious save-face attempt by using semantics. HGH is a type of drug that has an anabolic effect, that is indisputable.

 

Do you know what increased levels of testosterone mean for an athlete? Increased strength, recovery time and all of the benefits that come along with abnormal testosterone levels. HGH is a type of anabolic steroid, and not only that, an extremely powerful anabolic drug:

 

Once it is released, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), which is also called Somatropin (STH) has many functions in the human body. HGH is a protein that stimulates the body cells to increase both in size, as well as undergo more rapid cell division than usual. In addition, it enhances the movement of amino acids through cell membranes and also increases the rate at which these cells convert these molecules into proteins. Clearly, you can see that this would amount to an anabolic (muscle building) effect in the human body. HGH also has the ability to cause cells to decrease the normal rate at which they utilize carbohydrates, and simultaneously increase the rate at which they use fats.(1) Fat loss and lean mass increases with HGH have been found at a dose as low as . 0.028 iu/kg/daily for 24 weeks (4), however, in my estimation, that would be insufficient for a bodybuilder trying to gain muscle. Let?s use .028iu/kg as a working number; that?s 2.8iu for a 100kg (220lbs) bodybuilder. That?s certainly not unreasonable, and I would say that that dose to 2x that dose is the range most bodybuilders and athletes are finding their best results with. Also, that length of time used in the study I just mentioned (24 weeks) is very typical of HGH use, and in conversations with my friends who have used this compound, have told me that they experience consistent results starting well after the 2-month-mark, and they tend to either run this stuff for 6 months at a time, or year-round (if they have sufficient funds). One of my friends is able to consistently retain a shredded 6-7% body fat all year round with the assistance of HGH, whether he is on steroids or off. He also has noted that his cardio (fast walking, for an hour a day) was much easier while on HGH than when off, and certainly the research I?ve done would support his claim that sub maximal aerobic ability is improved with HGH use (5) (15).

 

How anabolic is this stuff? Well, even endurance athletes at rest (!) were observed in one study to be in an anabolic state (8). Yeah, so you can basically run marathons and take this stuff, and still build some muscle. Pretty impressive, right?

 

Growth Hormone is usually secreted in rhythmic pulses while you are sleeping, as two peptides, HGHRH and Somatostatin (SST) are alternately released. As you can guess, HGHRH (Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone) is the one responsible for the Release of Growth Hormone (And who said scientists have funny ways for naming things.(1)

 

Growth hormone also has the ability to stimulate the production (or reproduction, in the case of an injury) of cartilage. This, however, requires the presence of a mediator substance, Somatomedin (IGF), which is released from the liver in response to HGH, and the IGF, in turn, actually promotes the growth of cartilage.(1)

 

http://www.steroid.com/Human-Growth-Hormone.php

 

It sounds like you're implying there is no distinction between HGH and steroids.

It's just plain wrong to put growth hormone in the same category as anabolic steroids. In the sports version of the war on drugs, Bonds was shooting heroin while Hairston was smoking marijuana.

 

What's the difference between steroids and HGH? For starters, we know that a baseball player can beef up on steroids and improve his athletic performance. But most clinical studies suggest that HGH won't help an athlete at all. The other key difference is that while steroids cause a bevy of nasty side effects—testicular shrinkage, an increased risk of stroke—taking HGH doesn't seem to be that bad for you.

 

So far, no one has been able to connect the increase in lean body tissue caused by HGH with enhancement of athletic performance. Unlike steroids, growth hormone hasn't been shown to increase weight-lifting ability; in the lab, it has a greater effect on muscle definition than muscle strength. And it doesn't seem to help much with cardiovascular fitness, either.

 

I am not implying there is a difference, i am affirming that one is part of the category represented by the other.

 

Look at what you're saying here (or quoting from a 2007 article without acknowledging the fact that you're doing it), basically that an increase in lean tissue and recovery time is not linked to an increase in athletic performance, even though empirical evidence (Barry Bonds) and f***ing logic (increased muscle equals increased strength). Read the above quote for actual effects from HGH. That has to be one of the biggest leaps in logic i have ever seen.

 

Clinical researchers have been a bit less sanguine. You don't need a Ph.D. to find serious flaws in the Rudman study—no one in the control group received a placebo, for example. Still, a recent review in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that better studies have produced similar results: At the very least, treatment with HGH does seem to reduce body fat and increase muscle mass.

 

Excerpt from the article you quoted by the way.

 

By the way, you didn't address my point about Petitte breaking the law.

[Dipre]

Damn double posts.

[Spudboy]

Danial Nava took HGH!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh wait, a Doctor prescribed it for him.

 

Geez.

[italstallianion]

Don't forget that Micheal Phelps smoked weed, and we all know that's a performance enhancing drug.

 

What about those Gold Medalists from Canada that got their gold medals taken away because they tested positive for marajuana?

[Spudboy]

Spud' date=' you have a knack for summing things up very succinctly.[/quote']

 

I just have a low tolerance for ********.

 

A hypocrite is a hypocrite.

 

A scumbag is a scumbag.

 

A cheater is a cheater.

 

No matter what team they play for or where they work.

[Divinity]

By the way, you didn't address my point about Petitte breaking the law.

 

What am I supposed to think he's a criminal for taking a drug without a script?

 

Its his own body and its not like he's exposing himself to serious health risks taking it.

 

I don't view it much worse than smoking marijuana, which is also "illegal"

[Spudboy]

What am I supposed to think he's a criminal for taking a drug without a script?

 

Its his own body and its not like he's exposing himself to serious health risks taking it.

 

I don't view it much worse than smoking marijuana, which is also "illegal"

 

What?

[Dipre]

What am I supposed to think he's a criminal for taking a drug without a script?

 

Its his own body and its not like he's exposing himself to serious health risks taking it.

 

I don't view it much worse than smoking marijuana, which is also "illegal"

 

This, too, is rationalization ,leap in logic, plus a strawman. A winning trifecta.

 

It's a strawman because your initial point was that "HGH wasn't banned in baseball" meaning that he didn't break any rule. I countered that by saying that while it wasn't banned by baseball, it was illegal to buy HGH, meaning he did break the rules.

 

It's rationalization because the argument isn't about "what you're supposed to think" but about the facts. And the fact is that he used steroids and broke the law.

 

It's a leap in logic because "you don't see it much worse than smoking marijuana", but marijuana isn't the performance-enhancing drug in the middle of a worldwide scandal and multi-million dollar investigation.

 

And as i said before, i don't care whether or not players use steroids, but let's not pretend like he didn't cheat and break the rules just because he plays for the Yankees.

[Spudboy]

Maybe ignorance is bliss.

[Divinity]

This, too, is rationalization ,leap in logic, plus a strawman. A winning trifecta.

 

It's a strawman because your initial point was that "HGH wasn't banned in baseball" meaning that he didn't break any rule. I countered that by saying that while it wasn't banned by baseball, it was illegal to buy HGH, meaning he did break the rules.

 

It's rationalization because the argument isn't about "what you're supposed to think" but about the facts. And the fact is that he used steroids and broke the law.

 

It's a leap in logic because "you don't see it much worse than smoking marijuana", but marijuana isn't the performance-enhancing drug in the middle of a worldwide scandal and multi-million dollar investigation.

 

And as i said before, i don't care whether or not players use steroids, but let's not pretend like he didn't cheat and break the rules just because he plays for the Yankees.

 

MLB Rules and U.S. laws are two different things, obviously I meant he didn't break baseball rules.

 

Marijuana isn't a multi-million dollar investigation, you're right, the government spends multi-BILLIONS fighting it every year.

 

HGH may now be banned but still isn't tested for in MLB, hundreds of players to this day could be using it for all we know. I agree he gained a slight unfair advantage which you can call cheating, but he wasn't breaking any baseball rules while doing so at the time.

[Emmz]

So players who used steroids before they were tested for never did anything wrong?

[Dipre]

MLB Rules and U.S. laws are two different things' date=' obviously I meant he didn't break baseball rules.[/quote']

 

Yes, because it's certainly ok to engage in criminal activity as long as it doesn't break any "baseball-related rules". Sound logic.

 

Marijuana isn't a multi-million dollar investigation, you're right, the government spends multi-BILLIONS fighting it every year.

 

Not for MLB, which is the context in which we're talking about it. See, the reason this argument is dumb (and it is) is because marijuana doesn't give a baseball player an unfair advantage over non-marijuana users. I don't see why this is so difficult to comprehend.

 

HGH may now be banned but still isn't tested for in MLB, hundreds of players to this day could be using it for all we know. I agree he gained a slight unfair advantage which you can call cheating, but he wasn't breaking any baseball rules while doing so at the time.

 

It wasn't "what you may call cheating". It was cheating, period. The fact that it wasn't banned when he did it doesn't take the most important element out of the definition for cheating in a sports environment, which is gaining an unfair advantage. He cheated, and broke the law. Rationalize away.

[ORS]

Just going by what I've read.

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2162473/

You may have read it, but, like the writer, you failed to connect the dots. If HGH makes one more youthful, and the greatest common denominator for declining athletes is advanced age, then it stands to reason there's something helpful that comes from HGH use.

 

Furthermore, while there wasn't an agreement with the MLBPA, one that scheduled the penalties for banned substance use, until 2003, in 1991 Giamatti issued a memo from the commissioners desk that said it was against league policy to use any controlled substance without the appropriate prescription. Technically, the use of controlled substances has been "against the rules" since then.

[Will617]

Not for MLB' date=' which is the context in which we're talking about it. See, the reason this argument is dumb (and it is) is because marijuana doesn't give a baseball player an unfair advantage over non-marijuana users. I don't see why this is so difficult to comprehend.[/quote']

 

If anything, wouldn't smoking pot make you perform worse in most professional sports?

[Divinity]

If anything' date=' wouldn't smoking pot make you perform worse in most professional sports?[/quote']

 

I was comparing them from a legal point of view since Dipre's point was that while HGH wasn't banned by MLB Pettitte was wrong by breaking a US law.

 

You're not allowed to smoke marijuana without a script just like HGH.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

I'm a little late to the party but I just wanted to express how I feel.

 

 

WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO!

[SoxFanForsyth]

I'm a little late to the party but I just wanted to express how I feel.

 

 

WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Take it easy, Durant. Anger management. :harhar:

[Dipre]

I was comparing them from a legal point of view since Dipre's point was that while HGH wasn't banned by MLB Pettitte was wrong by breaking a US law.

 

You're not allowed to smoke marijuana without a script just like HGH.

 

It wasn't just wrong because it broke US Law (which consumption of marihuana does as well, but in the context of baseball doesn't constitute cheating per se, since it doesn't enhance your performance, but i digress) it was wrong because he cheated, which you stubbornly try to demonstrate he didn't, when it's as clear as the fact that the Phillies signed Cliff Lee, not the Yankees.

 

ORS brought up an important piece of evidence, which i will not present in its entirety:

 

Francis T. (Fay) Vincent Jr.

Eighth Commissioner of Major League Baseball

1989-1992

 

On September 13, 1989, Francis T. Vincent Jr. was elected MLB's eighth commissioner by a unanimous vote of all 26 major league owners. Having been designated as the first Deputy Commissioner of Major League Baseball only five months earlier, Vincent succeeded A. Bartlett Giamatti, who died in office on September 1, 1989. Vincent was elected to complete Giamatti's five-year term, which had begun on April 1, 1989.

 

Background:

• Vincent, born in Waterbury, Connecticut on May 29, 1938, graduated with honors from Williams College in 1960 and received a law degree from Yale in 1963.

• Upon graduation from Yale, Vincent, specializing in corporate banking and security, served at a New York City law firm for five years before he was named partner of a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm. It was during this time that Vincent also served as Associate Director, Division of Corporate Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

• In 1978, Vincent was named President/CEO of Columbia Pictures. After the 1982 acquisition of Columbia by the Coca-Cola Company, Vincent was appointed Senior Vice-President of the Coca-Cola Company. In 1986, he was promoted to Executive Vice-President, responsible for the company's entertainment activities.

• As Deputy Commissioner of Major League Baseball, Vincent played a key role in the investigation of gambling allegations against baseball legend Pete Rose. Based upon the investigative findings, Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from professional baseball.

 

Fay Vincent planned to follow Bart Giamatti's lead in maintaining the integrity of MLB. Unfortunately, his attempts to do so often brought him into conflict with the baseball owners. For example, on July 30, 1990, Vincent shockingly ordered Yankee owner George Steinbrenner to resign as the club's general partner and banned him from the day-to-day operations of the team for life. The ruling stemmed from an investigation that proved that Steinbrenner had paid $40,000 to a confessed gambler in return for damaging information about former Yankee player Dave Winfield. Steinbrenner's son-in-law served as acting managing general partner of the Yankees while Steinbrenner appealed Vincent's directives. Within three years, Steinbrenner had resumed his role as general partner, another strong indicator that anyone who challenges the owners is in for an ordeal.

 

In 1991, Vincent sent a groundbreaking memorandum to all MLB clubs regarding the use of steroids, although he really did not consider steroids to be a major problem at the time. Vincent merely wanted to lay the groundwork for an attempt to control the entire drug and potential steroid problem, i.e., he was being proactive with regard to steroids. In his memorandum, Vincent emphasized, "There is no place for illegal drugs in baseball. Their use by players and others in baseball can neither be condoned nor tolerated. Baseball players and personnel cannot be permitted to give even the slightest suggestion that illegal drug use is either acceptable or safe. It is the responsibility of all baseball players and personnel to see to it that the use of illegal drugs does not occur, and if it does, to put a stop to it."

 

Commissioner Vincent's memorandum contained the following provisions:

 

• The possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by major league players and personnel is strictly prohibited. Those involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game.

 

• In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the uniform player's contract. This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.

 

• MLB recognizes that illegal drug use has become a national problem, and that some players and baseball personnel may fall victim to drugs. Baseball will not hesitate to permanently remove from the game those players and personnel who, despite our efforts to treat and rehabilitate, refuse to accept responsibility for the problem and continue to use illegal drugs. If any club covers up or otherwise fails to disclose to this office any information concerning drug use by a player, that club will be fined $250,000, the highest allowable amount under the Major League Agreement.

 

• MLB believes that its testing program is the most effective means available to deter and detect drug use. For admitted or detected drug users, testing will be a component of that individual's after-care program for the balance of his or her professional baseball career.

 

• This office will continue to search for positive and constructive methods of dealing with drug use. While baseball will attempt to treat and rehabilitate any player or personnel who falls victim to a drug problem, we will not hesitate to impose discipline, especially in those cases involving repeated offenses or refusals to participate in a recommended and appropriate course of treatment.

 

• If any club has a question about any aspect of the drug use program, please contact Louis Melendez, Associate Counsel, Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee.

 

Sincerely,

Francis T. Vincent Jr.

Commissioner, Major League Baseball

 

Now i want you to tell me how Petitte's actions were not directly in contradiction to a provision set by an acting commissioner of MLB, and that, to the best of anyone's knowledge, was never reversed.