Miguel Tejada Gets Punk'd
Where's Ashton Kutcher when you need him?
If you've seen the video yet of the reporter asking Miguel Tejada about his age, then you know exactly what I'm talking about.
The interview looked like it was straight out of an episode of Punk'd. I was actually waiting for Ashton to pop out.
In case you didn't see it, the reporter asked Miguel his age a few times and Miguel basically responded, "I 'm 31. Why would I lie about that?"
The reporter then proceeded to pull out Tejada's birth certificate, show it to him, and expose his lie. It was kind of sad for Tejada considering he probably thought he was there to answer questions about his recent resurgence.
So here's my question — Should I feel bad for Tejada for being exposed and embarrassed on air or have I had enough?
After all, this is the same guy who just got caught lying about his use of PED's not too long ago and now it turns out he's 33 instead of 31.
The reason for lying about his age obviously was to get signed easier as a younger prospect with more potential, but it definitely goes deeper than that. Isn't it more likely for a 31-year-old to get a big long-term contract than a 33-year-old with the same exact numbers.
The really funny part of the whole situation as it turns out is that all Tejada's vital documents say he's 33, including his driver's license and passport. All someone had to do was look at them.
So, after getting caught in the middle of an interview, which is to be aired next week on ESPN, Tejada took the so-called 'high road' and came clean (as if he had any other choice by this point).
Petitte, Gagne, Tejada, etc...I'm sick of it.
These guys are not heroes. They admitted to something after they got caught and folded under the pressure of their lies.
How hard is that to do?
Why is that considered honorable?
It's not like their conscience got the best of them and they admitted it on their own. They benefited millions of dollars from their lies and I have yet to see anyone give that money back.
So how moral can these people really be?
They were just afraid of getting into more trouble, that's all. They weren't strong enough to keep denying when the going got tough.
Clemens and Bonds, now these are strong-willed guys. While everyone's pointing their fingers and accusing them, they stand by their stories and remain staunch in their denials.
Isn't that harder to do? Doesn't that take more strength of conviction?
In an era where people are rewarded for taking the easy way out, it kind of makes you appreciate those that don't.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?