Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

The Mitchell Report Cometh


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
849 replies to this topic

#1 maceeight

  • 75 posts

Posted 12 October 2007 - 03:19 PM

Sound like this is coming and many names will come with it.

Linky fun

Edited by maceeight, 12 October 2007 - 03:19 PM.


#2 Rooster Crows

  • 1,116 posts

Posted 12 October 2007 - 04:54 PM

Sound like this is coming and many names will come with it.

Linky fun


What is the purpose of them releasing/leaking this now, I wonder, since they said the report won't come out until after the World Series. What effect might the impending release, with promises of sensational (actually, salacious) reports of many players (including high profile ones) being named have on the Series?

#3 joewoodfan

  • 778 posts

Posted 12 October 2007 - 05:09 PM

What is the purpose of them releasing/leaking this now, I wonder, since they said the report won't come out until after the World Series. What effect might the impending release, with promises of sensational (actually, salacious) reports of many players (including high profile ones) being named have on the Series?


Maybe none of the names are in the playoffs.

I first propose this as a joke, but then again depending on how long (or more important, short) the list is, that could end up being true. Not because the playoffs are clean, just because of the names on this earth-shattering list.

Besides don't those politicians love to steal the headlines?

#4 Comfortably Lomb


  • Koko the Monkey


  • 6,888 posts

Posted 12 October 2007 - 05:31 PM

I don't care what anyone says. This is a witch hunt. Yea, some players juiced, maybe many, but this is still kind of like a poor man's McCarthy hearings. This guy doesn't give a shit about baseball, he's out to destroy it and if he gets his way out to destroy the lives of numerous players.

#5 Eeny Meeny Mangini

  • 65 posts

Posted 12 October 2007 - 10:16 PM

I don't care what anyone says. This is a witch hunt. Yea, some players juiced, maybe many, but this is still kind of like a poor man's McCarthy hearings. This guy doesn't give a shit about baseball, he's out to destroy it and if he gets his way out to destroy the lives of numerous players.



I don't know if its so much Mitchell's fault than it is the publics demand for names. After Conseco's book came out, many felt that they deserved to know who is taking what and how it is affecting their game. It seems as if Mitchell is just giving in and throwing out names to satisfy the fans, and after that its out of his hands and into the hands of the columnists so they can rip apart any name that happens to be on the list.

Basically, I don't think this guys out to destroy baseball for the fun of it, he just wants people to get off his back about not doing anything about it and instead he's going to destroy other people's careers so he can keep his own.

EDIT: Another article about it from SI.com

Edited by Eeny Meeny Mangini, 12 October 2007 - 10:18 PM.


#6 Effa

  • 112 posts

Posted 12 October 2007 - 10:36 PM

I agree that this is a witch hunt...titillating innuendo...

M & MD ended their show today by speculating which names were on the list, and which names would "bother" people--calling out different players by name....ugh.

Mean-spirited.

The investigation is probably valid, & warranted, but the timing and presentation might be over the top, and unnecessarily sensational if not handled properly.

#7 cannonball 1729

  • 2,025 posts

Posted 13 October 2007 - 12:20 AM

Basically, I don't think this guys out to destroy baseball for the fun of it, he just wants people to get off his back about not doing anything about it and instead he's going to destroy other people's careers so he can keep his own.

What career do you think he's trying to protect, exactly? He spent 14 years as a U.S. Senator, including 6 as the Senate majority leader. He helped broker the Belfast Peace Accords in 1998, for which he was a Nobel Prize nominee. He has a number of major corporate and philanthropic interests, including leadership in Disney and the George Mitchell scholarship, and he's a member of the ownership group for the Red Sox. Do you really think he's that worried about his career as a steroid investigator? Or, perhaps, might he be naming names because he's an investigator and is supposed to be finding information?


unnecessarily sensational if not handled properly.

Herein lies the question: will it be handled properly? At this point, we don't know.

#8 Cyberlibrarian

  • 870 posts

Posted 13 October 2007 - 08:10 AM

This guy doesn't give a shit about baseball, he's out to destroy it and if he gets his way out to destroy the lives of numerous players.


"This guy," as you call him, happens to be a part owner of the Red Sox. Destroying baseball would also hurt his pocketbook.

#9 ehaz

  • 931 posts

Posted 13 October 2007 - 11:42 AM

What a great way to cap off the WS!

#10 Eeny Meeny Mangini

  • 65 posts

Posted 13 October 2007 - 10:45 PM

What career do you think he's trying to protect, exactly? He spent 14 years as a U.S. Senator, including 6 as the Senate majority leader. He helped broker the Belfast Peace Accords in 1998, for which he was a Nobel Prize nominee. He has a number of major corporate and philanthropic interests, including leadership in Disney and the George Mitchell scholarship, and he's a member of the ownership group for the Red Sox. Do you really think he's that worried about his career as a steroid investigator? Or, perhaps, might he be naming names because he's an investigator and is supposed to be finding information?



Herein lies the question: will it be handled properly? At this point, we don't know.


Bingo. That's what I was going for more than his professional background.

#11 EvilEmpire

  • 4,836 posts

Posted 14 October 2007 - 11:17 AM

What is the purpose of them releasing/leaking this now, I wonder, since they said the report won't come out until after the World Series. What effect might the impending release, with promises of sensational (actually, salacious) reports of many players (including high profile ones) being named have on the Series?



I suspect the reason for releasing this little tidbit during the playoffs is simply because public interest in baseball is higher -- casual fans who otherwise wouldn't pay any attention will hear about it. MLB is marketing how seriously they take the PED issue. Not saying they really do or not, but they are certainly working to shape perceptions that way. This announcement is part of that.

#12 SoxFanPJ


  • call me Chester


  • 3,857 posts

Posted 01 November 2007 - 02:30 PM

Does the pending release of the Mitchell Report and possible suspensions related to it put a chill on the Free Agent Market until after the names are released either privately to the teams or publicly through the media?

I would be hesitant to sign a guy if he could end up getting a 50 game suspension a week after you sign him.

#13 axx


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,040 posts

Posted 01 November 2007 - 05:59 PM

Does the pending release of the Mitchell Report and possible suspensions related to it put a chill on the Free Agent Market until after the names are released either privately to the teams or publicly through the media?

I would be hesitant to sign a guy if he could end up getting a 50 game suspension a week after you sign him.


I thought about that too. Same with any major names being traded (like Miguel Cabrera)

#14 Guest_Corsi Combover_*

Posted 06 November 2007 - 01:38 AM

Word is that George Mitchell’s report on performance-enhancing drugs in the big leagues will not come out until late December at the earliest. . . .

Source: http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1042888

#15 Green Monster

  • 1,571 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 06:35 AM

Does the pending release of the Mitchell Report and possible suspensions related to it put a chill on the Free Agent Market until after the names are released either privately to the teams or publicly through the media?

I would be hesitant to sign a guy if he could end up getting a 50 game suspension a week after you sign him.


Might also be factoring in to Andy Pettites indecision as to weather he will pitch in 2008. If his name is on the list, he retires, if not, he resigns

#16 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,441 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 09:08 AM

3 more names are linked with buying steroids or HGH by the SF Chron

Matt Williams
Jose Guillen
Ismael Valdez

Matt Williams, the Giants' star third baseman for 10 years, bought $11,600 worth of growth hormone, steroids and other drugs in 2002, when he was playing for the Arizona Diamondbacks, according to the records. In a phone interview Monday, Williams said a doctor advised him to try growth hormone to heal a serious ankle injury he suffered during spring training in 2002.

Journeyman pitcher Ismael Valdez bought $11,300 worth of performance-enhancing drugs in 2002 after he was traded from the Texas Rangers to the Seattle Mariners, the records show.

Guillen, an 11-year veteran who played for the Seattle Mariners last season, ordered more than $19,000 worth of drugs from the center between May 2002 and June 2005, according to the records.



#17 Buck Showalter


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,018 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 10:31 AM

Source: http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1042888


Someone should start a thread on the topic of The Mitchell Report Game......

A specified number of guesses for the names on the list......

Extra Points for best bets......

I'm not very creative, so I'm sorry not to following-up myself with this thought.

#18 redsox13


  • into coprophagia


  • 1,908 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 10:32 AM

Is it just me, or does anybody else think that it is a huge coincidence that every player stopped purchasing steroids sometime before the All Star break in 2005?

I have no doubt that some players are still using, but are they just going with the grass-roots dealers now or something?

#19 Mooch

  • 707 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 10:58 AM

Anyone remember Jose Guillen being the toughest out in that A's lineup in the ALDS in 2003? Seemed like he was on base that whole series.

#20 Worst Trade Evah


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,834 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 11:38 AM

It's bogus that MLB basically turns a blind eye to this for years, and then gets religion like this -- to embarrass it's own players years after the fact. What's the point of this? It's completely worthless. Just set up good policies and enforce them NOW. Dragging these older players through the mud for stuff that just wasn't that big a deal back then is bogus and bad for baseball.

Selig is an idiot. They couldn't have handled this whole issue worse -- for years now. It's like they're trying to maximize the bad press for baseball.

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 06 November 2007 - 11:40 AM.


#21 stevman17

  • 974 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 12:39 PM

It's bogus that MLB basically turns a blind eye to this for years, and then gets religion like this -- to embarrass it's own players years after the fact. What's the point of this? It's completely worthless. Just set up good policies and enforce them NOW. Dragging these older players through the mud for stuff that just wasn't that big a deal back then is bogus and bad for baseball.

Selig is an idiot. They couldn't have handled this whole issue worse -- for years now. It's like they're trying to maximize the bad press for baseball.


Well, I guess the idea is to provide a closure to the whole event. If they don't do some sort of definitive investigation people will always be tying certain players to steroids, and everyone will accuse the league of not caring. At least now, with the list, the average person will think they know who used and who didn't.

IMHO, I would rather not know, and just see the league strictly enforce PED rules now, and forget about the past.

#22 Foulkey Reese


  • foulkiavelli


  • 20,263 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 12:43 PM

What is the point of trickling out these names like this and trying to embarrass players years after this stuff happened?

I know that it's been said already, but why not just come up with a comprehensive policy NOW and have it in place going forward. This steady stream of names accomplished nothing other then to make everybody in MLB look bad.

I'm really not looking forward to an offseason full of fake indignation when people find out that various players ordered HGH or something four or five years ago.

Why can't they just ban it all and move on?

#23 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,072 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 12:47 PM

What is the point of trickling out these names like this and trying to embarrass players years after this stuff happened?

I know that it's been said already, but why not just come up with a comprehensive policy NOW and have it in place going forward. This steady stream of names accomplished nothing other then to make everybody in MLB look bad.

I'm really not looking forward to an offseason full of fake indignation when people find out that various players ordered HGH or something four or five years ago.

Why can't they just ban it all and move on?



It's all about PR, keeping Congress out of this, and rehabilitating Bud's legacy.

#24 leverb66

  • 70 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 02:34 PM

So many of these reports coming out are only about the use of HGH, and the new standard response is that it was being used to aid in recovery from an injury (I think we'll hear this more and more). This is somewhat of an acceptable excuse to using HGH, especially when it is suggested by a doctor, trainer, or other. One might argue that it isn't an acceptable excuse for $20,000 worth of the product, which for the average joe that would be true, but for a multi-millionaire ball player the 20k might seem like a worthwhile investment to help recover from an injury. Their thought process might have been that if a little can help them recover, then a lot might really help them recover, and they've got the money to spend on it. Should these players be able to use the "healing" card and get a pass? maybe?

#25 CoolPapaBellhorn

  • 940 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 02:45 PM

It's bogus that MLB basically turns a blind eye to this for years, and then gets religion like this -- to embarrass it's own players years after the fact. What's the point of this? It's completely worthless. Just set up good policies and enforce them NOW. Dragging these older players through the mud for stuff that just wasn't that big a deal back then is bogus and bad for baseball.

Selig is an idiot. They couldn't have handled this whole issue worse -- for years now. It's like they're trying to maximize the bad press for baseball.


I agree that they've butchered this entire issue, but it's not like the comissioner's office just leaked these three names. This is a result of reporters doing the work that MLB has tried to avoid for years. It has nothing to do with past or present drug policies.

#26 Maalox


  • full of shit, and proud of it


  • 49,118 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 02:47 PM

It's bogus that MLB basically turns a blind eye to this for years, and then gets religion like this -- to embarrass it's own players years after the fact. What's the point of this? It's completely worthless. Just set up good policies and enforce them NOW. Dragging these older players through the mud for stuff that just wasn't that big a deal back then is bogus and bad for baseball.

I'm sorry, all due respect, but I'm going to go off now...what you are arguing for here is just silly. This is what "getting religion" is about. Making amends for your past is not completely worthless but rather is a very worthwhile and necessary part of "getting religion."

Your post is tantamount to advocating moral change without guilt or shame - like saying an alcoholic should stop drinking now without bothering to feel sorry for drinking in the past, or the damage it has done to himself and those around him. All because you think the "bad press" is embarrassing? That simply does not jive with reality. Having an entire generation of players on steroids is what's embarrassing.

Would you suggest baseball show no remorse for its years of racism so long as it stopped in 1947? Would you even think such a duality practicable or beneficial to the game's integrity? What you are suggesting -and I do not exaggerate one single iota here- what you are suggesting is a completely preposterous concept, anathema to human ethics.

Clear the air, let in the sunlight and all that - and pay the price of doing so. It's an essential part of fixing the problem.

#27 doc

  • 2,681 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 02:49 PM

So many of these reports coming out are only about the use of HGH, and the new standard response is that it was being used to aid in recovery from an injury (I think we'll hear this more and more). This is somewhat of an acceptable excuse to using HGH, especially when it is suggested by a doctor, trainer, or other. One might argue that it isn't an acceptable excuse for $20,000 worth of the product, which for the average joe that would be true, but for a multi-millionaire ball player the 20k might seem like a worthwhile investment to help recover from an injury. Their thought process might have been that if a little can help them recover, then a lot might really help them recover, and they've got the money to spend on it. Should these players be able to use the "healing" card and get a pass? maybe?

Well it's not like you can order any of the other steroids from a pharmacy and pay with a credit card. The "healing card" is not a legitimate medical reason for using HGH

#28 DeltaForce

  • 2,902 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 03:00 PM

Clear the air and pay the price of doing so. It's an essential part of fixing the problem.

I guess I agree with you in theory. But it seems to me that, once the list is posted, most of the public anger will fall on the cheating players, so I'm not sure that this list will be viewed as MLB's admission of guilt or that the outrage will fall on the league office or the various teams' front offices. Indirectly, baseball as a whole will suffer from the posting of the list, so there's that. But it would seem that MLB would be better served by simply admitting its own complicity: "We knew that many players cheated, and we did nothing about it. It was a huge mistake, and we're taking steps to make sure this never happens again. We're sorry."

That would work if the purpose is to show remorse. Instead, the list may turn out to be viewed as MLB's way of saying "we're sorry that so many of these people cheated and that we didn't catch them. We were naive."

#29 Marbleheader


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,123 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 03:11 PM

Word is that George Mitchell’s report on performance-enhancing drugs in the big leagues will not come out until late December at the earliest. . . .

Source: http://www.bostonher...ticleid=1042888

Hmmm, this throws a wrinkle is how GM's have to approach the offseason. Timing kind of sucks.

#30 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,072 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 09:17 PM

Here we go, boys and girls -- according to Verducci, a current player is talking to Mitchell:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/tom_verducci/11/06/mitchell.talk/index.html


From the sound of this, looks more like the kid in class who points to the kid who is talking rather than a 'Sammy the Bull' style confession.

Edited by dcmissle, 06 November 2007 - 09:19 PM.


#31 hescores21

  • 693 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 10:38 PM

So many of these reports coming out are only about the use of HGH, and the new standard response is that it was being used to aid in recovery from an injury (I think we'll hear this more and more). This is somewhat of an acceptable excuse to using HGH, especially when it is suggested by a doctor, trainer, or other. One might argue that it isn't an acceptable excuse for $20,000 worth of the product, which for the average joe that would be true, but for a multi-millionaire ball player the 20k might seem like a worthwhile investment to help recover from an injury. Their thought process might have been that if a little can help them recover, then a lot might really help them recover, and they've got the money to spend on it. Should these players be able to use the "healing" card and get a pass? maybe?




Blaming the use on the healing process of an injury is one thing, but buying the stuff from a Dentist or over the internet or from some Doctor they have never even seen before while trying very hard to keep anyone from knowing tells me it's a bunch of hogwash. Just admit it and move on. Nobody will care in a month!

I could care less if 95% of all players have used PED's. Really, who the eff really cares? Although it would be nice if they published the names of those they uncovered in the investigative process. Then maybe Barry Bonds would get some slack from the media and many fans.

#32 GlenMorangie

  • 781 posts

Posted 06 November 2007 - 11:45 PM

Blaming the use on the healing process of an injury is one thing, but buying the stuff from a Dentist or over the internet or from some Doctor they have never even seen before while trying very hard to keep anyone from knowing tells me it's a bunch of hogwash. Just admit it and move on. Nobody will care in a month!

I could care less if 95% of all players have used PED's. Really, who the eff really cares? Although it would be nice if they published the names of those they uncovered in the investigative process. Then maybe Barry Bonds would get some slack from the media and many fans.


Some fans do not find the quality of the product to be diminished by players' PED use (which is fine & I can understand that), but I care who's using/used. Ultimately, the "product" that I invest my time and money into is a competition. As a consumer of the product, I want to know in what context this competition takes place.

I just want as much information as is possible so that I can make an informed decision as to whether I should continue to follow the sport as intensely as I have for 30+ years.

edit: clarity

Edited by GlenMorangie, 06 November 2007 - 11:46 PM.


#33 January

  • PipPip
  • 2,158 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 12:25 AM

If their serious about 'comming clean' and all that, they should just put out ALL the names at once. Then everyone can cry on each others shoulder, stand stand in a circle, say their name and they they used PED's, their sorry and it won't happen again and be done with it. Then you just suspend people.

The one major benefit of having all the info of who/when is that people will be able to aggregate all the users and get SOME idea how much these things actually help.

I don't think this actually has much effect currently, as everyone seems to have stopped using HGH before MLB banned it.


Well it's not like you can order any of the other steroids from a pharmacy and pay with a credit card. The "healing card" is not a legitimate medical reason for using HGH



Out of curiosity, is HGH a steroid? I though it wasn't. Does it help people heal? If it cost 20K a year, I see it not being a common medical treatment due to cost, but if it actually does help you heal, it would still be legit I think. (Right?) We may actually need you to explain all this stuff Doc. If people are taking it only to recover from injury, then you can make an argument that it isn't cheating. That's a different thread though.

#34 gaelgirl


  • The People's Champion


  • 4,652 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 01:06 AM

Can they suspend anyone because of the Mitchell Report? It seems to me they can't. These are not positive tests, just evidence of use. Unless the "best interests" clause is used, I thought that players could only be suspended because of a positive test. Am I mistaken in that belief?

It seems to me that the Florida clinic information is being manipulated for readers and/or ratings. I don't understand how the names are coming out one or two at a time. If they know about Byrd, how do they not know about Williams?

#35 CodPiece XL

  • 865 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 06:45 AM

Out of curiosity, is HGH a steroid? I though it wasn't. Does it help people heal? If it cost 20K a year, I see it not being a common medical treatment due to cost, but if it actually does help you heal, it would still be legit I think. (Right?) We may actually need you to explain all this stuff Doc. If people are taking it only to recover from injury, then you can make an argument that it isn't cheating. That's a different thread though.


As the name suggests, Human Growth Hormone is a hormone but steroids are also hormones e.g progesterone. Steroids are typically classified by chemical composition/function. HGH is used in a variety of clinical settings but the most common is increasing height growth in children because it stimulates the division of chondrocytes in cartilage which are located at the growing ends of long bones. It's also used in people wasting away from AIDS and some patients with hormonal imbalances. Keeping this brief, HGH supposedly increases muscle mass. So both "steroids" and HGH are anabolic in nature because they promote the growth of skeletal muscle. There are also many other effects of HGH such as decreasing "Cell Programmed Death" when cells die from Apoptosis due to a "suicide gene" known as "fas". - related to aging perhaps.

We've all heard about Balco, but the reason the crap has hit the fan more recently is because some unscrupulous doctors/dentists are prescribing HGH as an anti-aging remedy, despite there being little or no evidence to suggest this. Moreover, A January 23rd, 2007 "Detention Without Physical Examination (DWPE) Alert" clearly states, perhaps more than ever before, that it is not only illegal to market, provide or distribute HGH for anti-aging and athletic use, it is also illegal for doctors to prescribe it for these uses and for anyone to market it for these uses. In short Jose Guillen, Matt Williams and Ismael Valdez allegedly received HGH from an anti-aging clinic in Florida ( PBRC) which is why PBRC are in deep do-do.

I'm am not saying that any of the athletes took HGH for duplicitous reasons and quite frankly I don't care, but it's kind of ironic in a way because there are very few studies, if any, which show that HGH is "performance enhancing" if that indeed was the motive. The jury is still out as far as I'm concerned.

#36 xjack


  • Futbol Crazed


  • 5,162 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 11:12 AM

... As the name suggests, Human Growth Hormone is a hormone but steroids are also hormones e.g progesterone. Steroids are typically classified by In short Jose Guillen, Matt Williams and Ismael Valdez allegedly received HGH from an anti-aging clinic in Florida ( PBRC) which is why PBRC are in deep do-do.

I'm am not saying that any of the athletes took HGH for duplicitous reasons and quite frankly I don't care, but it's kind of ironic in a way because there are very few studies, if any, which show that HGH is "performance enhancing" if that indeed was the motive. The jury is still out as far as I'm concerned.

According to the AP story, Williams continued getting HGH shipments two years after he retired, so with him it obviously was about more than performance enhancement on the field.

#37 Pork Fried Jim Rice

  • 593 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 12:01 PM

I could care less if 95% of all players have used PED's. Really, who the eff really cares? Although it would be nice if they published the names of those they uncovered in the investigative process. Then maybe Barry Bonds would get some slack from the media and many fans.


I do. Steroids are becoming increasingly common at the high school level, and I would assume college too, but I was never really close to college athletic or a D1 program so I can't say for sure. It's one thing if 30 year old men are willing to risk their health for a few extra million, but the thought of 15, 16, 17 year olds having steroids be fairly common scares the shit out of me. From my HS days I knew of two kids that were using them, based on what my little brother (now a freshman in college) told me probably closer to half of the starting football team had tried them. That's a pretty scary increase, and I have no doubt that it's partially due to the increase in steroid publicity in the media due to the large amount of athletes using steroids.

That's my main concern, but beyond that I hate the idea of players getting an edge through illegal drugs. I know that it may be fairly common and there are players on the teams I root for that do it (hello Rodney Harrison), but I'd rather have none of it at all.

#38 kab21

  • 26 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 12:25 PM

It will be interesting to see what MLBPA's stand is on possible suspensions from the Mitchell Report and any other criminal investigations (The PBRC for example).

From what I can understand MLB can suspend anyone that has been involved in illegal activity. Like HGH for example. But I imagine that the MLBPA will fight to the end for the rights of its players. MLBPA is part of the reason that baseball is in this mess IMO.

As an example, Mike Cameron gets a pretty raw deal for getting suspended for 25 games for a stimulant (but that is in the steroid policy). I'm guessing that he is mostly telling the truth about it being in a OTC supplement. But I don't have all the info about Cameron's positive test and stimulants in general. But this is relatively minor compared to Jose Guillen for example taking HGH which is illegal except in very specific circumstances. And can be a big benefit to a player.

I'm concerned about the potential damage to the game if too much information comes out of the Mitchell Report. But I don't think this is any different than the Tour de France actions that went on the last 2 years. If you are really serious about cleaning up the sport then tough steps have to be taken. And the HS/college steroid use is a very valid point.

#39 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,441 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 09:09 PM

According to the AP story, Williams continued getting HGH shipments two years after he retired, so with him it obviously was about more than performance enhancement on the field.


Perhaps he was distributing them.

#40 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 3,787 posts

Posted 07 November 2007 - 09:37 PM

...everyone seems to have stopped using HGH their real names before as soon as MLB banned it.


There's one cynical way to look at the issue.

I'm actually a little more forgving. Is it quite possible that a pile of players used HGH up until its use was explicitly banned by MLB? Sure. Is it quite possible that a majority of those who used HGH up until that date simply stopped when the rules against it were announced? Yes, of course. US law aside (as there are a few hunderd other countries on earth where you can use HGH with no regard to US law) I'm not going to pile on a guy who used an ergogenic aid up until it was banned by the body that governs his sport.

I will, however, be first in line to criticize the guy who KEPT using it after it was explicitly banned.

#41 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,764 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 02:00 PM

David Segui talks of taking PEDs

Says he used HGH, 'roids, and greenies during his career. Interesting read for sure. Segui's retired and obviously has nothing to lose by a full admission.

#42 Marbleheader


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,123 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 02:14 PM

See, Pedro was right for throwing at the cheating bastard Opening Day 2004.

#43 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,764 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 03:54 PM

Wow.

S.I.: Smoke, but no proof yet, that Clemens and Pettite may have used steroids.

Apparently the key is Clemens' personal trainer, who he met while in Toronto and who has been his personal trainer ever since.

Salacious, indeed.

#44 Marbleheader


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,123 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 04:01 PM

That's dated last year, no?

#45 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,764 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 04:02 PM

Holy shit you're right. It was linked on BSMW today and I didn't look at the date closely.

Mea culpa. Never mind.

#46 hunter05


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,058 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 05:03 PM

Per ESPNews - 11 current free agents are in the Mitchell report.

#47 D-Lowe No-No

  • 4 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 05:12 PM

Per ESPNews - 11 current free agents are in the Mitchell report.


11 including Jose Guillen?

#48 jayhoz


  • browndog's marshmallow bitch


  • 12,295 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 05:21 PM

Per ESPNews - 11 current free agents are in the Mitchell report.


According to EEI all 11 have been notified that they are in the report.

Edit - Link

What sort of obligation if any do these guys have to tell their potential future employers that they are under investigation?

Edited by jayhoz, 08 November 2007 - 05:39 PM.


#49 jayhoz


  • browndog's marshmallow bitch


  • 12,295 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 05:37 PM

11 including Jose Guillen?


Jose Guillen is one of the 11. 10 more to go. Let the witch hunt begin.

#50 RedSoxinIsrael

  • 1,150 posts

Posted 08 November 2007 - 05:40 PM

Jose Guillen is one of the 11. 10 more to go. Let the witch hunt begin.



Rotoworld speculating Bonds is one of the 10.