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This topic has been archived.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

#151 LahoudOrBillyC


  • Indian name is Massages Ellsbury


  • 3853 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 05:16 PM

The report will contain a list of people, some of whom did something wrong, and some of whom will be falsely listed due to heresay. In addition, there will be a lot of users who are not listed. No clean player will be exonerated, some will be tarred.

So what do you have? Nothing.

#152 ngruz25


  • Bibby


  • 9541 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 05:57 PM

But to me, Byrd is a classic example for fitting the profile. Here's a pitcher who has struggled with injuries, desperately trying to salvage his career.

So...the "classic example" is just about every other player in the history of baseball?

The "profile" is purely speculative bullshit, and it only fuels the witch hunt and. Manny Alexander takes a steaming dump on the "profile".

#153 Papis Walkoff

  • 27 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 06:36 PM

On MAMD, Mike said that he heard "The Mitchell Report doesn't look good for the NY teams." (he got a call from someone who had info?)Another words...a lot of Yankees and Mets on the list. He Francesa did not look happy...

Edited by Papis Walkoff, 12 December 2007 - 06:37 PM.


#154 Jinhocho


  • SoSH Member


  • 8778 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 06:46 PM

On MAMD, Mike said that he heard "The Mitchell Report doesn't look good for the NY teams." (he got a call from someone who had info?)Another words...a lot of Yankees and Mets on the list. He Francesa did not look happy...


It stands to reason that the Mets would get hammered on this one. For the Yanks, we know Sheffield and Giambi are on the list. People have suspected Damon as well. Maybe Clemens gets named - I never thought so but this might be enough to make Mike down. Also, since Grimsley played in NY its likely that it might have been him that spread it to others on the MFY.

#155 Guinevere

  • 508 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 06:48 PM

This report won't heal anything at all. It will only pick at the scab. A complete waste of time, and bad for baseball. Just set up sensible policies AND ENFORCE THEM. All the caterwauling about remorse and baseball's special burden and whatnot is irrelevant nonsense.


Sadly, in order to set up a sensible policy and enforce that policy you still have to convince MLB, the union, the owners, and even the fans, that there is a problem. Once you're established that -- with some credible evidence beyond rumor, innuendo, and Jose Canseco, then you can work on creating and enforcing the sensible policy.

#156 Drury77

  • 27 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 06:51 PM

Do the casual fans even care, or for that matter the diehard fans care about the steriods in MLB, anymore?

I care to a certain degree, but the Mitchell Report is only going to muck up the waters, and isn't going to bring any clarity to situation. Players are going to be blasted, while owners, trainers, doctors, and the league itself gets off with saying " well we didn't know this was going on".

I'm most interested in which BoSox is going to be on the list, because of Mitchell's connections with the Sox, you have to KNOW that a Sox has to be named, due to the potential accusations that have already come out about conflict of interest.

#157 ScubaSteveAvery


  • the goats! think of the goats!


  • 6798 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 07:03 PM

So...the "classic example" is just about every other player in the history of baseball?

The "profile" is purely speculative bullshit, and it only fuels the witch hunt and. Manny Alexander takes a steaming dump on the "profile".


I'm not sure how reliable this is, but in October of 2005, Nate Silver, at BP wrote an article dissecting the types of players who took steroids (Chapter 9-1 in Baseball Between the Numbers)

His conclusions were:
-Unexplained changes in player performance are the norm, not the exception.
-Relatively few players are steroid users
-The average performance improvement from steroid use is detectable but small
-Marginal players are more inclined than star performers to use steroids.

On that last point, he concluded this:

The reason marginal players are more inclined to use steroids is because they stand more to gain from doing so. Baseball, like any other modern economy, is characterized by the large gap between rich and comparatively poor players. In 2004, for example, a majority of major league payroll was allocated to fewer than one hundred players, and most of this money was tied up in guaranteed, long-term contracts. Players have tremendous incentive to break into this economic elite by receiving a lucrative free-agent contract, by whatever means may be at their disposal. [Furthermore]a player who is considered a fringe prospect will have more incentive to use steroids than one who is good enough to be essentially guaranteed a major league job. Pg 341.


So while it is all speculative from our POV, there is a common player type that fits the steroid stereotype. Essentially any fringe guy who is at risk of losing his job, and subsequently thousands of hundreds to millions of dollars fits the person who would gain the most from steroids and possibly took them. The Paul Byrd comp isn't so absurd under this reasoning.

#158 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 10950 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 07:33 PM

Do the casual fans even care, or for that matter the diehard fans care about the steriods in MLB, anymore?

I care to a certain degree, but the Mitchell Report is only going to muck up the waters, and isn't going to bring any clarity to situation. Players are going to be blasted, while owners, trainers, doctors, and the league itself gets off with saying " well we didn't know this was going on".

I'm most interested in which BoSox is going to be on the list, because of Mitchell's connections with the Sox, you have to KNOW that a Sox has to be named, due to the potential accusations that have already come out about conflict of interest.



The fans only care if it's a star, and more to the point, if it's a star approaching the all-time HR record. The amount of indifference among Red Sox fans and media about Rafael Betancourt, a convicted steroid user, during the ALCS convinced me for good that the fans really do not care, and the media only cares when it makes them feel important and morally superior.

#159 cheekydave

  • 2352 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 07:52 PM

The fans only care if it's a star, and more to the point, if it's a star approaching the all-time HR record. The amount of indifference among Red Sox fans and media about Rafael Betancourt, a convicted steroid user, during the ALCS convinced me for good that the fans really do not care, and the media only cares when it makes them feel important and morally superior.



wow

http://www.rotoworld...t/home_MLB.aspx


George Mitchell's report on drugs in baseball will finger MVPs and All-Stars, The Associated Press learned Wednesday.

It'd be interesting to see Miguel Tejada named just one day after being traded, as it could be taken as a sign the Orioles knew it was coming. The report, set to be released at 2 p.m. EST on Thursday, will not address amphetamines. It will call for a beefed-up testing program conducted by an outside agency.

Edited by cheekydave, 12 December 2007 - 07:52 PM.


#160 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2063 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 07:54 PM

I get the feeling that people who ask "do people even care?", are saying that as a passive-aggressive way of saying "I don't care and I wish nobody else cared either".

Because the answer is obvious, yes, people care. Maybe not everyone, but enough of them care, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten here.

Fans may not care about a person's history of having been caught doing steroids, what many do care about, is ensuring that nobody in currently doing them, and setting up a system that detects it.

So if this report can get MLB, MLBPA, and the players themselves, to take the problem more seriously, then it will have done its job.

But as far as particularly caring about which names are on the list, I will admit that I don't really care, other than size of the list and caliber of players on the list may contribute to establishing the extent of the abuse.

Edited by Ananti, 12 December 2007 - 08:35 PM.


#161 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 10950 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 08:02 PM

I get the feeling that people who ask "do people even care?", as saying that as a passive-aggressive way of saying "I don't care and I wish nobody else cared either".

Because the answer is obvious, yes, people care. Maybe not everyone, but enough of them care, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten here.

Fans may not care about a person's history of having been caught doing steroids, what they many do care about, is ensuring that nobody in currently doing them, and setting up a system that detects it.

So if this report can get MLB, MLBPA, and the players themselves, to take the problem more seriously, then it will have done its job.

But as far as particularly caring about which names are on the list, I will admit that I don't really care, other than size of the list and caliber of players on the list may contribute to establishing the extent of the abuse.


Ananti's right, and I should clarify my previous post. I don't think anyone cares who was doing steroids 5 years ago, during a time when everyone was doing them. So do we care about the names on the list? Not really. It'll make for some interesting discussion (and intolerable media reaction).

I like to think that baseball is fairly clean going forward, and that's probably naive. However I'd rather suspect no one than suspect everyone, b/c this is a game I follow for my enjoyment, and feeling like everyone was tainted would decrease my enjoyment. Call me willfully ignorant, if you will.

#162 Senorec

  • 859 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 08:22 PM

Sorry if this is rehashing an issue, but do we know the general involvement of the Front Offices of the teams, especially GMs? To me it would make plenty of sense for them to be approached by Mitchell; however, I can also understand that it would not be in their best interest to implicate their own players on many levels. GMs, like Kevin Towers (re: Caminiti) and Sandy Alderson (re: Canseco) have claimed to have suspicions after the fact, but did not act. So it would make sense for them to be approached.

My question is: Did Mitchell approach GMs/Front offices in conducting his report? If not, was it at the request of the owners not to or simply because he knew he wouldn't get much cooperation?

#163 MoGator71

  • 4963 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 08:22 PM

Ananti's right, and I should clarify my previous post. I don't think anyone cares who was doing steroids 5 years ago, during a time when everyone was doing them. So do we care about the names on the list? Not really. It'll make for some interesting discussion (and intolerable media reaction).

I like to think that baseball is fairly clean going forward, and that's probably naive. However I'd rather suspect no one than suspect everyone, b/c this is a game I follow for my enjoyment, and feeling like everyone was tainted would decrease my enjoyment. Call me willfully ignorant, if you will.


I think some people really care (take Mad Dog, for one). But I think most of the people who claim to care, care in the same way they care about the President getting a hummer...as in, something to throw in the face of the enemy. I think Sox fans will get a kick out of mocking any high-profile Yankees that might be on the list, and vice versa, but I don't think they actually care. People only care about Bonds because he broke records.

#164 Talon


  • sosh's adolfo gonzalez


  • 2514 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 08:30 PM

eh the whole former MVP & All Stars thing means nothing because we know already

Bonds, Barry
Giambi, Jason
Sosa, Sammy
Caminiti, Ken
Gonzalez, Juan
Vaughn, Mo

are all former MVP's from 1995-2007 and each of them have either been linked (Gonzalez, Sosa, Bonds) or have admitted (Vaughn, Caminiti, Giambi) to prior use of some sort so whatever really. and each and nearly every other player who won the MVP from 1995-2007, excluding Barry Larkin, Justin Morneau, Jimmy Rollins and Ichiro Suzuki (this list includes: Jeff Kent, Chipper Jones, Ivan Rodriguez, Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, Ken Griffey, Ryan Howard, Miguel Tejada, Larry Walker and Vladimir Guerrero) have been at least hinted to by people.

Give me the name of somebody that nobody here nor anywhere else would expect to see on this list and then I'll care. But to say "includes former MVPs & All Stars" is a total cop out because it's not anything everybody did not already know.

#165 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4093 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 08:35 PM

On MAMD, Mike said that he heard "The Mitchell Report doesn't look good for the NY teams." (he got a call from someone who had info?)Another words...a lot of Yankees and Mets on the list. He Francesa did not look happy...


And naturally this will cause NY fans of both ilks to start crying foul about George Mitchell's ties to the Red Sox, especially if no real Boston players are named.

#166 PooNani

  • 862 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 08:49 PM

And naturally this will cause NY fans of both ilks to start crying foul about George Mitchell's ties to the Red Sox, especially if no real Boston players are named.

And why wouldnt they? There's no semblance of legitimacy behind this report. If Ortiz showed up on the list tomorrow, i certainly won't be jumping around high-fiving my friends.

#167 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 10950 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:05 PM

According to ESPN.com, Mitchell blames both MLB and the MLBPA for the problem, and offers solutions going forward. This is good news, despite Bryant's article.

"He admits that he can only go back so far because of the lack of cooperation, but says it's more important to move ahead," one lawyer said




Link

edit: Damn links...

Edited by The Four Peters, 12 December 2007 - 09:06 PM.


#168 MoGator71

  • 4963 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:23 PM

have admitted (Vaughn) to prior use of some sort


Mo Vaughn admitted to using PEDs? I don't remember that. Not saying he didn't, but if he did I totally missed it.

#169 Talon


  • sosh's adolfo gonzalez


  • 2514 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:25 PM

Mo Vaughn admitted to using PEDs? I don't remember that. Not saying he didn't, but if he did I totally missed it.


Mo has been candid in the past about using an item called PRO-hGH.

#170 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4093 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:26 PM

And why wouldnt they? There's no semblance of legitimacy behind this report. If Ortiz showed up on the list tomorrow, i certainly won't be jumping around high-fiving my friends.


The anti-George Mitchell bias is getting on my nerves.

George Mitchell can be trusted with Cold-War intelligence reports, national secrets, and negotiating peace deals around the world, but he can't be trusted to oversee a fact-finding investigation that might implicate some athletes of a team he has only a token stake in?

#171 MoGator71

  • 4963 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:29 PM

Mo has been candid in the past about using an item called PRO-hGH.


I'd never heard that.

Well I was always a Mo fan and it doesn't bother me...so I guess nothing to fear in the Mitchell report.

Edit: And Google is my friend.

http://www.thinkmusc...man/mcgwire.htm

Edited by MoGator71, 12 December 2007 - 09:31 PM.


#172 PooNani

  • 862 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:32 PM

The anti-George Mitchell bias is getting on my nerves.

George Mitchell can be trusted with Cold-War intelligence reports, national secrets, and negotiating peace deals around the world, but he can't be trusted to oversee a fact-finding investigation that might implicate some athletes of a team he has only a token stake in?


Where is the evidence?

#173 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 10950 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:33 PM

The anti-George Mitchell bias is getting on my nerves.

George Mitchell can be trusted with Cold-War intelligence reports, national secrets, and negotiating peace deals around the world, but he can't be trusted to oversee a fact-finding investigation that might implicate some athletes of a team he has only a token stake in?



I agree. The man brokered peace in Northern Ireland. Ive never thought he would be biased for the Sox in this. My problem was and is the purpose of the report in the first place, and was based largely on the Howard Bryant article refereneced earlier. However some of the quotes released by ESPN are promising, so I'll reserve judgement.

#174 Foulkey Reese


  • foulkiavelli


  • 20007 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:51 PM

Where is the evidence?

Of what?

Nothing has been released yet!

#175 Buck Showalter


  • SoSH Member


  • 5002 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 09:52 PM

On MAMD, Mike said that he heard "The Mitchell Report doesn't look good for the NY teams." (he got a call from someone who had info?)Another words...a lot of Yankees and Mets on the list. He Francesa did not look happy...


Well considering Kirk Radomski grew-up in the Bronx, worked as a clubhouse attendant with the Mets and lived on Long Island.........is it a surprise?

#176 Papis Walkoff

  • 27 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 10:26 PM

And naturally this will cause NY fans of both ilks to start crying foul about George Mitchell's ties to the Red Sox, especially if no real Boston players are named.


On what grounds can you question Mitchell's integrity? The man has a solid history of service to his country over the past 50 years. I don't think he got into this so he could cover up any Red Sox transgressions. Why would he risk his legacy for something so petty. Living in NJ, I hear this kind of conspiracy theory hogwash on a regular basis...

#177 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 4093 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 10:33 PM

On what grounds can you question Mitchell's integrity? The man has a solid history of service to his country over the past 50 years. I don't think he got into this so he could cover up any Red Sox transgressions. Why would he risk his legacy for something so petty. Living in NJ, I hear this kind of conspiracy theory hogwash on a regular basis...


Have you read my posts? I am in fact defending Mitchell.

#178 snowmanny

  • 2278 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 10:37 PM

On what grounds can you question Mitchell's integrity? The man has a solid history of service to his country over the past 50 years. I don't think he got into this so he could cover up any Red Sox transgressions. Why would he risk his legacy for something so petty. Living in NJ, I hear this kind of conspiracy theory hogwash on a regular basis...


On XM Radio today Dibble guaranteed that there would be no current Red Sox players listed in the report because of Mitchell's stake in the Red Sox. Now when they named Mitchell to head the investigation they probably didn't forsee the World Series-Spygate-Undefeated Patriots-Best Record in the NBA- fueled anti-Boston hysteria that has swept the nation. But it was still pretty dumb (at least in retrospect) to put themselves in this position. Perception is reality in a case like this, especially when (as Poo-Nani points out) whatever evidence they have is going to be pretty easy to question.

#179 Papis Walkoff

  • 27 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 10:44 PM

On XM Radio today Dibble guaranteed that there would be no current Red Sox players listed in the report because of Mitchell's stake in the Red Sox. Now when they named Mitchell to head the investigation they probably didn't forsee the World Series-Spygate-Undefeated Patriots-Best Record in the NBA- fueled anti-Boston hysteria that has swept the nation. But it was still pretty dumb (at least in retrospect) to put themselves in this position. Perception is reality in a case like this, especially when (as Poo-Nani points out) whatever evidence they have is going to be pretty easy to question.


So I guess when no one from Colorado shows up that's just a coincidence, but when no one from the Red Sox shows up, it's pre-meditated? You hit it on the head...it's hip to hate Boston these days...

#180 Papis Walkoff

  • 27 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 10:46 PM

Have you read my posts? I am in fact defending Mitchell.


Sorry....my reply was phrased poorly. It should have said "How can anyone question Mitchell"....not necessarily you! :(

#181 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41497 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 10:49 PM

Selig somehow believes that this investigation is going to help bring back legitimacy to baseball in the eyes of the fans. I would like to get inside his clouded head and figure out exactly what led him to that conclusion. Reports now indicate that there are 80 or so players on the list and that there are stars included. So what's going to happen tomorrow when the names are released? It's going to be a gigantic clusterfuck, that's what. Stars from present and past will be named, franchises will be tarnished, more speculation that will linger on for decades will begin, and the entire legitimacy of baseball will be completely eradicated.

What is Selig's logic here? Does he think that it's better for the fans to "know" all the players that are on roids? Does he actually believe that people will stop speculating as to who is/is not on roids because of this list? What's going to happen when the Jose Cansecos of the world waltz on to TV and say "this list is garbage, I know of at least 30 other guys who aren't named?" Not only will people continue to speculate about certain players, but the focus now will be more on the league itself. Don't get me wrong, there has always been a group that believe baseball is overrun with roids, but I believe that most people limited it to players who "fit the profile" and even gave them the benefit of the doubt. Once we start seeing names and people like the Paul Byrds of the world appear on the list, then nobody is going to know what to think. The entire profile will be altered and literally every single player in the league will be subject to steroid speculation. And please, do not get me started on the methodology of this, if any of us truly know what it was.

The best thing baseball could have done was continue the testing and continue to attempt to find a way to detect HGH and other stimulants. And there's another thing that this report will do, it will undermine the legitimacy of MLB's own testing policy. When players appear on the list and are mentioned in years after the testing began, then will people ever trust the testing system again? No, and now fans are given the standard of a congressional investigation to get an "accurate" list of players on the roids. Will a congressman be doing this every year? Will it alternate between people who own stocks in different franchises?

No matter how many angles I approach this at, I just can't understand what the hell Selig is doing. He's not the knight in shining armor he thinks he is, he's the stooge that just opened up Pandora's Box. The baseball really wanted to turn its image around, it should begin by hanging this fool for treason.

All this for a list that isn't even going to be accurate...

Edited by Ed Hillel, 12 December 2007 - 10:50 PM.


#182 Lukiewerle

  • 268 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 11:10 PM

link...

Both lawyers told ESPN that the report assigns blame for the rise of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball "from top to bottom," and recommends that MLB and the union agree to outsource their drug testing program to an independent agency.



Chiming in late here, but even if the MLBPA & MLB were to agree to have testing managed by an external agency, does anyone think this would really reduce the amount of doping in Baseball? Or would the Mitchell Report and the aforementioned measure just act as a binky to the fans? (Has an external agency managed to stop doping in the Olympics?).

Obviously I'm a bit of a pessimist in regards to stopping the use of PED's in sports (otherwise I'm very much an optimist :( ). But I also see myself as a realist. Players are still doping and will continue to dope regardless of the Mitchell report. Keep in mind that the Us Anti-Doping Agency had no test for, or knowledge of, THG (the "Cream & the Clear") until a disgruntled track coach sent a syringe to the agency -- and that was nearly five years ago. Does anyone really think that the Science of PED's hasn't advanced since then? Just think of the advances in bio-tech in the past five yeas. The reality is that PE technology is, and inherently always will be, one step ahead of testing and the US Anti-Doping Agency since the USADA can only test for drugs they know to be in use.

[begin futurist tangent]
Twenty years down the line we will most likely be looking back at the Mitchell report & the hysteria surrounding it and wonder why we were freaking out about the earlier performance enhancers (HGH in particular). What athletes could potentially be using in the near future will dwarf the PED's of present day (think genetic modification). OK, fine.... go ahead and laugh -- I'm a trans-humanist nerd.
[/ futurist tangent]

So, No -- I don’t think the trouble that the Mitchell report will cause the MLB will be worth the reward of knowing the names of a small fraction of the cheaters in Baseball, nor do I think an external agency will do much to deter other athletes from using PED’s; and as a fan of the game of Baseball – and other sports for that matter – it’s extraordinarily frustrating.

Edited by Lukiewerle, 12 December 2007 - 11:10 PM.


#183 Philip Jeff Frye


  • SoSH Member


  • 5332 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 11:21 PM

On what grounds can you question Mitchell's integrity? The man has a solid history of service to his country over the past 50 years. I don't think he got into this so he could cover up any Red Sox transgressions. Why would he risk his legacy for something so petty. Living in NJ, I hear this kind of conspiracy theory hogwash on a regular basis...

Well, Mitchell was the target of significant shareholder dissatisfaction over corporate governance issues at Disney during his time as a director there. A lot of this ire was really directed at Michael Eisner, but Mitchell was seen as an Eisner crony who did whatever was needed to keep his buddy in the chairman/CEO role a long time after many concluded he should leave. When Eisner was finally forced out as chairman, Mitchell took the position, which the shareholder activists basically thought was just Eisner putting his puppet in his place.

I'm not saying that Mitchell is or isn't a man of integrity, but this won't exactly be the first time he's been in a position where his relationships have been questioned.

#184 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2063 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 11:22 PM

Can you ever catch every murderer, every thief, every rapist, every con-man?

No, does that make the laws designed to catch those people and punish them invalid and pointless?

The point is to maintain the integrity of the sport in the eyes of the public, nobody is under the delusion that any regulation can completely stop any illicit activity, but you earn the faith of the public in your integrity by making a good faith effort to control those things.

#185 Lukiewerle

  • 268 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 11:38 PM

Can you ever catch every murderer, every thief, every rapist, every con-man?

No, does that make the laws designed to catch those people and punish them invalid and pointless?

The point is to maintain the integrity of the sport in the eyes of the public, nobody is under the delusion that any regulation can completely stop any illicit activity, but you earn the faith of the public in your integrity by making a good faith effort to control those things.



This is a very good & valid point.

I guess I'm just as skeptical about the war on performance enhancers as I am about the "war on drugs".

That being said, player education about PED's and their effects & possible dangers (which is apparently recommended in Mitchell's report) seems like a step in the right direction. I assume most players have a basic understanding of the benefits and dangers, but if they are still using HGH in order to "enhance" their performance, they clearly need to do a bit of reading

#186 DieHard3


  • SoSH Member


  • PipPipPip
  • 8864 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 11:49 PM

The Bryant article mentioned the possible use of names from the pre-season testing that was done a few seasons ago that was supposed to be 100% confidential.

At the time, there were hints that certain players intentionally caused the "hit rate" to be high, so full-scale testing would therefore have to be implemented (If I recall, a 5% hit rate would have meant installing a full testing plan). Their rationale was: 1) this is confidential, so I'm not at risk of getting caught, and 2) Why should these cheaters get to... well... cheat, when the rest of us are playing by the rules.

If true... this is going to be a massive clusterf*(#... beyond the already cluster*)@ it looks like it will be.


I'm pretty sure that refusing to take the test was deemed "failure" for those purposes, so those players didn't submit a tainted sample, they just refused and were deemed to have failed by the standard of guilty until proven innocent.

#187 xjack


  • Futbol Crazed


  • 5155 posts

Posted 12 December 2007 - 11:49 PM

That being said, player education about PED's and their effects & possible dangers (which is apparently recommended in Mitchell's report) seems like a step in the right direction. I assume most players have a basic understanding of the benefits and dangers, but if they are still using HGH in order to "enhance" their performance, they clearly need to do a bit of reading

I know I'm supposed to care about this stuff.

The only reason I care about the Mitchell report is whether Roger Clemens' name is in it.

#188 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41497 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 12:01 AM

Can you ever catch every murderer, every thief, every rapist, every con-man?

No, does that make the laws designed to catch those people and punish them invalid and pointless?

The point is to maintain the integrity of the sport in the eyes of the public, nobody is under the delusion that any regulation can completely stop any illicit activity, but you earn the faith of the public in your integrity by making a good faith effort to control those things.


Until I see exactly how this "investigation" was undertaken I am in no position, as a member of the jury here, to condemn any of the players on that list.

For argument's sake, let's just make the gigantic assumption that all of those names are accurate. What, then, will be done to those players? Will they be punished? If so, by who? I don't see any grounds upon which MLB will be able to suspend any of these alleged dopers without any sort of physical evidence. Will Selig and Mitchell decide to lead a gigantic FBI-led criminal investigation into the matter? I'd say that's extremely unlikely. So what good is this list? What's the point in identifying criminals if you can't punish the crime. All it's going to do is create mass hysteria.

Edited by Ed Hillel, 13 December 2007 - 12:03 AM.


#189 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2063 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 12:10 AM

Until I see exactly how this "investigation" was undertaken I am in no position, as a member of the jury here, to condemn any of the players on that list.

For argument's sake, let's just make the gigantic assumption that all of those names are accurate. What, then, will be done to those players? Will they be punished? If so, by who? I don't see any grounds upon which MLB will be able to suspend any of these alleged dopers without any sort of physical evidence. Will Selig and Mitchell decide to lead a gigantic FBI-led criminal investigation into the matter? I'd say that's extremely unlikely. So what good is this list? What's the point in identifying criminals if you can't punish the crime. All it's going to do is create mass hysteria.


How about just let the public know the truth and see how they respond to it? MLB is a business entity. The public is the consumer. They have a right to know the truth behind the performances they are paying to see.

Nobody can determine ahead of time "what then?" because nobody can predict exactly how the public will react. What are some of you afraid of? That the public will know the truth?

#190 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41497 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 12:23 AM

What are some of you afraid of? That the public will know the truth?


What "truth?" Do you really think that the Mitchell Report will correctly identify 100% of the players on illegal PEDs and that there will absolutely no false-positives on it? If you do not believe that, then you must acknowledge that we are not getting the objective "truth" of roids/illegal PEDs in baseball.

Even if we could get such a list, I think it would be pointless and bad for baseball. The best way for MLB to proceed is to acknowledge that they royally F'ed up in the past by not taking this matter seriously and to vow to do all they can in the future to stop it and keep the public informed. People aren't going to care that MLB went through this effort, they're going to care about the names on the list and all that's going to do is create more distrust of MLB and its players from baseball fans in the future.

#191 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 10950 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 12:28 AM

How about just let the public know the truth and see how they respond to it? MLB is a business entity. The public is the consumer. They have a right to know the truth behind the performances they are paying to see.

Nobody can determine ahead of time "what then?" because nobody can predict exactly how the public will react. What are some of you afraid of? That the public will know the truth?



The problem is that this isn't the full truth. If you told me that this report would be 100% factual and would cover everything that happened during the steroid era, i would be fascinated, and morbidly curious. I think what a lot of people's objections are that the the investigation was poorly conceived, comes off as a lame attempt to "find the truth", and does little to help. Does that mean George Mitchell didn't do the best, most objective job possible? Of course not. He was in an impossible position to start. I think it was Selig's mistake to have this done from the beginning.


As far as what lukiewerle is saying...

[begin futurist tangent]Twenty years down the line we will most likely be looking back at the Mitchell report & the hysteria surrounding it and wonder why we were freaking out about the earlier performance enhancers (HGH in particular). What athletes could potentially be using in the near future will dwarf the PED's of present day (think genetic modification). OK, fine.... go ahead and laugh -- I'm a trans-humanist nerd.
[/ futurist tangent]



I don't think this is far off. For anyone who has read The Juice by Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus (and if you haven't I highly recommend it), you know that this stuff will absolutely be possible, and sooner than you think. Imagine of the concept of a cortisone shot 40 years ago? People would think that would be absurd, or at least I'm assuming so, I'll admit I don't know the history of the cortisone shot.

#192 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2063 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 12:39 AM

So the alternative is what, hush hush and cover everything up?

How do you know the report isn't true? You haven't even read it yet. Are you just predisposed to believe its false because you're afraid of what maybe in it?

And if the report is inaccurate, and if the investigative procedures are problematic, why do you have such contempt for the public that you don't think they can see the problems as well as you? Instead of assuming you have the critical faculties to distrust some of the more iffy findings but that nobody else will.

#193 Metrician

  • 271 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 12:47 AM

The person who read the report also said that information fromBrian McNamee, a former Yankees strength coach who has worked as a personal trainer for Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, had been provided to Mitchell's investigators. It was not clear if McNamee spoke directly to the investigators, or if information he provided is in the report. In a conference call Wednesday to discuss his 2008 contract with the Yankees, Pettitte said that he was not working out with McNamee and did not know if McNamee had spoken to Mitchell's investigators...One other person familiar with Mitchell's findings said the report would name more than 50 active and former major league players who are linked to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. The person who read the report said among those named would be the winners of Cy Young and Most Valuable Player awards.

http://www.nytimes.c...html?ref=sports

#194 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 12:51 AM

Mitchell should have cut ties with the Red Sox. Or MLB should have agreed to another lead investigator with no conflict of interest issues. This has nothing to do with whether any Red Sox are, in fact, named in the report and everything to do with creating a legitimate report.

In a situation like this, baseball would be wise to make the process appear as fair and balanced as possible. Otherwise it will be much more difficult to move forward.

#195 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 10950 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:09 AM

So the alternative is what, hush hush and cover everything up?

How do you know the report isn't true? You haven't even read it yet. Are you just predisposed to believe its false because you're afraid of what maybe in it?

And if the report is inaccurate, and if the investigative procedures are problematic, why do you have such contempt for the public that you don't think they can see the problems as well as you? Instead of assuming you have the critical faculties to distrust some of the more iffy findings but that nobody else will.



You're right. I don't know that the report isn't true. I just know it's not the full truth. When he only talks to two players, one against his will, I don't think he's getting the whole truth. The Howard Bryant article referenced many times in this thread also illuminates a lot of the problems with the process.

I don't hold any contempt for the public. My contempt is for a majority of the media. And I'm not even talking about the beat writers, who on the whole do a great job. I'm referring to the columnists of the world. They pass judgement and throw opinions and suggestions around as fact, and the public bases a lot of their opinions off of that. I am guessing (repeat: guessing) that the public will see the headlines of who is named, say "they were on the juice" and go on their way.

Like I said before, the preview of the recommendations that Mitchell makes was a promising development, and one I hope is a sign of what the report contains. Even then, what do they accomplish? They established that a bunch of players probably used PED's, that it was prevalent in the game, that a lot of people aren't too concerned about fixing it, and that baseball needs to change the culture, educate more, and strengthen their testing. We needed 2 years and however many million dollars for that? Granted, this could be wrong, i'm basing my opinion on what's available to us at the moment.

Again, to repeat a previous statement I made, the focus should be on what the plan is going forward, not what happened in the past. Use the past to help you from repeating mistakes, and tell Congress, the media, the public, etc what changes you will keep implementing.

I just see it as much ado about not a whole lot we don't already know. I am certainly not afraid of what's in there, I honestly don't care too much either way. I guess you could say I am curious, but will not be mad/sad/disappointed/happy about what's in there. Except for when Clemens is exposed. Then I'll be happy.

And my critical faculties are no higher or lower than anyone else. Don't be supercilious.

/end rant

Edited by The Four Peters, 13 December 2007 - 01:10 AM.


#196 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2063 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:20 AM

Of course it's not the whole truth, but hopefully it will add more facts to the the pool of available knowledge, and I'd have to think that the more facts we have, the better decision we all can make on if actions should be taken, and what type of actions should be taken.

That's why I don't understand the attitude of "what good is this investigation anyway", as if if we're all kept in the dark as to what happened, we'd be better off. I guess ignorance really is bliss for some.

Again, I don't know what's in the report, and once we see it, we can then evaluate it and critique it. This preemptive dismissal of it as worthless is silly.

#197 The Four Peters


  • can peacefully dougie off this mortal coil


  • 10950 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 01:34 AM

No i see where you're coming from, and don't totally disagree. I'm basing my opinion on the Bryant article and the preview ESPN.com has provided. Can it provide some good? Sure. I just think it has been built up (by Bud, the media, the public) as a panacea, and I'm not sure it will be just that. You're right though. I think everyone is better off waiting until it comes out, and then going from there.

Who knows, I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time today (or this hour probably). Either way it will be interesting debate, there's no doubt about that.

#198 Jinhocho


  • SoSH Member


  • 8778 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 03:40 AM

Selig somehow believes that this investigation is going to help bring back legitimacy to baseball in the eyes of the fans. I would like to get inside his clouded head and figure out exactly what led him to that conclusion. Reports now indicate that there are 80 or so players on the list and that there are stars included. So what's going to happen tomorrow when the names are released? It's going to be a gigantic clusterfuck, that's what. Stars from present and past will be named, franchises will be tarnished, more speculation that will linger on for decades will begin, and the entire legitimacy of baseball will be completely eradicated.

What is Selig's logic here? Does he think that it's better for the fans to "know" all the players that are on roids? Does he actually believe that people will stop speculating as to who is/is not on roids because of this list? What's going to happen when the Jose Cansecos of the world waltz on to TV and say "this list is garbage, I know of at least 30 other guys who aren't named?" Not only will people continue to speculate about certain players, but the focus now will be more on the league itself. Don't get me wrong, there has always been a group that believe baseball is overrun with roids, but I believe that most people limited it to players who "fit the profile" and even gave them the benefit of the doubt. Once we start seeing names and people like the Paul Byrds of the world appear on the list, then nobody is going to know what to think. The entire profile will be altered and literally every single player in the league will be subject to steroid speculation. And please, do not get me started on the methodology of this, if any of us truly know what it was.

The best thing baseball could have done was continue the testing and continue to attempt to find a way to detect HGH and other stimulants. And there's another thing that this report will do, it will undermine the legitimacy of MLB's own testing policy. When players appear on the list and are mentioned in years after the testing began, then will people ever trust the testing system again? No, and now fans are given the standard of a congressional investigation to get an "accurate" list of players on the roids. Will a congressman be doing this every year? Will it alternate between people who own stocks in different franchises?

No matter how many angles I approach this at, I just can't understand what the hell Selig is doing. He's not the knight in shining armor he thinks he is, he's the stooge that just opened up Pandora's Box. The baseball really wanted to turn its image around, it should begin by hanging this fool for treason.

All this for a list that isn't even going to be accurate...


I think it keeps Congress off of his back and will do a significant bit with the fans.

#199 Pandemonium67

  • 3190 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 04:16 AM

I believe that Mitchell has put in an honest effort and that his ties to the Red Sox will not affect anything about the report.

I also believe that, because of those ties, it was a mistake to choose him.

#200 Wingack


  • Yankee Mod


  • 10215 posts

Posted 13 December 2007 - 07:08 AM

According to a Fox News reporter there are no Mets players on Mitchell's list.