849 replies to this topic

[YTF]

My 2 cents...............First off, MLB was forced into this. Everything that MLB has done in regards to this matter has been reactive and not proactive. I have absolutely no prob with this investigation and it is long overdue. It will not destroy baseball and the sooner this report comes out, NO MATTER WHO IS IN IT, the better of the game will be. Sure it will suck to read of All Star caliber players having ties to this, but so what. Do we continue to turn a blind eye to it all and just keep on speculating?

If MLB is serious about this, this report should be the first step of trying to police this problem. I also think that there should be some sort independent follow up of this. An ongoing investigation/monitoring of any and all sources of evidence. If the door opens and closes with this report the problem doesn't go away (though it never will totally) it just goes dormant for a bit. Lets clean this mess up, restore some level of trust and move forward.

One last thing............There's talk that Mitchell won't expose any Sox, or at least questions of what the perception be if there are no Sox on the list. Depending on what you chose to read, they are talking something like 65-80 names on the list. Roughly an average of 2-2.5 players per team. I think that it is safe to say that some teams will have considerably more players linked leaving some to perhaps have no one linked to their team. Some players may have played for several teams during the time frame of the investigation. What's it all mean? Beats the hell out of me, just bringing it up because I am sure that some teams will not have any one linked to usage in this report. That said, EVERYONE needs to keep in mind that this report is incomplete. It doesn't mean that Mitchell is trying to protect anyone. The report only reflects a certain time frame and was conducted with whatever evidence could be found. Remember, players, trainers, doctors and clubhouse guys aren't lining up to speak on this. If any team is without players listed in the Mitchell report, it means nothing other than what the evidence IN HAND found.

Quite frankly, I don't care who's listed. Sure I would like to think that there are no Sox on that list, but if there are so be it. Expose them. I'm a big boy, I can take the disappointment. Let's hope that the MLB learns something from this entire process and more important............from the inactivity that led up to it. The game will survive this, it already has. It's time to move ahead.

[NortheasternPJ]

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

Maybe no current players, but I can't imagine that some names from the Mets aren't on there?

[Wingack]

Maybe no current players, but I can't imagine that some names from the Mets aren't on there?

Probably, they said there are no current Mets and several current Yankees and hinted at CY Young winning pitchers, which there are no CY Young winning pitchers on the Yankee roster now that Clemens is gone. I assume he is on the list though and Andy too.

[dolfanmark]

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...

The purpose of this investigation was not to name every player that has used steroids. Such a task would have been impossible. Mitchell was assigned the task of investigating the use of PEDs in baseball. And from the initial reports, it sounds like he's going to expose a large drug culture, and recommend more stringent testing. Let's assume that Selig wanted better testing. The MLBPA doesn't want it, that's for sure. This investigation could force the MLBPA to accept the more stringent testing. Baseball's testing policy needs to have it's legitimacy undermined. It's a joke. Anyone who thinks the game has been cleaned up one iota because of testing is naive. The folks at the UCLA Labs say they can only catch 10-15% of dopers, because of masking agents, different undetectable steroids that they don't even know exist, and hi-tech designer steroids that are made to break down in urine. And that 10-15% # is just for urine tests for steroids. It doesn't include any test for HGH, so HGH users are free to use without any fear of being caught. MLB's testing policy is not very intense, so combined with all the other factors, the odds of them catching a doper is probably in the 1-5% range. If year-round, more stringent testing is the result of this report, then it's a good thing.

[Guinevere]

Howard Bryant has an article on ESPN.com this morning shredding the report, and focussing in some part on Mitchell's connections to the Sox. Full article here: http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=3142651

What really infuriated me though wasn't the text of the article, he's entitled to his opinion. What made me want to scream is this note, at the end of the article: "Editor's note: While a reporter at The Washington Post, Howard Bryant was contacted in mid-2006 by Mitchell investigators. Bryant, now a senior writer for ESPN.com, declined to be interviewed by Mitchell's staff or cooperate with any facet of their investigation."

Seems to me, if you're going to sit back and take potshots at something, you lose credibility when you were asked to cooperate, and you refused. He had a chance to participate, and perhaps impact the process, and he "declined." Sorry buddy, you just lost any credibility with me.

[Redkluzu]

YTF writes "...There's talk that Mitchell won't expose any Sox. "

Makes me wonder if this has anything to do with Donnelly being non-tendered. Sox of course saying they still want him but it does make me wonder. From THE HERALD

[Worst Trade Evah]

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.

In what respect is the current policy not sensible?

[Guinevere]

In what respect is the current policy not sensible?

One random unannounced test during the season isn't enough, in fact, its laughable. Compare to the NFL, which had pre-employment testing, pre-season testing, and 10 random players on each team are tested every week during the season. There is also additional testing during the post-season, and the off-season. By virtue of their policy, the NFL has made it clear that steroid use in unacceptable in that league. MLB hasn't even come close.

Also, MLB and the MLBPA need to get out of the biz of testing, and hand it over to an outside agency. Talk about a conflict of interest!

And yes, if anyone is wondering, I am a hard ass on this issue.

Edited by Guinevere, 13 December 2007 - 08:28 AM.

[OttoC]

One random unannounced test during the season isn't enough, in fact, its laughable.

Does anyone know how long these carious agents stay in the system, in other words, how long after discontinuing use before you will test clean?

[Guinevere]

Does anyone know how long these carious agents stay in the system, in other words, how long after discontinuing use before you will test clean?

I don't know off the top of my head, but imagine a while. The problem is that there are various masking agents that can be taken, in order to try and muss up the test results. "The Clear," which was part of the BALCO regime was designed to mask steroids, so users would test clean.

[LoweTek]

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

According to an ABC News report this morning, a key witness for the Mitchell Report is a former strength coach for the NYM. The photograph of this person, whose name escapes me, shows him in the foreground with recognizable members if the 1986 Mets. If there are not current Mets in the Michell Report, I am fairly certain based on this piece that there are former Mets named.

The story also indicated that Selig will be taken to task by the Mitchell Report and speculated as to his continued job security.

[PhabPhour20]

According to an ABC News report this morning, a key witness for the Mitchell Report is a former strength coach for the NYM. The photograph of this person, whose name escapes me, shows him in the foreground with recognizable members if the 1986 Mets. If there are not current Mets in the Michell Report, I am fairly certain based on this piece that there are former Mets named.

The story also indicated that Selig will be taken to task by the Mitchell Report and speculated as to his continued job security.

Kirk Radomski

[Kitchkinet]

http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=3152573

According to ESPN, in an article sourcing "two lawyers who said they are familiar with the report", Mitchell lays a lot of the blame for the prevalence of steroids on the owners and the players association. (That probably has a lot to do with their stubbornness to start steroid testing in the first place.)

He is also going to recommend more frequent regular testing, naming the exact drugs players tested positive for (so that players can't use the "tainted supplement" excuse), and permitting the test administrator to investigate "non-analytical positives".

Edited by Kitchkinet, 13 December 2007 - 08:45 AM.

[bankshot1]

http://www.northjers...2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

Bob Klapisch's NYC take

Regardless of where the pendulum rests, this will be a sea-change moment in baseball history, particularly in New York. According to one industry official, "several" prominent Yankees will be named by Mitchell in his 2 p.m. news conference in Manhattan. The official, who spoke to a third party who'd seen the final report, predicted, "It's going to be a rough day in the Bronx" after the identities are made public.

No Mets from the current 40-man roster are named, according to the same source.

[Yankees]

The word is that the Yankees are in for a very bad day.

I can't wait for this...

[DJnVa]

Mike Greenburg said on ESPN Radio this morning that he's been led to believe that some of the players named in this report have not be told of this.

Also, with word that "big names/All Stars/MVPs" are in it, I know some have already been mentioned (the guys like McGwire, etc) but the reports I've heard seemed to insinuate that the big names they are referring to are ones so far not linked with this stuff.

[Kitchkinet]

Mike Greenburg said on ESPN Radio this morning that he's been led to believe that some of the players named in this report have not be told of this.

Also, with word that "big names/All Stars/MVPs" are in it, I know some have already been mentioned (the guys like McGwire, etc) but the reports I've heard seemed to insinuate that the big names they are referring to are ones so far not linked with this stuff.

I haven't seen McGwire connected officially to the report yet, only in speculation.

I have a feeling David Segui came clean because of that schmuck equipment manager that was forced to go before Mitchell. I wouldn't be surprised if he were named.

Edited by Kitchkinet, 13 December 2007 - 08:51 AM.

[Foulkey Reese]

Get ready for a fun week of conspiracy theories if no major Sox players are named today. Every Yankee fan I know is fully on board the “Mitchell is protecting the Sox” bandwagon.

[DJnVa]

I haven't seen McGwire connected officially to the report yet, only in speculation.

That's not what I meant.

There are reports of "all stars and MVPs" in the report. If the report names McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and/or Bonds, well that fulfills the criteria and no one is surprised because they are the poster boys for this stuff. My point is that I've heard that the big names in this report are guys *other* than those. Other MVPs. Other All Stars. Guys that really haven't been on the radar.

Get ready for a fun week of conspiracy theories if no major Sox players are named today. Every Yankee fan I know is fully on board the “Mitchell is protecting the Sox” bandwagon.

They can go sit with the "NFL and the refs are in a conspiracy to help the Patriots go 16-0" crowd.

Edited by DJnVa, 13 December 2007 - 08:55 AM.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

http://www.northjers...2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2

Bob Klapisch's NYC take

Regardless of where the pendulum rests, this will be a sea-change moment in baseball history, particularly in New York. According to one industry official, "several" prominent Yankees will be named by Mitchell in his 2 p.m. news conference in Manhattan. The official, who spoke to a third party who'd seen the final report, predicted, "It's going to be a rough day in the Bronx" after the identities are made public.

No Mets from the current 40-man roster are named, according to the same source.

I wonder if some of this is pre-news damage control by the Yankees. Spin the story that "the Yanks are going to look very bad" so that when the Yankee names are, say, David Wells and Alfonso Soriano and Giambi instead of Clemens, Jeter and Rivera, people say "Oh, that's not so bad." Kind of like when they made the tape of Bill Clinton's testimony to Kenneth Starr available. The Clinton people put out the word that Bill looked terrible on this tape and raised lots of expectations, so that when the actual news came it, it was shrugged off as no big deal.

I hope not though.

[bankshot1]

I wonder if some of this is pre-news damage control by the Yankees. Spin the story that "the Yanks are going to look very bad" so that when the Yankee names are, say, David Wells and Alfonso Soriano and Giambi instead of Clemens, Jeter and Rivera, people say "Oh, that's not so bad." Kind of like when they made the tape of Bill Clinton's testimony to Kenneth Starr available. The Clinton people put out the word that Bill looked terrible on this tape and raised lots of expectations, so that when the actual news came it, it was shrugged off as no big deal.

I hope not though.

According to some posters who watched Mike and the Mad Dog yesterday, Mike (a huge MFY-fan) was visibly upset when reportedly shown some of the names on the Mitchell Report. IIRC he also made a comment similiar to the "its going to be bad day tomorrow".

[boggartlaura]

Get ready for a fun week of conspiracy theories if no major Sox players are named today. Every Yankee fan I know is fully on board the "Mitchell is protecting the Sox" bandwagon.

And this is exactly why Mitchell should have not been the one to do this report. Nobody is going to believe the results, even if they are 100% accurate. And the Red Sox may end up looking just as bad as if they had several names listed.

I'd be curious to know who was in charge of selecting Mitchell to be put in charge and why he was picked given his Sox connections. They had to know this wouldn't look good to the public.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

And this is exactly why Mitchell should have not been the one to do this report. Nobody is going to believe the results, even if they are 100% accurate. And the Red Sox may end up looking just as bad as if they had several names listed.

I'd be curious to know who was in charge of selecting Mitchell to be put in charge and why he was picked given his Sox connections. They had to know this wouldn't look good to the public.

Bryant's article said Selig was in charge and made the choice of Mitchell. Bryant also states that both Selig and Mitchell grossly underestimated the blowback from Mitchell's previous time with the Sox.

On the one hand, I can see the choice of Mitchell being logical due to his impeccable record of integrity and Selig's desire to keep Congress off his back by appointing one of their own. On the other, not being upfront about Mitchell's connections to the Sox and not demanding that Mitchell immediately sever all current and future ties with the Sox before conduction the investigation was monumentally stupid.

[PhabPhour20]

Bryant's article said Selig was in charge and made the choice of Mitchell. Bryant also states that both Selig and Mitchell grossly underestimated the blowback from Mitchell's previous time with the Sox.

On the one hand, I can see the choice of Mitchell being logical due to his impeccable record of integrity and Selig's desire to keep Congress off his back by appointing one of their own. On the other, not being upfront about Mitchell's connections to the Sox and not demanding that Mitchell immediately sever all current and future ties with the Sox before conduction the investigation was monumentally stupid.

All he has to do is name Gabe Kapler and we can all move past this point.

[bankshot1]

Bryant's article said Selig was in charge and made the choice of Mitchell. Bryant also states that both Selig and Mitchell grossly underestimated the blowback from Mitchell's previous time with the Sox.

On the one hand, I can see the choice of Mitchell being logical due to his impeccable record of integrity and Selig's desire to keep Congress off his back by appointing one of their own. On the other, not being upfront about Mitchell's connections to the Sox and not demanding that Mitchell immediately sever all current and future ties with the Sox before conduction the investigation was monumentally stupid.

I would like to beleive that when Selig offered Mitchell the job as (figure)head to this investigation at least 2 conversations took place

1-Mitchell told Selig he needed complete independence or there was no way he'd take on the task. There was no-way he'd put his reputation at risk.

2-Mitchell told JW Henry, Luchino NYTimes, other Sox partners etal that if any Sox were involved he would have to disclose the info. There could be no favoritism No ifs ands or buts.

And their only answer to him would be "of course".

Now I do understand the skepticism of fans who believe that Mitchell would use his position to shield the Sox from embarrssment, but I think if they thought it through logically and reflect that almost all cover-ups eventually fail, they would dismiss the idea.

There is an old saying about Caesar's wife, "that she must be above suspicion".

Perhaps in order to maintain appearances, Bud Selig should have divorced Mitchell as Caesar did the his guiltless wife.

[hescores21]

And this is exactly why Mitchell should have not been the one to do this report. Nobody is going to believe the results, even if they are 100% accurate. And the Red Sox may end up looking just as bad as if they had several names listed.

I'd be curious to know who was in charge of selecting Mitchell to be put in charge and why he was picked given his Sox connections. They had to know this wouldn't look good to the public.

I can see names of former Sox players appearing on the list though. Damon, Nixon and Nomar were very prominent players on the team and if named will give Mitchell somewhat of an out as far as the crticism goes. I will hate the fact that Yankee fans will be screaming how tainted this report is due to Mitchells connection to the Sox. It detracts from the real story and besides, we really don't know if the MFY players listed are current or former players. (Clemens, Sheffield, Soriano etc)

All I want for Christmas is for Arod to be on this list! Is that too much to ask?


Just a thought: What are the chances that after this comes out, Radamsky or someone else with knowledge starts talking and verifying what is in the report? If there were Sox players named by one of the snitches and Mitchell neglects to name them, then the whole report is worthless. I doubt Mitchell would leave a name off that list no matter what team they are currently on. At least I hope so.

Edited by hescores21, 13 December 2007 - 09:32 AM.

[Average Reds]

Howard Bryant has an article on ESPN.com this morning shredding the report, and focussing in some part on Mitchell's connections to the Sox. Full article here: http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=3142651

What really infuriated me though wasn't the text of the article, he's entitled to his opinion. What made me want to scream is this note, at the end of the article: "Editor's note: While a reporter at The Washington Post, Howard Bryant was contacted in mid-2006 by Mitchell investigators. Bryant, now a senior writer for ESPN.com, declined to be interviewed by Mitchell's staff or cooperate with any facet of their investigation."

Seems to me, if you're going to sit back and take potshots at something, you lose credibility when you were asked to cooperate, and you refused. He had a chance to participate, and perhaps impact the process, and he "declined." Sorry buddy, you just lost any credibility with me.

If you don't agree with what Bryant wrote, then by all means go after him. But your credibility argument is false.

Bryant is a journalist. He has no obligation to help Mitchell in a non-judicial inquiry. In fact, he has an absolute ethical obligation under those circumstances not to (1) insert himself into a story that he is covering, and (2) compromise his sources.

As a journalist, Bryant has to remain impartial and he must make full disclosure of any involvement in an investigation that he is going to wrote about it. Since Mitchell reached out to him, he is obligated to disclose this fact to us, which he did. But here's the important this to remember: if Bryant had actually met with Mitchell and cooperated in any way, he would have a complete ethical conflict in writing about the report, since he was a part of the process that created it.

I know that you have a strong opinion on the issue of steroids and that's fine, but you are confusing your agenda with what constitutes credibility. The fact that a journalist someone doesn't share your passion to help George Mitchell here does not in any way reduce his credibility with respect to his comments on it. It enhances it.

[Talon]

You know whats sad about this whole thing. Is that anybody here would even want specific people (Clemens, A-Rod, etc) to be on the list so that they could feel all high and mighty. Then when these people are NOT named it'll be this big crushing blow to them.

I don't seriously know whats going to hurt people here more. The ones that are names or the ones that are NOT named.

[hescores21]

Mike Greenburg said that according to ESPN the Mag, a former NY Yankee trainer has named Clemens in the Mitchell report.

[David Laurila]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but Donald Fehr's chances of ever being elected to the Hall of Fame won't be helped by this report. Many people feel that Marvin Miller belongs in the HoF, and by extension, given his long tenure and accomplishments, so might Fehr merit consideration someday. However, given the PA's stonewalling, under his leadership, of attempts to police the game are a huge black mark on his record.

[underhandtofirst]

Mike Greenburg said that according to ESPN the Mag, a former NY Yankee trainer has named Clemens in the Mitchell report.

The release Mike read said that the trainer McNamee supplied Clemens with steroids and that Clemens was in possession of steroids from another supplier as well.

[maceeight]

Per WEEI espn is reporting that CLEMENS is in fact named promenently.

It's begining to look alot like christmas!!

[Steve Dillard]

The release Mike read said that the trainer McNamee supplied Clemens with steroids and that Clemens was in possession of steroids from another supplier as well.

Curiously, Andy Pettitte re-signed yesterday, gave a press conference, and so is unavailable for comment today.

[Talon]

Per WEEI espn is reporting that CLEMENS is in fact named promenently.

It's begining to look alot like christmas!!

Well you must feel like you won the lottery...woohoo!

Not trying to exactly defend Clemens, but remember folks. I doubt he ever used steroids (nor were they really a big issue during) during his Red Sox tenure.

FAKE EDIT: I do come across as an apologist, but I think whats going to happen is the people around these parts are so bitter about Clemens that it'll turn into a meltdown that Clemens used during his whole career, which is probably not true.

Edited by Talon, 13 December 2007 - 09:56 AM.

[ri0t]

Mike Greenburg said that according to ESPN the Mag, a former NY Yankee trainer has named Clemens in the Mitchell report.

Not surprising but if this is a preview of things to come later it will be a crazy afternoon.

[hescores21]

You know whats sad about this whole thing. Is that anybody here would even want specific people (Clemens, A-Rod, etc) to be on the list so that they could feel all high and mighty. Then when these people are NOT named it'll be this big crushing blow to them.

I don't seriously know whats going to hurt people here more. The ones that are names or the ones that are NOT named.

What's sad is that a tongue in cheek comment gets taken as something it's not.

Would I love to see Arod on the list? yeah, I want as many stars on the list so that all of this Barry Bonds bashing stops. I think the whole process is a joke and that every reporter, newscaster, journalist and whoever else gave their opinon and bashed Bonds does the same thing with whatever MVP's and All Stars are named. And for me, the best thing that could happen to really put this whole steroid era into perspective, would be for the best player in the league to be named. And if he is not named, well it certainly will not crush me! I don't give a shit about steroids in baseball. I would not stop watching and I certainly will not stop paying thousands of dollars to travel around the country to watch games. Honestly I don't think most of the fans would disagree with me. It doesn't matter. And for the record, I am not a huge Bonds fan.

Edited by hescores21, 13 December 2007 - 09:56 AM.

[Cyberlibrarian]

Well you must feel like you won the lottery...woohoo!

Not trying to exactly defend Clemens, but remember folks. I doubt he ever used steroids (nor were they really a big issue during) during his Red Sox tenure.

He was still skinny back then.

[maceeight]

Well you must feel like you won the lottery...woohoo!

Not trying to exactly defend Clemens, but remember folks. I doubt he ever used steroids (nor were they really a big issue during) during his Red Sox tenure.

He was dead to me years ago. While I understand his history with the Sox. I love anything that has to do with Billy going down.

[Drocca]

Celebrating the names in this thread seems to be in pretty poor taste.

(Let me just rephrase that to say; poor taste isn't quite what I'm going for. Stupid and a waste of bandwidth is more appros.)

Edited by Drocca, 13 December 2007 - 09:57 AM.

[Average Reds]

One more comment before the report is released and then I will wait.

If the media reports are true and today's information will specifically exclude any mention of amphetamines, then this report can only be considered a joke of the highest magnitude.

Amphetamines are much more highly regulated than steroids and the penalties for trafficking in them are much more severe. This is because amphetamines are much more dangerous than steroids. To ignore the culture of amphetamine abuse that has existed in baseball for more than five decades - by Selig's own admission - is ludicrous.

The only reasons I can think of for such an omission are as follows:

• The demand isn't there to rid the game of amphetamines. This is because they don't change your appearance and they don't improve performance as much as steroids do.
• The use of "greenies" has been so pervasive over the years that exposing this would be highly embarrasing to everyone in the game. And I do mean everyone.

The sad thing here is that the environment that created the greenie problem in baseball was the very same one that created the steroid problem. To not put the Mitchell report in this context is simply bogus.

I'll say more when the report comes out.

[Foulkey Reese]

Celebrating the names in this thread seems to be in pretty poor taste.

Perhaps starting a "Mitchell game thread" would be a good idea?

[Lukiewerle]

Well you must feel like you won the lottery...woohoo!

Not trying to exactly defend Clemens, but remember folks. I doubt he ever used steroids ( nor were they really a big issue during) during his Red Sox tenure.

His last year with the Sox was 1996. Why would you think that steroids were not an issue in the mid-nineties?

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Perhaps starting a "Mitchell game thread" would be a good idea?

Not here.

[joewoodfan]

All the chatter (not just on this board...everywhere) reads like a gossip column. I kinda don't care who's on the list because steroid and drug use seems to be rampant across the sport. What I do care about is what MLB is actually going to do about steroids, and that's what the fanfare's all about.

Unfortunately, folks seem to sit on their hands until something bad happens. I hope this is the true 'bad' thing to happen...would be nice to actually get some action out of it. But for that, I'm pretty skeptical.

Edit: Actually, re-reading this thread, I take it back. I mean the chatter elsewhere. SOSH is at least acknowledging the pervasiveness of the problem and discussing whether or not sh## is going to be done about it.

Edited by joewoodfan, 13 December 2007 - 10:00 AM.

[underhandtofirst]

If someone's name doesnt appear in the report can/will they claim that they are "clean"? It is pretty obvious that this wont be a complete list of users. I'm still not sure what problems this report solves other than keeping Congress off of MLB's back.

[Talon]

The point I think I am trying to get across is, it's going to turn into a mudslingers ball and it's going to wind up degenerating into "CLEMENS USED DURING HIS WHOLE CAREER" and even though Steroids were a problem (however much smaller in the early 1990's as they were now) it should also be noted that a vast majority of the users were pocketed to the California Bay Area.

Edited by Talon, 13 December 2007 - 10:01 AM.

[xjack]

Celebrating the names in this thread seems to be in pretty poor taste.

Personally, I'm only celebrating one name.

Turns out it's not normal for guys throwing 90 mph at age 33 to be throwing 97 mph at age 39.

I just hope there are some apologiess offered to Dan Duquette by the local scribes.

[PhabPhour20]

All the chatter (not just on this board...everywhere) reads like a gossip column. I kinda don't care who's on the list because steroid and drug use seems to be rampant across the sport. What I do care about is what MLB is actually going to do about steroids, and that's what the fanfare's all about.

Unfortunately, folks seem to sit on their hands until something bad happens. I hope this is the true 'bad' thing to happen...would be nice to actually get some action out of it. But for that, I'm pretty skeptical.

Edit: Actually, re-reading this thread, I take it back. I mean the chatter elsewhere. SOSH is at least acknowledging the pervasiveness of the problem and discussing whether or not sh## is going to be done about it.

I generally agree, but how are you going to feel if Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neill, Joe Girardi, Clemens, Mariano Rivera, John Wetteland, etc are all named? As a Sox fan finishing second to these guys year after year is suddenly going to mean something entirely different. I am in no way saying all these guys will be on the list, but what if they were and no Red Sox from the same time period were? I would be upset.

-PP

[ri0t]

Perhaps starting a "Mitchell game thread" would be a good idea?

2nded

[Talon]

I generally agree, but how are you going to feel if Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neill, Joe Girardi, Clemens, Mariano Rivera, John Wetteland, etc are all named? As a Sox fan finishing second to these guys year after year is suddenly going to mean something entirely different. I am in no way saying all these guys will be on the list, but what if they were and no Red Sox from the same time period were? I would be upset.

-PP

It means the same as the Sox losing Game 7 in 2003 to the Yankees because Giambi hit 2 HR and he was discovered to have been using during (and before) that time period. It sucks and it hurts but it's also in the past and you really can't change that now.

Edited by Talon, 13 December 2007 - 10:06 AM.