Mitchell steroid probe; Latest - Clemens headed to Court; Congress

[patrickgpe]

Eugene Kane playing the race card again

 

First off all since this report is an hour and a half old, its too early to criticize the media and fans for not being has hard on Clemens and Pettite as they are on Bonds. To write thats bonds should be apologized to, is insane. I think true baseball fans like me and others on this board, believe that whether you are on my team or not, if you used steroids you embarrassed the sport. Bonds has taken flak because there were always rumors of his use and he has denied it. Clemens and Pettite there has not so they obviously wouldn't be criticized until now.

[sbrylski]

"Steroids aren't being used on him anymore. Big part of this. Might have some value to trade... Florida might have interest... Got off the steroids... Took away a lot of hard line drives... Can get comparable value back would consider trading... If you do trade him, will get back on the stuff and try to show you he can have a good year. That's his makeup. Comes to play. Last year of contract, playing for 05" (p. 209, bottom, doc. page #)

 

That's sickening. Being used "on him"? Is he a dairy cow? It'd seem a similar comparison. He "comes to play" because he uses steroids? I have to get away from this for a while. The stuff about MLB/MLBPA/Clubs knowing, condoning, & operating with this was the #1 thing I hoped to not be true.

 

To a scout, a guy who takes steroids is the guy that is going to preform better, and theoretically more "drive." If I want to be a "good" scout, I'm not going to care about morals, I'm going to recommend the best possible player - often the guy on steroids. That's why steroids are probably incredibly widespread. You don't take them, you get left behind.

[chuckiehacks]

Am i the only one "not impressed" by this?

 

No kidding. MLB clearly didn't have too many sources, thus the numbers of players from NY, SF, LA. I guess Mitchell couldn't find anyone in KC or MIL, because there were undoubtedly players on the juice on every team.

 

This is the tip of the iceberg, and no where near a complete list.

[Thurston Fluff]

The race card was probably pulled before the report came out. It was written because he had an agenda and simply waited to find a place to implement it. Several comments like this have been circulating today already. So let me say for myself I hold Clemens responsible for his actions and do believe the evidence points to him cheating. That does taint his accomplishments every bit as much as it does Bonds to me. I won't accpet his 300 wins as legitimate any more than I do Bonds homerun records. My view of Vina changed as well. I don't revel in their fall from grace as much as I do Bonds simply because they don't appear to be the butt head Bonds is. I regret hearing about Vina because I liked him. I hate what he's done and feel let down by him. I reveled in Bonds fall from grace because I felt he was an jerk. That doesn't make me a racist. It makes me a jerkist. I have no problem admitting I don't like jerks and enjoy when they reap the rewards they so richly deserve through their treatment of others. I find no reason to not revel in jerks being persecuted while mearly feeling let down by nice guys. That doesn't mean I'm any less adament that all of them should be treated equally harsh by baseball and the media for commiting the same crime agianst my beloved game.

[bball123h2]

I think the players union owns ESPN. Of course the evidence isn't solid enough for convictions. Nobody would talk.

[TooLiveBrew]

To a scout, a guy who takes steroids is the guy that is going to preform better, and theoretically more "drive." If I want to be a "good" scout, I'm not going to care about morals, I'm going to recommend the best possible player - often the guy on steroids. That's why steroids are probably incredibly widespread. You don't take them, you get left behind.

 

Good point, sbryl. Thanks for the levity. I still feel a bit sick, though.

[iluvlamp]

I just heard that the original leaked names may still be accurate. CNBC and WNBC are not backing down from there initial reporting. Should be fun to see what happens with that.

 

I for one and impressed by the list as there are some darn great ballplayers. Selig has said in the past he would not rule out retroactive penalties. I hope he keeps his word. These people are scum in my book. Yes, that's includes our scumbag new closer. I hope this isn't the end and they keep nailing people. I know there are maskers and they still don't test for HGH but this is a good start. Selig should also ask the player's union to open up the CBA to begin on the recommendations. Selig needs to be tough on this starting now since he did such a miserable job with this for years.

 

edit to add: I hope the feds and cops also start doing their jobs and busting these players for a violation(s) of US law. Not just the providers like the doctors and the trainers. Maybe it took Mitchell to get all those checks. Waxman and Davis should also look in to putting more pressure on baseball, and foor that matter, all sports.

[Bring Back the Stein]

Woodard, Bennett? How did we have those teams fielded? (Woodard was one of our motherloving aces. Sheesh.)

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

The stuff about MLB/MLBPA/Clubs knowing, condoning, & operating with this was the #1 thing I hoped to not be true.

 

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I'd assumed from the start of this "controversy" that there was industry-wide knowledge of widespread use. I'm pleasantly surprised that Mitchell's report at least acknowledges that various MLB front offices knew about PED use, and felt no compunction about factoring that into personnel decisions.

 

The main thrust of the report is still the smear campaign against particular players (much as Mitchell would like to focus on his recommendations, there's nothing there that MLB couldn't have gotten from any reasonably intelligent person in a half hour for $20), but until I read it, I'd figured the report for a pure disinformation / distraction piece of pro-owner propaganda. The fact that Mitchell makes a point of saying everyone is guilty is a more honesty than I'd expected, given Mitchell's ties to the Boston club in particular, and MLB ownership in general.

 

Of course, I've never really cared whether anybody was using or not, so I guess it makes sense that I'd focus more on the motivations of the various actors instrumental in bringing about this investigation and less on the results (i.e. the "list").

[Fear The Chorizo]

I just heard that the original leaked names may still be accurate. CNBC and WNBC are not backing down from there initial reporting. Should be fun to see what happens with that.

 

That list may be part of other ongoing investigations of drug companies and steroids, but that list isn't representative of the Mitchell report.

 

The Mitchell report lists only the names of players that they were able to generate some shred of evidence from the two sources mainly used (either a paper trail of an order or eyewitness accounts).

 

IMO, the fact that they were able to implicate almost 80 players from evidence collected from 2-3 sources they caught red-handed is the shocking part - just think of how many players were actually involved with PEDs if all the drug suppliers and scumbags roaming through MLB were caught and had to squeal to spare themselves a longer jail sentence.

[Thurston Fluff]

The report took issue with assertions that steroids were not banned before the 2002 collective bargaining agreement.

They had been covered, it said, since the 1971 drug policy prohibited using any prescription medication without a valid prescription, and were expressly included in the drug policy in 1991.

"Steroids have been listed as a prohibited substance under the Major League Baseball drug policy since then," the report said, although no player was disciplined for them until the 2002 labor agreement provided for testing.

 

 

 

Just read this from another article about hte Mitchell report. I always thought it was spelled out but never really knew for sure. I guess this pretty much shoots down the "it wasn't illegal in baseball," arguement.

[owbc]

According to Selig, he will investigate the names and discipline as appropriate. This is concerning, as Gagne could definitely get a lengthy suspension.

[jlau20]

IMO, the fact that they were able to implicate almost 80 players from evidence collected from 2-3 sources they caught red-handed is the shocking part - just think of how many players were actually involved with PEDs if all the drug suppliers and scumbags roaming through MLB were caught and had to squeal to spare themselves a longer jail sentence.

This is why I don't know what to make of the report. Great, all it does is confirm that this was a huge 'problem' in the sport, and clearly the use of PED's was widespread. This isn't exactly shocking, it's not exactly a revelation, all it does is give the public a smattering of names to gawk at for awhile. Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte have evidence against them, terrific...Gary Bennett has bought PED's, big whoop. Certainly the report is only a small group of players of the whole who actually used PED's and clearly it's not just elite, good or even average players using them.

Look at it from the perspective of a player who gets tossed around between the Bigs and AAA a lot...if you know that there are countless players using PED's and that it is enhancing their performance and because of it they are going to earn a longer stay in the Majors and eventually get that million dollar contract, while you're sitting there on your minor league salary busting your ass but these players who are using, are taking your spot on a Major League roster...I think most humans put in that sort of situation would be inclined to join in. Is it fair? No, but it is what it is and it's happened the way it has, so the best way to go forward is to be proactive about the whole situation from here on in, whether it means stricter testing policies (obviously), harsher punishments (maybe), etc.

 

I guess the report gives us information we all wanted to know, but throw me in the "big deal" crowd about this and start doing something now to improve the situation more.

[tomwopat]

According to Selig, he will investigate the names and discipline as appropriate. This is concerning, as Gagne could definitely get a lengthy suspension.

 

To me, this reads, "I'm gonna call Donald Fehr and ask him what he is going to permit me to do."

[jaybird2001wi]

To paraphrase one thing Bud Selig said, which concerned me is this: "Management did not know there players were on PEDs at the time." Wasn't it established in the Mitchell Report that a few members of management did know certain players took PEDs?

[brettac1]

According to Selig, he will investigate the names and discipline as appropriate. This is concerning, as Gagne could definitely get a lengthy suspension.

 

So... who is it that gets to punish Bud?

[Big Reed]

On a positive side for gagne, if he is suspended, the brewers won't have to pay him all of that $10 million . The brewers might only have to pay him $9 million. I know that should make some brewers fans happy.

[TooLiveBrew]

Honestly, Brett, the more I read the report (I'm currently up to page 76), the more Selig comes off as the protagonist. Basically, due to prior drug-related (mostly recreational at that time) court rulings & arbitration hearing decisions, MLB's hands have been firmly bound from day one (at least for Bud). Add in how powerful & manipulative the MLBPA is, and you have a tough climb.

 

 

EDIT: Here's an interesting excerpt from page 76:

 

"...then-Milwaukee Brewers manager Phil Garner told a reporter of his first-hand knowledge of a player's steroid use: "There was one kid, 27, who was cycling steroids, and I asked him, 'Do you realize you could need an artificial heart when you're 40 years old?'... He said, 'I don't care what happens at 40. All I want to do is be the biggest, baddest, guy I can be right now.'"

 

In his interview with our investigation, Garner acknowledged that he had known one major league player who used steroids while playing for him, but Garner refused to identify the player because it was more than 5 years prior to the interview, and Garner did not believe it was necessary for this investigation to look that far back in time."

Obviously this is Brewers-related, and it makes me wonder who this mystery player is/was. Greg Vaughn's age 27 season was 1993 as a Milwaukee Brewer. He hit 30 HR that year, following 27 in 1991 & 23 in 1992.

 

1996 was his age-30 season, and in it he hit 41 combined HR (he was traded to the Padres in the middle of that season). His SLG took an incredible jump from his previous career high, 1993's .482 - he'd missed time in both '94 & '95 due to injury. Once he was in SD, a locale that recurs in the Mitchell Report as one of much steroid abuse, he had a crap year in 1997.

 

In 1998, Vaughn's age 32 season, he hit 50 HR & set his career-high .597 SLG%. 1999 saw 45 bombs. In general, [i MISTAKENLY ASSERT THAT (EDIT)] a player's peak power comes around his age 27-29 years, not as late as Greg's. Judging from the makeup of the rest of the roster under Garner, there are just a handful of other guys that this 'mystery player' could have been.

[And That]

This whole thing brings to mind the phrase, "Who watches the watchers?"

 

As I understand it, the proof they have against Gagne only extends until before HGH was banned by MLB. I'd have to think the Player's Union would have a conniption if Selig tried to suspend anyone for activity before the ban went into effect.

 

The only way Selig could suspend is for violating federal law regarding forged prescriptions or whatever the corresponding law is on the player's side. But that's a federal matter and not a baseball matter, yah?

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

Just read this from another article about hte Mitchell report. I always thought it was spelled out but never really knew for sure. I guess this pretty much shoots down the "it wasn't illegal in baseball," arguement.

 

Not really. The report's only evidence that PED's were banned by baseball prior to collective bargaining cites the '91 Faye Vincent memo to all MLB teams. The only problem with that is that Vincent himself later admitted it only applied to employees not covered by the collective bargaining agreement, since he was in no position to make unilateral decrees for the players. Here's a link explaining things more clearly:

 

http://tonycastillocausedmyfacialtic.blogspot.com/2007/11/recommended-reading.html

 

Ever since that '91 memo was discovered and published by ESPN, the "steroids is cheating" crowd has attempted to use it as evidence that a ban existed prior everybody's use. But that memo had no more force or legitimacy than this one:

 

Memo

 

To: all citizens of the world

From: me, Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator

Subject: talking in movie theaters

 

Henceforth, talking in movie theaters will be considered a capital crime, punishable on the spot by any citizen of any country of the world without trial or other legal proceeding. If you encounter someone talking in a movie theater, feel free to shoot, stab, bludgeon, poison, or otherwise execute that person in whatever fashion you deem most expedient. Those who choose to talk in movie theaters, be forewarned.

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

That also gets to TLB's point about Selig's hands being tied, but I'd add that I think it's hugely naive not to suspect that the portrayal of MLB in Mitchell's report was deliberately slanted to portray MLB as a helpless bystander, given who commissioned the report (and for what purpose) and who conducted the investigation.

 

As I said before, I'm just pleasantly surprised that there's acknowledgement of universal knowledge and complicity in widespread PED use, even if the media ends up turning the report into purely a list of names: Clemens, Pettite, Tejada, and a bunch of guys you either already knew about or probably don't care about.

[RedbirdRay]

I feel badly for the players wrongly named in the false report "leaked" prior to the Mitchell Release. The Pujols thing kinda irritated me. The local fox affiliate in StL reportedly kept running the false story an hour+ after it was discredited. Additionally, they sent a reporter to his restaurant who was interviewing patrons about how they felt about his inclusion in the report. The TV crew reportedly didn't arrive until after the "leaked" report was discredited.

linky

 

But, what really bothered me was the inclusion of Darryl Kile. WTH? Was that necessary? It made me feel like whomever leaked that crap had a personal agenda against the Cardinals.

 

I fully understand the Cardinals probable place in the sterroid era. The TLR ties to Oakland, McGwire, Gary Bennett, Rick Ankiel... Frankly, it embarasses me. I don't pretend it isn't there.

 

Trying to drag a dead player's name through the mud was unnecessary.

[TooLiveBrew]

To be fair, we don't really know one way or the other how legit that list is or isn't; we just know it wasn't from the Mitchell Report.

 

I think it's hugely naive not to suspect that the portrayal of MLB in Mitchell's report was deliberately slanted to portray MLB as a helpless bystander, given who commissioned the report (and for what purpose) and who conducted the investigation.

 

This is very important to keep in mind - obviously Selig comissioned the report, but given Mitchell's writing style/tone, I'd find it hard to believe that Mitchell and his staff would care one way or the other who looked good or bad. I've read parts where it reads good for MLBPA & MLB, and others where they don't look good at all. Still reading...

[bjkrautk]

Allow me to ask an interesting question: Does the Mitchell report exonerate Mark McGwire?

 

During the course of this investigation, we interviewed a number of coaches, club

personnel, former teammates, and other persons who know McGwire. Only Canseco, who

repeated the allegations from his memoir, said he had knowledge of McGwire's alleged use of

steroids. Through his personal lawyer, I asked McGwire to meet with me for an interview about

these issues, but he declined to do so. I then sent his lawyer a list of specific questions about

whether McGwire had ever used steroids or other performance enhancing substances without a

prescription during his major league career, in the hope that McGwire would be willing to

provide a response outside of the context of an interview. Neither McGwire nor his lawyer

responded to that letter. (I sent similar letters with specific questions to lawyers for Barry Bonds,

Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa, and Gary Sheffield, none of whom provided answers to my

questions either.)

p. 85 (of the report)

 

When asked why he would "exaggerate" on national television, La Russa said that he

questioned Canseco's motives in making the statements he had made and he felt that Canseco

was trying to impugn the achievements of his former Oakland teammate Mark McGwire and the

Oakland teams of the late 1980s.

p. 65

 

Alderson did, at one point,

consider testing one or two players for steroids, possibly including Canseco (but, Alderson made

clear, not Mark McGwire).

p. 66

 

La Russa told us that he told McGwire privately at the time that he thought it was a

shame that the media was trying to take away from his accomplishments. La Russa added that

the fact that McGwire's bottle of andro was left in plain sight underscored the fact that McGwire

had nothing to hide about his use of the substance.

p. 79 (FN 241)

 

Andro wasn't illegal, or against MLB rules when McGwire was taking the product. The only person who says McGwire used Steriods is Canseco.

(On the other hand, Canseco's information about Tejada, Palmiero, etc. turned out to be correct.)

[Brawndo the Thirst Mutilat]

I'd find it hard to believe that Mitchell and his staff would care one way or the other who looked good or bad.

 

He sits on the Red Sox board. He's going to continue to do so going forward. Owners of MLB teams are, for all intents and purposes, one of the social circles in which Mitchell runs. I think that's reason enough to wonder whether he wouldn't want to gloss over anything dubious that reaches to the level of MLB team owner/president/executive.

 

Again, I was impressed that he at least nominally included MLB and ownership in his very general "everyone is responsible" stance.