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

[laserbomb]

I have a bit of a style question here: In the Mitchell Report, Gagne's name was spelled with an accent over the "e." Is that the proper usage, and, if so, how do we insert that here on BF.net? (I can do it in Word, but I don't see a handy way to insert a symbol here.)

I don't know which way his name's really spelled, but hold alt and hit 1-3-0 on the right-side number pad. When you let go of alt after that, é shows up. High school spanish...

 

[JJHardy7]

Is Turnbow involved in the Mitchell report? I didn't think he was, but I saw his name run across the BottomLine on ESPN this morning regarding active players that had knowledge regarding purchases of steroids. This is the first I've seen his name related to the Mitchell.

[Patrick425]

Is Turnbow involved in the Mitchell report? I didn't think he was, but I saw his name run across the BottomLine on ESPN this morning regarding active players that had knowledge regarding purchases of steroids. This is the first I've seen his name related to the Mitchell.

It just breifly mentions his failed drug test in 2004 by the U.S. Anti-doping agency regarding the Olympics. I'd copy and paste, but I'm not sure how to do that from an adobe file.

[Invader3K]

Great, now people will keep bringing that up ad nauseum forever, just like Paul Molitor's drug use in his younger days.

[craigharmann]

Having a bit of time to process and think about this, the report basically comes from 2 sources. If 76 names surface from 2 sources, how many others are there? No one may ever know. I'm ticked about the fact that people knew and did nothing, but I'm even more ticked that the player's union seems to have been complicit in the whole thing! If the majority of players AREN'T using, how come they didn't throw a fit about these guys not talking to Mitchell? It definitely is a stain on baseball, and it really taints my view of Roger Clemens. And, by the way, how sad is it that the best hitter in the past 25 years and the best pitcher in the past 25 years are connected to PEDs?

[DuWayne Steurer]

To be fair, I can see Boras' point. This isn't anything "legal" so to speak, it's mostly just "my word against yours", and since none of this is actually taking place in a court of law or other defined forum, there is no opportunity for the players named to defend themselves.

 

If the player says "I don't know why I'm in that report, I didn't do it", they're automatically labelled liars, whereas this whole report seems to hinge on the word of a few guys (one of whom had a whole lot to gain by ratting out as many people as possible).

 

Now, I'm not saying that many, if ANY of the players named didn't take PED's, I'm only saying I can see where some are coming from when they say this really boils down to nothing more than a smear campaign. It has no teeth, there will be no punishment, the only thing we're learning is stuff we already knew.

[JJHardy7]

I was aware of the Olympic thing, but I didn't see his name on the "list" until this morning. Two current Brewers now on the "list". It makes sense. I was actually surprised he wasn't on the first list of names out there yesterday.

[sgtcluels]

So who is going to be the first person to sue one of the newspaper outlets for defamation ?

[DSFastball55]

This isn't anything "legal" so to speak, it's mostly just "my word against yours", and since none of this is actually taking place in a court of law or other defined forum, there is no opportunity for the players named to defend themselves.

All of the players named were given the opportunity to respond on the record, but all but two refused. It is stated in several places throughout the report.

[crewcrazy]

So who is going to be the first person to sue one of the newspaper outlets for defamation ?

Since the Mitchell Report was a written document, anyone trying to sue would have to prove libel, which is extremely hard to do when you're a public figure. They would have to prove that Mitchell or whoever else knew the information was false and maliciously decided to publish it anyway.

 

I suppose someone could try to pursue a lawsuit just for the sake of PR, but they likely wouldn't have anything to gain from it. Celebrities almost never win defamation lawsuits in the United States. If Clemens or Pettitte or whoever else wanted to sue was a private citizen, they'd have an easier time winning a case, but since they are definitely public figures with the means to defend themselves publicly they have it tougher.

 

[Big Reed]

ESPN is calling this the sports event of the century? talk about over hype. if the mitchell report was the sports event of the century, it's been a pretty dull century. Wow - claiming bonds and tejada used steriods. who knew? or that Clemens and Pettite used steriods and HGH. Gee, wasn't that brought up last year at this time? and the year before that? and the year before that? and all the players saying they have to talk to their players' union rep before saying any response. Does Donald Fear have a template speech for all of his players? And Mitchell fielding questions from reporters and then reading a scripted answer from the podium in reply. Did he just pass out questions to different reporters ahead of time? I loved the one question by a reporter who said I thought this investigation was to take the existing reports and knowledge and dig deeper. Your investigation revealed no new names or information that wasn't already known. And Mitchell's reply was that he dug as deep as he wanted to and he couldn't dig deeper because nobody was willing to divulge additional information. So what did he expect? And Bud saying this was important and he's going to take immediate action. Bud had the names and the information on the players involved in this report over 5 years ago and did nothing. Great report Mitchell. A great summary of what has already been known for ages.

[TooLiveBrew]

ESPN is calling this the sports event of the century? talk about over hype. if the mitchell report was the sports event of the century, it's been a pretty dull century. Wow - claiming bonds and tejada used steriods. who knew? or that Clemens and Pettite used steriods and HGH. Gee, wasn't that brought up last year at this time? and the year before that?

 

While that crap network is always digging to make more out of a story than possible, I have to disagree with your notion that it's kinda lame/boring/dull. Not in that we didn't 'know'/suspect a lot of players, but more what the report actually has to say about the culture in MLB/MLBPA.

 

One problem with the public perception of the Mitchell Report, imho, is that many people want/ed it only for the naming of names. It's a 400+ page document that focuses on naming players as one portion - granted, a large one. If you just want to read names of guys and go, 'No way!'/'No duh!', then you obviously won't find the report very interesting.

 

I don't know about sports event of the century or whatever, but the last thing that comes to mind in MLB for me (with this broad of a scope) is the Black Sox scandal.

[jaybird2001wi]

As a former college student who was a minor in Public Relations and MAJOR in Journalism, I can chime in with Reed's questions. It wasn't a scripted press conference. It was a more complex issue. Most PR guys coach the spokesperson in what to say on certain questions. I learned that in PR, they will likely give the spokesperson 4 or 5 key terms or phrases to use during certain questions at a press conference. I wasn't surprised at all by the answers given by any of the people during the press conferences yesterday.

[windiv08]

Is Turnbow involved in the Mitchell report? I didn't think he was, but I saw his name run across the BottomLine on ESPN this morning regarding active players that had knowledge regarding purchases of steroids. This is the first I've seen his name related to the Mitchell.

 

http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/52b15699868d3d1cf1e9cbd0113d4fef7eb371d.pjpg

 

 

http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/871354a597388f5c84963a331d248d728b2a659.pjpg

In zee midst of Mssr. Gagné's signing interview avec Manager Generale Mssr. Melvin (and zat) and PRIOR to ze release of zee rapport, Mssr. Gagné disclozz-ed zat Mssr. Turnbeau and Mssr. Gagné wayer and ARE indeed golfing partnaires. Hmmmmm...guilt by associacionne??? Pairhaps! Ou pairhaps n'est pas.

 

Anyone notice how much former senator Mitchell resembles Peter Sellers?

 

http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/4e63570a9b6b8fc98cdd309319909705297b9c4.pjpg

[TooLiveBrew]

Wow - nice work, windiv. That's great.

 

JJ7 - check post #272 (pg. 14) for the entire blurb on Turnbow.

[brewizard]

All of the players named were given the opportunity to respond on the record, but all but two refused. It is stated in several places throughout the report.

 

If a former Senator was doing a 40 million dollar investigation into alleged drug use by me - and yet had no legal or compelling reason to get me to testify, I wouldn't say a word either. Would you?

[DuWayne Steurer]

This isn't anything "legal" so to speak, it's mostly just "my word against yours", and since none of this is actually taking place in a court of law or other defined forum, there is no opportunity for the players named to defend themselves.

All of the players named were given the opportunity to respond on the record, but all but two refused. It is stated in several places throughout the report.

I think what this comes down to is the "us against them" type thing. Many, many years ago, I was on a job once where I knew several of my co-workers were smoking pot on the job. My boss knew I didn't smoke weed. He asked me who was smoking weed on the job, thinking that since I wasn't one of them, I would be happy to point out the offenders. They weren't going to get fired, he said. Now, I have to work with these guys on a daily basis, and talk to my boss (not the owner, just our immediate supervisor, not the guy who signs the checks) maybe once a week. I might not be one of the offenders, but I had no intentions of "outing" the guys who I had to spend 10-11 hours a day with.

I'm not saying that's RIGHT. But that's the way it is in almost any case like this. I know it's not anything close to a perfect parallel, but I hope my point is clear. These guys are going to stick together. They're probably (like me) wondering what the point of this is. There's NOW a good testing system in place. Harsh penalties, random testing, blah blah blah. They KNOW they almost certainly can't be punished for something that's already said and done, and mostly hinges on the "word" of a few clubhouse trainers. The point is, the reputation of the game was already battered and bruised. The game had already taken great strides over the last few years in *trying* to get this problem under control. Publishing the names of guys who might have used 4 or more years ago does nothing but open old wounds. It's unnecessary muckraking, at least in my opinion.

[stadiumsauce]

Was steroids, HGH, and the MLB and MLBPA casting a blind eye on it a necessary evil? MLB took a huge popularity hit after the strike in the 1990s, only to have the fans come back for the McGwire/Sosa/Bonds homerun stories. On the otherhand, nn the future, it may be seen as a shortsighted solution, but - just like PEDs - it was a quick fix.

[TooLiveBrew]

in the future, it may be seen as a shortsighted solution, but - just like PEDs - it was a quick fix.

 

Great point. I really like the correlation you draw here. I don't know if it was a necessary evil or not, but the Mitchell Report certainly seems to indicate (indirectly) that MLB felt its profits were much more important than any real policing of drug abuse.

[olliegjw]

I think the only way baseball can truly move on is to have some sort of amnesty program. Give players a certain amount of time to admit their uses without threat of punishment from MLB. If a player doesn't admit to anything, and they are later caught, they get thrown out of baseball.

 

One drawback to this might be that players are afraid of federal prosecution (since it is against federal law). However, no player has ever been prosecuted for this.

[homer]

Frankly, I'm underwhelmed at the names on the list. Clemens is the only surprise and there were rumblings long ago about his steriod use. I think the list is probably incomplete - I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that some current star used and isn't named. Guys like ARod, David Ortiz, and Pudge Rodriquez come to mind.

[Tbadder]

I've been saying this forever (and taking a lot of flak for it) that everyone is complicit. Players knew, users and non-users. Was it perfect knowledge? Probably not. Was it enough for an internal investigation and a stronger, quicker drug program at the MLB level--almost certainly. And yes, management from trainers to coaches to front office people to owners all knew, heard things, etc. Did they have the necessary proof--probably not. But did they have enough hearsay to look seriously into the matter? I'm not talking about a league-wide witch hunt, but a serious problem that needed fixing for the health of the players and the health of the game--almost certainly.

 

Now if we want to destroy people's reputations ala Bonds, by all means go for it. But that's an individual's perogative. But carpet bombing the guys named is no solution because there's in all probability many players who didn't make the list. The report implicitly suggests that the probe was stonewalled enough not to be comprehensive.

[Tbadder]

I think the only way baseball can truly move on is to have some sort of amnesty program. Give players a certain amount of time to admit their uses without threat of punishment from MLB. If a player doesn't admit to anything, and they are later caught, they get thrown out of baseball.

 

One drawback to this might be that players are afraid of federal prosecution (since it is against federal law). However, no player has ever been prosecuted for this.

This is a great idea. I think something could be worked out with the Feds to avoid prosecution, and it may be the only way we'll find out the truth.

[GenoSeligPrieb]

Of course I'm coming to the table a bit late here, but catching up...

 

12/13/07. One of the greatest days in baseball history. The light of truth was shined on the cockroaches crawling across the linoluem. Truth be told, I always suspected Clemens, but I thought his name would never surface. Lobbying efforts from Fox, ESPN and the YES Network usually do wonders. But I was thrilled to be proven wrong.

 

A few other names I expected to see, but didn't?

 

Roberto Alomar?

Luis Gonzalez?

Jay Bell?

Brady Anderson?

Alex Rodriguez?

 

I have never been a Bud Puppet, but honesttogod, the opinions are running at around 80-90% saying Bud's to blame for this scandal.

 

And all we heard yesterday was that Senator Mitchell's report was incomplete due to the lack of hard evidence. And who's to blame for this lack of hard evidence?

 

None other than Donald Fehr, Gene Orza and agents like Scott Boras, who "suggested" to union members that they don't cooperate. Hell, the only one to talk to Mitchell was Giambi, and that was only because he kept blubbering to the media, "I'm sorry!, I'm sorry!" Umm, for what, Jason? "I can't say! Boo-hoooooooooo" I would imagine he was called in and told, "Since you're this sorry about everything, and your conscience is killing you, then clear that conscience, by either talking to Mitchell or you're suspended indefinitely." The only reason even one player cooperated with Mitchell was because Giambi seemed to WANT punishment, and kept apologizing in public.

 

Then you have ESPN. EVERY single commentator they trotted out before the cameras, kept parroting the company line "Mitchell's evidence is flimsy." Why? Because when it comes down to ESPN either taking the side of some old white men in suits vs. athletes (athletes who can choose to shut you out of interviews and other cooperation, like attending the ESPY's or filming ESPN commercials, if they want to), they'll throw in with the jocks every time, because Bud Selig can't hit a homer, and George Mitchell can't dunk.

 

I TiVo'ed the coverage yesterday, and Orestes Destrade was almost slobbering in his defense of Bonds and Sheffield, questioning Mitchell's agenda,

marginalizing Kirk Radomski and Brian McNamee, and bellowing "Mitchell's basically got a fitness advisor and a batboy!!"

 

Tiny Tim Kurkjian said, in his lovely falsetto lilt of a voice, "Barry Bonds IS a first ballot Hall of Famer. Roger Clemens will continue to be the

2nd-best pitcher ever!!" And Peter Gammons nearly wet 'em when he marginalized Brian McNamee ("he's a sewer rat?"), and defended Clemens and Pettitte, just after ESPN blew the dust off of some 2002 video they shot of McNamee working out with these 2 cheats. "Look at the sweat!! How dedicated they are!!"

 

I'm left to apologize to guys like Kansas City's Carlos Febles and Atlanta's Quilvio Veras. I said a few years back that they were not good

enough to start in the majors. In 2001, among 30 teams of qualifying MLB second basemen, they finished 31st and 32nd in OPS. The stats suggested I was right at the time. But looking back at the list of 2B, sorted by OPS, if you discount Fernando Vina (the artist formerly known as "ESPN's Fernando

Vina" - Vina wasn't on the air yesterday for some reason) and Bret Boone, then now they're good enough.

 

Makes you wonder if Carlos Febles, at 100%, and probably drug-free was a better player than Bret Boone, whose numbers were 120% of those Febles

turned in. What if Vina hit .300, with a .730 OPS, but ON chemicals, while Veras hit .285 with a .700 OPS, clean. Level the playing field and Vina's only

capable of driving the ball or speeding up to beat out that infield single, at a .280/.680 rate.

 

I'm just excited now for when Congress subpoenas these junkies to testify on Capitol Hill. Can't wait...

[DSFastball55]

I think the idea about an amnesty program is a good one. In order to protect players against federal prosecution, I would suggest that the amnesty program be completely in-house, meaning names are not reported to the public.

 

Then you have ESPN. EVERY single commentator they trotted out before the cameras, kept parroting the company line "Mitchell's evidence is flimsy." Why? Because when it comes down to ESPN either taking the side of some old white men in suits vs. athletes (athletes who can choose to shut you out of interviews and other cooperation, like attending the ESPY's or filming ESPN commercials, if they want to), they'll throw in with the jocks every time, because Bud Selig can't hit a homer, and George Mitchell can't dunk.

Umm...I've read through quite a bit of it, and ESPN is correct, most of it IS flimsy evidence. Very flimsy. A large percentage of the information comes from a couple individuals. Cancelled checks are circumstantial at best, they could be for anything. Sure everyone "knows" this stuff is probably true, but gossip like this isn't really evidence. If it came down to it, most of this stuff would never hold up in court.