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

[logan82]

This whole report is next to useless. It is alot of hersay and is nowhere near a complete list of who was cheating. There were a larger number of players who tested positive in the first round of tests than are on this list and that was just current players at that time. It was just a big waste of time unless it leads to a change in the testing policies. Hardly worht the paper it was printed on.

[snyttri]

I think it is naive to focus all the blame on the players when the owners made the lion's share of the money from the home run surge. Baseball owners and management are not unsophisticated and they are in a much better position to know what is going on in the clubhouse than fans, some of whom figured out generally what was going on before the issue blew up. While fans puzzled over whether the home run surge was due to secret changes in the manufacturing of baseballs the owners had a better idea. McGwire left his andro out in the open and its purpose was not a secret. While the players have always been against more intrusive testing the owners have not exactly gone to the mat over the issue. They have not (that I am aware of) even used their public relations department over the years to complain to the public about the players' resistance to testing. I think it is reasonable to infer that management was aware of what was going on long before John Q. Public figured it out and that their silence and the money they made from the use of PEDs is no coincidence.

 

Mitchell, who is part of baseball management, performed an expensive but shallow investigation of the use of PEDs. It would be interesting to see some investigative resources applied to management's knowledge of PED use.

 

The Mitchell investigation was designed to head off a thorough independent investigation by Congress that would reveal the true scope of the problem and I suppose it will work.

[iluvlamp]

Geno I agree.

 

Great post. I can't wait for the lawsuits from the players for all this heresy. A big up to Bennett for admitting what we all know. just nice to have a bit of confirmation because Radomski is a sewer rat and is just railroading all the innocent players. (unless steroids are good because it makes the game better because hulks hit homers and baseball wasn't popular in the 50's and 60's. That was just boring).

[TooLiveBrew]

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?

Bud and at least 3 of his predecessors were to blame. Kinda like how it wasn't just Bud's fault when they came to him & said, 'No one wants to finish this game since we'd risk player injury.'

 

The impenetrable 'code of silence' is to blame for the lack of hard evidence. Reading through the report, the clubhouse attendants' reporting leads to one F.O. guy's excuse leads to another, to another, etc. Hardly Bud's fault. He can't put people in prison, so the other option is to put them out of the game, which might be a tad extreme. Can you suspend people for not knowing what they really said? Just like you probably can't there, you can't sue someone over printing reports from interviews and following seemingly logical paper trails obtained via legal means.

It was just a big waste of time unless it leads to a change in the testing policies. Hardly worth the paper it was printed on.

 

Don't know if you are reading or have read it, but the reason it spends so much time on players is that they want to fully disclose all evidence that they could find - which in some cases, wasn't much. The majority of the document focuses on the whats, whys, hows, and how-to-improves.

 

and agents like Scott Boras...

 

So you've got your two lightning rods. Is that what you want?

[dpapo]

Like I thought, Congress is jumping in again. I would like to think in a productive way, but I think it's mainly a way for them to attract media attention.

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.congress14dec14,0,6397509.story

[foamboy1]

I'll be interested to see if someone tries to question Clemens under oath.

 

For all those folks who are offering surprise about some names not being on the list....this is not an inclusive list. It's just from a few sources the government helped Mitchell interview. This isn't even close to the tip of the iceberg...much less an inclusive list. This remains a huge problem. HGH is not detectable in a test....after reading that Clemens went 14-0 after beginning the season 6-6....and there is not test for the stuff....what do you think people are going to do? The margin of error is too small and the upside is too big. PED's are more popular than ever and will continue to be.....I'm not happy about it....but it's the current state of affairs.

[gregmag]

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.

I have to disagree. The evidence is primarily the testimony of people who either saw or participated in offenses. The strength of that direct evidence comes down to the credibility of the people who provide it. Based on what I read, the two key witnesses here aren't easily or obviously impeachable. Yes, they're criminals, but most witnesses against criminals are other criminals. Also, we're starting to see people (Gary Bennett) come forward to corroborate the accounts in the Mitchell report. The cancelled checks are just icing on the cake.

 

Nonetheless, I agree that we shouldn't heap all our scorn on the named players -- the report itself makes this admonition -- because (a) the users aren't the only wrongdoers here, and (b) the evidence in the report is incomplete.

 

I love the amnesty idea. I've thought for a while that a "truth and reconciliation commission" approach to this problem would be very useful. The idea does present practical problems: in addition to prosecution, I think a lot of players will be reluctant to admit the truth because of how it will taint their achievements on the field. But at this point fans pretty much assume everything in the era was tainted, so some players at least will probably realize they have something to lose.

 

Also -- this is my one disagreement with Geno's excellent post -- one thing we still don't know is how PEDs actually affected performance. We know that some players, including great ones, believed them useful, but we also know that a lot of the named users incorrectly saw PEDs as the road out of suckitude. The best reason for getting more facts out under an amnesty approach would be to help us understand just which achievements from the steroid era we should consider tainted.

 

Greg.

[brewizard]

Mitchell, who is part of baseball management, performed an expensive but shallow investigation of the use of PEDs. It would be interesting to see some investigative resources applied to management's knowledge of PED use.

 

The Mitchell investigation was designed to head off a thorough independent investigation by Congress that would reveal the true scope of the problem and I suppose it will work.

 

There ya go. Nothing truer than this.

 

The Mitchell investigation, as bad as it seems on the glossy surface, is actually like an inoculation against a much more serious disease - true transparency.

 

Forgive and forget. That's the message.

 

It happened.

 

Move on.

[1e Corbeau]

The evidence is primarily the testimony of people who either saw or participated in offenses. The strength of that direct evidence comes down to the credibility of the people who provide it. Based on what I read, the two key witnesses here aren't easily or obviously impeachable. Yes, they're criminals, but most witnesses against criminals are other criminals. Also, we're starting to see people (Gary Bennett) come forward to corroborate the accounts in the Mitchell report. The cancelled checks are just icing on the cake.

The terms I bolded above have (at least) two sets of definitional weight, one in the legal sphere and one in non-legal (public opinion, colloquial, what-have-you) sphere. I don't think the legal "weight" of these terms is fully applicable (if at all) to this investigation, and I wonder if some of the debate is a result of this shifting problematization/ambiguity of the language we use to discuss the Mitchell Report. And, I'm not trying to pick on you, Greg, or anyone else, as I, too, wanted to view the report as something at least bordering on objectivity. But, as Brewizard mentions above, I think that type of reading is impossible, if not inconvenient.

 

I think the best practical way of "knowing" who was on PESs is through the admission of individuals, like the Gary Bennett instance above. However, just because Bennett was named and admitted, I can't assume that all the names given are accurate, simply because one is.

 

My own personal opinion is that a lot of guys used a lot of PESs and that most (majority of the individuals who comprise MLB, MLBPA, individual players) didn't want to slow down the gravy train.

 

Maybe that's just the historical materialist in me typing...

[gregmag]

Those are all fair points (although I don't quite understand what you ultimately mean about the language shifting), and I agree with some of the general criticisms of the report -- it's incomplete, it's compromised in purpose.

 

But none of that alters the relative validity of the evidence the report offered to back up the names listed. Frankly, I haven't heard anyone make any credible criticism of that evidence. Just because Mitchell didn't have many sources doesn't mean the ones he had aren't any good. Just because he was out to cauterize MLB's wounds doesn't mean his sources aren't legit. We have to judge the sources on their own merits, and to me their merits (as sources; not as human beings or anything else) seem pretty strong.

 

Put it another way: Mitchell freely conceded the report was incomplete, so that's not an issue. Many/most of us think that he had an agenda to put a comforting spin on the report. That may or may not be correct, and if correct it may or may not be a very bad thing, but even if it's a very bad thing, it's the kind of bad thing that lawyers, and Senators, do as a matter of course.

 

But the suggestion that the names in the report rest on illegitimate evidence goes much further -- if true, it makes Mitchell either baldly incompetent or blatantly unethical. I'd need a good reason to accept a criticism of that magnitude, and I haven't heard anything approaching such a reason.

 

Greg.

[foamboy1]

I think what surprises me the most is that I don't see how anyone came out ahead with this investigation.

 

It's another black eye for baseball

It further sullied some legends

It will only magnify the issue and need for improvement in standards and testing, something neither baseball or the union want to address

After hearing how Clemens went 14-0 after beginning its use, it will only encourage further use, particularly by younger folks who are seeking advantage

 

Who wins in this?

 

Canseco says the report is "a joke" and not even close to inclusive. In an amazing turn of events, Canseco is now the moral high-ground on the truth in these matters.

 

Bonds no longer looks like a pariah....he now looks like he's unfairly been the lighting rod for these issues (which he has been). If Bonds records are tarnished, so are Clemens, and that will make the largely white press corps wring their hands on how to address this.

 

Canseco and Bonds are the winners. The report is not inclusive. Nothing will come of this in terms of improvement since HGH testing is not possible. Victor Conte is saying that "designer steroids" are not in vogue any longer since the testing has found them, but new, "short acting" steroid versions of the old substances are now developed and used, that wash out of your body in a matter of a day or so. So much for solving this problem.

[TooLiveBrew]

Whether or not you agree that he's the best HR hitter in history, Barry Bonds owns one title: Best Juicer in MLB History.

[brewizard]

There once was a shortstop named Steve

who played with his heart on his sleeve

but it wasn't enough

cause he wasn't as buff

as the player who...

 

... took STEROIDS!!!

[logan82]

TooLiveBrew wrote:

Don't know if you are reading or have read it, but the reason it spends so much time on players is that they want to fully disclose all evidence that they could find - which in some cases, wasn't much. The majority of the document focuses on the whats, whys, hows, and how-to-improves.

And like I said, unless it leads to a change in policy it is just a big waste of time.

[Fatter than Joey]

What do you know, The Mitchell Report isn't the be-all end-all of the steroids debate

 

It even says so in the Mitchell Report. The report never claims to be all-inclusive

 

I'll be really surprised if any substantial retroactive punishments come out of this.

 

Agreed 100% -- I don't think the report was commissioned to be anything more than something to give depth to the overall problem.

 

I love the amnesty idea.

 

I do as well with transparency to the public-- I think that MLB underestimates the public's desire to forgive and forget. I think most of the public's ire stems from being lied to and treated like idiots.

 

We know that some players, including great ones, believed them useful, but we also know that a lot of the named users incorrectly saw PEDs as the road out of suckitude.

 

I think this is true, I tend to think a lot of players used them to rehab injuries.

 

The best reason for getting more facts out under an amnesty approach would be to help us understand just which achievements from the steroid era we should consider tainted.

 

Perhaps -- I think the best reason would be to show that these enhancers, whether they were used to help healing or performance, is that there are health risks involved in their use. I think a few things will remain constant.

 

1.) There will be new drugs that escape current detection

2.) There will be the temptation to cheat/heal faster.

3.) These drugs will be harmful in the long-term.

4.) Children will emulate professional athletes.

 

I could care less about the records -- I think the "integrity" needs to be intact, i.e. we don't need video-game stats to enjoy the game moving forward. I don't want to see players dying in their mid-40s or kids jeopardizing their well-being.

[brewdude15]

i dunno if this has been mentioned in this thread yet, but Derrick Turnbow's name was also in the report.

[pogokat]

it has been discussed above...turnbow got busted for a substance that the ioc tested for (andro) that wasn't illegal in baseball...so it's old news on him...he wasn't linked with anything else, so he's not in the hgh discussion

[logan82]

Well so much for heading off another congressional hearing.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3159935

[snyttri]

I don't think another day or two of hearings is what baseball hoped to avoid. It's Congress telling baseball in detail how to manage its' problem, and doing a competing congressional investigation in the process.

[aracko]

I think Congress should have more important things to do than getting mixed up with Baseball.

[foamboy1]

The congressional hearings will be interesting. Now that Clemens has come out via counsel and denied using.....look for him to be called to testify....he could pull a Barry Bonds....I have no doubt that Congress is very interested to hear Clemens on this matter. He must be freaking out. Lying to reporters and using "spin" in the media is a bit different than possibly lying to the Feds....ask Barry.

 

I hate that Congress is inserting itself in this issue....but the results will be awfully interesting. To perjure or not to perjure...that is the question of the day.

[biedergb]

Not to take this off topic (or even into the verboten political range), but I want to echo aracko's general comments. Shouldn't Congress and our tax money be put to more important things? I won't go into details, but I can think of about a handful of important issues Congress is supposed to spend time on and come to a resolution soon and hasn't done so yet, so I can't imagine witch-hunting Clemens, et al is a real important use of time.

[jaybird2001wi]

My question during the whole Mitchell Report is that he offered the players named to come in and defend their name and yet no one came forward. If I was implicated and knew I didn't do anything wrong, I would try to unearth as much evidence as possible to protect my name. If Clemens was indeed "clean," wouldn't a simple release of his total medical records, including his private doctor, help clear his name? Where I work, I had to do two drug tests for workman's comp issues within the last year. I am pretty sure Clemens took a urine test for something other than drugs between 1998 and 2003.

What irks me the most of this entire Report, is that I had some time to think about this. I am starting to wonder what the whole point of the investigation is, it seems like a combination of a total "witch hunt" and "proof" of using. Nothing will get done after this Report was issued, we can't go in the past and change things. The damage was done and it is time to move forward.

What did Major League Baseball expect to do after this report was released? Change back time and throw on some asterisks in every implicated players' statistics? That is not going to happen.

And to rely on just a mere two or three main sources for a 409 page Report seems less than reputable. There was no medical evidence any of the players used drugs in the past and there wasn't any players willing to come forward to come clean and prove they never used.

In my opinion, if these players refused to come forward during the Investigation, it just screams guilt to me.

 

The only reason this investigation came about is to try to taint Bonds as much as possible. Selig and the Commish's office want to pressure Bonds as much as possible to come forward and admit guilt. No one really wanted Bonds to break Aaron's record and he (Bonds) is not well-liked in many mediums in sports society.

 

The whole entire MLBPA is based on "no snitching on fellow players" but the MLBPA has created a lot of victims in their own union. Some players implicated in the Report are likely innocent and some players not implicated likely used PEDs for quite some time but just didn't get caught. What I don't get is if there were innocent players named in the Report, why don't they scream innocence and implicate the players who really did use and gain evidence of using?

[TooLiveBrew]

What I feel is most useful to me is that the Mitchell Report was, essentially, a random sample of players who got caught using/acquiring PEDs. And in that random sample, you have all portions of the spectrum of player talent represented - from HOF-caliber guys down to players that barely sipped a cup of coffee. Basically, it's what most people expected: anyone & seemingly everyone had access to, and the vast majority used, PEDs.

 

My guess is if you ran the 'random sample' again, excluding the players currently named (and given actual access to records/players - which is obviously not there in the real world), you'd get a similar range of players, and a similar realization that you can't see someone like Bonds or Clemens and use their extreme achievements as a 'red flag.'

[foamboy1]

The whole "steroid era" asterisk discussion I find interesting. I think that the consumption of PED is more widespread than ever. Baseball is acting as if this is a "lookback" on the episode and that they have caught up to the issue. The reality is so different than that...

 

They knew what was going on in the 1990's and looked the other way. In the same disingenuous style, they are trying to convince people that the era is "over" and they have an adequate testing program to catch any cheater. There is no test on earth to catch an HGH user. Conte met with Dick Pound last week to describe the new rage is the old steroids with short-acting lives to evade testing.

 

The money is too big in the game and the margin too small to avoid these issues and baseball is trying to convince everyone we are beyond it. I think it's just accelerating.

 

We're just years away from joint replacements with "bionic-like" qualities. What do we do then?