Thoughts On Mitchell Report
Thursday, December 13, 2007
One of the biggest days in baseball history has come and gone, and I think a lot of people are disappointed with the results. While some were expecting more of the big name players, some were expecting that they were would be some tentative plan for the future. At least I was. I was also expecting Commissioner Bud Selig to have at least read through the Report before making it public. There is a lot more to it than the average fan thinks, even though some just care about the names on the list.
As for the players, I was not surprised to hear some of the names. However, I was surprised that Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte would be mentioned, when all the evidence they had was their training saying he recalled it. And, Clemens supposed use was well before drug testing began. I was surprised to hear Eric Gagne on the list, but the other names, like Gary Matthews, Paul Byrd, Rick Ankiel, Troy Glaus, and Jason Giambi, have all been mentioned before. And of those names mentioned above, they will likely not be disciplined because their reported use was before drug testing began in 2003.
As for teams, a lot of players on the list came from the 2000 World Series Champion Yankees. Nothing can be done now, but one could argue they had an unfair advantage. Also, I wonder how teams will treat a player on their team if he was named. Or the players. Does this end a career for a player like Jerry Hairston Jr., someone who has never been an All-Star? Finally, will the fans treat any one player different? Again, I think the better the player is, the less repercussions there will be, but we will see.
"Many players are named. Their reputations have been adversely affected, probably forever, even if it turns out down the road that they should not have been," Donald Fehr said. What Don Fehr said is probably the biggest effect the report will have. How does it change the reputation of Roger Clemens? How does it change the reputation of clean pitchers, like Greg Maddux, who sort of came up behind these pitchers. Better yet, how does it change the face of Mike Mussina, a teammate of both Clemens and Pettitte who has started to decline but has always been pretty consistent. Time will tell how these players are accepted by fans as we try to move away from the Steroid Era, but questions will always surround the players mentioned in the report.
Leave me a comment on what you think about this whole issue...
Quote: CNN.com
11 comments:
Don't kid yourself..
Do you think the only steroid distributors in all of Major League Baseball exist in New York clubhouses? Mitchell got a few guys from New York because that's all he could scrounge up.
There are, without a doubt, steroid dealers and players with connections on every single team at one time or another. If the report was even REMOTELY done well he could have found more. But he settled for the shock value of New York, and what the nation thinks of NY sports in general.
If he actually did his job, we would all be shocked and appalled at our favorite clubs and the juicing stars they've produced and prospered from, not just the Yankees and Mets.
Overall, I think people should put less focus on the actual names and focus on the issue. There's no doubt that this report just scratches the surface.
As far as the 2000 Yankees: Most of the names came from one source. Who's to say that the Mets didn't just have other suppliers?
That is what makes this debacle so messy. You can't discount any accomplishments based on the sole fact that someone used enhancing substances because perhaps the pitcher throwing the pitch or the batter hitting the ball was also on something.
I agree with Mitchell--we should look at solutions to move on from this era. Hopefully, the MLBPA sees how much harm this is doing for the clean players and stands up for them for a change! Just seems to me that they keep trying to protect the cheaters as oppose to the Mussinas or Madduxes.
I would like to apologize in advance because I am about to go on a little rant, or quite frankly my head might explode. This report is absolutely ridiculous, there is positively no concrete proof on almost all the claims. Though after reading this report I do have suspicions about Clemens, but suspicions aren't proof. Releaseing this report without any solid evidence is irresponsible and detrimental to the legacys and lives of the players named. George Mitchell should not be praised, he should be vilified for unleashing this thing on society. After almost 2 years and reportadly 60 million dollars we get a half-assed pile of garbage. Where is Mcgwire, or palmeiro guys everybody knew took steroids. Why would you even think about releasing only a small amount of names (most of who are not even in baseball anymore) and letting the rest slide. And how exactly did Bryan Roberts even Make this list! Looking at the Roberts section, it seems to me that Mitchell put in every rumor and innuendo he could find. No wait I forgot Mcgwire is not on the list. I also agree with what Clemens's lawyer said why is the prosecution getting in the middle of business's private investigation. And now once again congress wants to get up on stage and bore people with their mind-numbing hearing process that only pisses people off. Maybe because they have more important matters, for instance THE WAR! I watched all the press conferances and analysis on the Mitchell report the entire day and by six o'clock I was ready to barf. How many times am I not going hear Selig or Fehr acknowledge that they should take resposibility for the steroid era in baseball. Also is Selig telling me before Mitchell came along with his recommendations he didn't know what was wrong with the sport and how to fix it, why is he the Commissioner. The baseball officials need to stop talking about steroids and creating tedious reports that in the grand scheme of things don't mean a hell of alot and pretend like they know how to run a 6 billion dollar business. Now reading this rant you may have misunderstood where I stand on steroid abuse in basebll. So don't get me wrong I'm all for finding and punishing cheaters in the game, but can I please have some evidence before I drag Hall of Famers through the mud and by the way that goes for Bonds to, even though deep down I know he cheated. I would like to thank all those people that have finished reading the entire rant. So, Thanks.
YF1987 was right i mean look at Andy part in the report was just about a former trainer that got fired and was pissed and the only reason he gave out names was because the feds told him to or else he would go to jail for a long ass time and how do u know that he didnt just throw out the names that was already around roids i think that this report is shit
"I was surprised that Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte would be mentioned, when all the evidence they had was their training saying he recalled it."
I wasn't, even though Clemens has vehemently denied it and I think Pettitte most likely isn't involved. Mitchell is a member of the Board of Directors of the Red Sox. As such I'm surprised he left out Jeter, A-Rod, and Bernie Williams. Or, for that matter, Bucky Dent. Not to mention Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, and Mantle.
" Do you think the only steroid distributors in all of Major League Baseball exist in New York clubhouses? Mitchell got a few guys from New York because that's all he could scrounge up."
No, he got New York guys because that is all he was looking for. If he talked to a Boston clubbie, he might have gotten Ortiz's name. (The guy fits the classic profile: normal size guy, decent player, gets hurt, goes back to the minors, comes back a big hulking guy with big-time homerun power.) He wasn't about to allow himself to find that, being a director of the Red Sox.
I hope a couple of players sue teh pants off Mitchell.
the one thing that can't stay out of my mind is Adam Piatt took steroids. Why, Adam, why?
i think there's what, 2 guys named from the yankees 2000 team?
totally an unfair advantage.
what a joke.
1)What's all the crap about about "no evidence." In Clemmens case, they have the guy who, under oath, testified that he gave Ol' Roger numerous shots in the butt. That's not "heresay," it's testimony that, in a court of law, could sway a jury to convice.
2) EVERY ONE of these guys, including Roger, had the opportunity to talk to Mitchell and help in the effort to rid the game of steroids. Nearly all chose to cover their own rear-end by refusing to participate. Please spare me the crocodile tears, boys.
Save the kids, what are you talking about neither of them were under oath. And in the court of law the judge would laugh at you if thats all the evidence you had, especially in Roberts's case. I think everybody here realizes that all those players in the Mitchell report took steroids, but other then hear-say their is not much else there. As for the fact that every player had a chance to talk to Mitchell,it's true. But why would they, it wouldn't have made a differance and their names still would have come probably even before the report came out. Lets face it there is no such thing as cooperation between the players and the commissioners office. Because there is no trust between the two sides. And the only people that suffer are the fans.
Is anyone really suprised. Take a look at Clemens, Tejada, Bonds, Sheffields numbers. Players do not peak after 35. Tejada is a great example. In oakland he had a MVP season, banked a huge contract and once the new testing came, his numbers are no where near MVP form. He is average at best. Same goes for Giambi.
You say "There is a lot more to it than the average fan thinks, even though some just care about the names on the list."
But then all you really talk about is... the names on the list.
I thought the report was interesting, and much needed. Will it solve the problem? Of course not. But it's a good overview of the issues, and a look at how steroids get to players.
Post a Comment