Mitchell Report

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:38 pm

No Pujols, eat shit

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:53 pm

The Bergen Record notes that "several" prominent Yankees will be named in the report, with one source telling the newspaper that "it's going to be a rough day in the Bronx."

When I heard that I thought players like A-rod, maybe posada would be mentioned. I am surprised by pettite and im sure a lot of people are because he was always seemed like a guy who wouldnt take roids. But im not suprised by clemens at all. And Giambi we all knew, so what names were they talking about??????

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:10 pm

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! F.P. SANTANGELO!!!!!!!!!!!! There is no God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:12 pm

Is it just me or was the report nowhere near as damaging as it was alleged to be? I mean how much of this did we not know already?

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:32 pm

i agree, im not even suprised of brian roberts. People were talking about steroid use when he came out of the woodworks and had that great year a few years back.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:59 pm

Remember when they had this big thing on ESPN on Roberts that his improved hitting was because he used some special contacts that seperated UV lights and made the ball easier to pick out from the background....I believe he even got an endorsement...such bull shit.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:05 pm

George Carlin said it right: "Used to be getting up for the game was sort of a spiritual thing..."

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:17 pm

some of these guys we could give 2 shits about, but its a shame for people like clemmens and bonds, maybe sheffield who are\were hall of famers. They had hall of fame careers before they started the roids, and its amazing how selfish a player could be, that hall of famer isnt enough that they want to try and break every record.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:30 pm

True, but I'm not sure this report really tells us anything more than we already knew.

Essentially, the government wasted a truckload of tax payers money in order to get some two bit trainers and has been punks to squeal on players.

For all the money they spent they sure didn't make a very good case against alot of the names they've chosen to throw in there. In addition, I'm surprised at how little the list is. Hell, I think a figure of 40% of players the past century were probably on some sort of "performance enhancing" drugs.

Personally, I think the whole report has been a huge let down. Nothing earth shattering has come out. Just more finger pointing and speculation by numerous individuals.

I think this has turned into nothing more than a witch hunt at this point.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:35 pm

Mariners wrote:True, but I'm not sure this report really tells us anything more than we already knew.

Essentially, the government wasted a truckload of tax payers money in order to get some two bit trainers and has been punks to squeal on players.

For all the money they spent they sure didn't make a very good case against alot of the names they've chosen to throw in there. In addition, I'm surprised at how little the list is. Hell, I think a figure of 40% of players the past century were probably on some sort of "performance enhancing" drugs.

Personally, I think the whole report has been a huge let down. Nothing earth shattering has come out. Just more finger pointing and speculation by numerous individuals.

I think this has turned into nothing more than a witch hunt at this point.

I think ... no make that I know, that various levels of government do waste some of the taxpayers money but tax dollars did not fund the Mitchell Report. The best account of how the investigation was actually conducted that I have found so far is at http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3142651

If this was a government investigation there would have been some level of subpoena power - among other things ... This was purely a private business investigation as Clemens agent indocates in his statement on behalf of the Rocket:

Randy Hendricks, one of Roger Clemens's agents, just sent out a fierce statement, saying Clemens "vehemently denies allegations in the Mitchell report that he used performance-enhancing steroids."

Hendricks's release says that Clemens "is outraged that his name is included in the report basedon uncorroborated allegations of a troubled man threatened with federal criminal prosecution."

He says Brian McNamee "repeatedly denied thse current claims, including in June of this year when he was first contacted by federal investigators." The release states that McNamee "changed his story under the threat of federal criminal prosecution."

"I am at a total loss to understand how it is proper for federal prosecutorial authorities to use the threat of criminal prosecution to help in a private business investigation," said Clemens attorney Rusty Hardin.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/national ... v=rss_blog

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:08 pm

I think ... no make that I know, that various levels of government do waste some of the taxpayers money but tax dollars did not fund the Mitchell Report.

I'd like to know who funded it then? Was it MLB? I doubt it. You had federal authorities running the investigation. Who was paying their tabs?

You link isn't working for me for some reason.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:17 pm

Got it to work. Interesting article. From the sounds of it, the league might have been who paid for it.....but then I guess we shouldn't be surprised by the result.

Still more questions than answers and no clear path to the future. My appologies to the politicos for rapping on them for one thing they actually didn't waste money on.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:25 pm

Mariners wrote:
I think ... no make that I know, that various levels of government do waste some of the taxpayers money but tax dollars did not fund the Mitchell Report.
I'd like to know who funded it then? Was it MLB? I doubt it. You had federal authorities running the investigation. Who was paying their tabs?

You link isn't working for me for some reason.

I fixed the link ... sorry.

The investigation was paid for by MLB:

A hefty segment of the report, which cost Major League Baseball at least $20 million and may have been delivered to Selig's top people as early as Monday, will center on the testimony of former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski, according to sources.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/w ... l?bcnn=yes

Mitchell's report comes at the end of an investigation that is believed to have cost more than $20 million, and is seen by some as controversial not just for its conclusions but for the involvement of Mitchell and two of his investigators.

A former two-term Democratic senator from Maine, Mitchell is on the board of directors of the Boston Red Sox. His investigators also included two lawyers from the Milwaukee firm of Foley & Lardner. MLB President Bob DuPuy is a former partner in Foley & Lardner, and the firm has previously represented the league and commissioner Selig.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/s ... C886AFF%7D

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:29 pm

Thanks...good info.

To bad it doesn't look like the report really provided any good info in the end. I don't know about anyone else, but this seems very anti-climactic to me.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:37 pm

i can safely say I don't care about this report in the least.

Braves · Post by **Braves** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:43 pm

Pirates wrote:i can safely say I don't care about this report in the least.

agreed, most of it is nothing but hear-say

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:20 pm

Braves wrote:
Pirates wrote:i can safely say I don't care about this report in the least.
agreed, most of it is nothing but hear-say

Agreed - a good attorney will tear most of this report apart. I think that is why Mitchell basically said 'Hey - we all know steroids were part of the culture. Let's acknowledge it and move forward to try to improve the situation.' But Commissioner Bud didn't follow his lead and instead, worrying about his legacy I believe, pretty much challenged the union to become part of the solution without concurring that what has happened has happened and there isn't much that can be done about it - or accepting any personal or professional responsibility for the status of steroids in baseball (past and present) as the Commissioner.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:20 pm

Pirates wrote:No Pujols, eat shit

That doesn't mean squat.
I don't have an opinion on Pujols ether way, but his absence from this list means nothing. There was nothing on Sheffield or Brady Anderson either and we know they were juicers. Most of the damage seems to have come from testimony from two guys who were most strongly linked to the Mets and the Yankees.
Now, if it had been a Cardinals trainer who turned, giving out lists of Cardinals and other names and Pujols didn't get fingered, THEN you might be able to use the report as justification for saying Pujols is clean. Although the possibility of him having his own guy and keeping his use quiet is still a possibility.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:07 pm

And what proof do you have to make any allegation towards Pujols? none

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:20 pm

They're not allegations. None of what anyone says here is allegations and as I said at the start, I don't have an opinion either way, I'm just saying the Mitchell report doesn't prove he's clean.
IMO, they're all dirty until they prove otherwise by adopting a stricter system of testing and punishment. Independent testing, blood tests, more frequent testing and minimum one year ban for a positive test.
For all the crap cycling gets, they make 10 times the effort MLB does.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:29 pm

And you just said Pujols is dirty based on what?

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:40 pm

JP - you are really hero-worshipping if you can't admit a window of chance that Pujols is dirty. Of all #'s that stood out to me, it was the $20 mill that MLB willingly spent on this study, and the fact that 0 currently players spoke to Mitchell. This proves how deep the league believes this runs, and how scared the players are to admit the truth.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:49 pm

Bren, their are certain players you can assume are on steroids and certain players you just dont even question. Is Pujols on something? theres a good chance he is. But theres no way you can point fingers at him because their hasnt really been any proof such as a big stat change over a period of time for instance You MIGHT and thats a big might, to be able to say that he gets injured often but thats so vague to say. I just dont think its really fair for you to say everyones guilty until proven clean.

Cycling is just as bad as baseball. Cyclists are even more arrogant because they know that if they dope they WILL be caught and yet they still do it. Floyd Landis? Jan Ulrich? Maybe Lance? IMO its worse to see players in a sport knowing that they will get caught keep trying to beat the system.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:50 pm

Royals wrote:JP - you are really hero-worshipping if you can't admit a window of chance that Pujols is dirty. Of all #'s that stood out to me, it was the $20 mill that MLB willingly spent on this study, and the fact that 0 currently players spoke to Mitchell. This proves how deep the league believes this runs, and how scared the players are to admit the truth.

I believe Frank Thomas did speak with Mitchell and his investigators ...

The report stated that Thomas and New York Yankees slugger Jason Giambi were the only current players to speak with the Mitchell team about the so-called ''steroid era,'' and Thomas did so voluntarily.

''If you're not guilty of something, you're the first one yelling about it,'' White Sox pitching coach Don Cooper said. ''This is a guy standing up for himself and saying, 'I might be a lot of different things, but I'm not a cheater.' He should be commended for that.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball ... 14.article

He and Giambi were the only two - and the Big Hurt was the only volunter. You may recall that back in 1991 Thomas and Tony Gwynn tried unsuccessfully to get some serious testing started ...

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:08 pm

Until the players take a stand, a REAL stand, and each make an effort to clean up the sport, they're all guilty and I see no reason to presume any of them are clean. There's no reason for them to be clean. Look at something like HGH. HGH is AMAZING stuff. It causes scars to fade, improves your eyesight, causes your body to heal/recover faster and as of now the known side effects are very minor. It only recently was able to be tested for, and ONLY in a blood test. There's NO reason for players to not take it (aside from the fact that it's clearly cheating). But who is raising a stink among players to make it testable? Anyone?
The only person to have voluntarily spoken to the Mitchell investigation is Thomas, IMO, the only person beyond suspicion, is Thomas. If any of these guys wanted the sport clean, they'd have talked to him.

Cycling, on the other hand, has worked so hard to clean up their sport that they've almost destroyed the premier event in cycling. There are always going to be a-holes in every sport who think the risk is worth it no matter how stringent the testing. Always. But at least cycling has shown a willingness to take on even the top ranks of their sport to get it clean. MLB's policy is a fucking joke.