Mitchell Report?

[Dakota]

Let's see...

Some people want to pretend this is not a problem because of the criminal standard of innocent until proven guilty,

Some are comdemning the report because it does not include all those names we "know" were juicing.

So, the report lacks credibility because the Commissioner's office does not have subpoena power and therefore relied on already open criminal investigations and on interviews with those who were willing to talk.

And, it also lacks credibility because it left out some names "everybody knows" are involved for essentially the same reason - it had to rely on open criminal investigations and those who were willing to talk.

I guess you get to pick your justification for denial.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Let's see...

Some people want to pretend this is not a problem because of the criminal standard of innocent until proven guilty,

Some are comdemning the report because it does not include all those names we "know" were juicing.

So, the report lacks credibility because the Commissioner's office does not have subpoena power and therefore relied on already open criminal investigations and on interviews with those who were willing to talk.

And, it also lacks credibility because it left out some names "everybody knows" are involved for essentially the same reason - it had to rely on open criminal investigations and those who were willing to talk.

I guess you get to pick your justification for denial.

The report lacks credibility because many of the names are listed did not speak to the entire scope of the problem and many names were mentioned were based on a conversation and not a failed test or a direct interaction. This would be like if there was an investigation on sports officials fixing games and someone referenced a conversation you had with them about a coach, player or team and then your name is listed without any corroboration or specifics to your wrong doing. I guarantee you or I would want think that would be wrong for your name to be mentioned simply on a conversation with a person that has an interest to save themselves from personal legal issues. And when you leave off the poster boys of this steroid era (which often is based on suspect evidence as well) then why mention names. Many of the players mentioned were not even good players or players that fit the description of a steroid user. I do not know if anyone ever saw David Segui, but he is smaller than I was in HS. The wind could blow and he would fall over and he is in the report as a steroid user.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

wally joyner admitted it several times after his career was over. he took em once, but had bought them before, and there's still speculation he used them more than that. he claims to have bought them and thrown them away. he wasn't a bad player either, he had some pretty good years. wally joyner also was known for being cooperative with officials so maybe he came clean about some other guys or something...

Wally Joyner was not a big time home run hitter. He was only good for a certain period of time; he started to fall off as his career went on. And if I remember correctly, he was a journeyman at the end of his career.

Look I am not defending players that used steroids. I just feel that you cannot list less than 1% of players during an era and list people that do not even fit the "look" of a steroid user or even a muscle bound player.

Peace

[jicecone]

Wow !!

A report came out that said many pro baseball players were using performance enhancement lotions, drugs, creams, underware, kool-aid, pills, bubble gum and things that the players had no idea what it was.

Unbelievable. America had NO IDEA this was going on, totally unblievable.

I think the report was written by some guy named McCarthy or was it Mitchell, not sure.

Late breaking FOX news!!!!!

Year 2012 -

Ya Di Ya Di Ya Di

Blah Blah Blah

MLB Baseball Commissioner stated today that the league has finally finished reading their report of 2007 and is ready to make drastic recommendations to clean up the sport. Stay tuned for News at 11:00

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The report lacks credibility because many of the names are listed did not speak to the entire scope of the problem and many names were mentioned were based on a conversation and not a failed test or a direct interaction. This would be like if there was an investigation on sports officials fixing games and someone referenced a conversation you had with them about a coach, player or team and then your name is listed without any corroboration or specifics to your wrong doing. I guarantee you or I would want think that would be wrong for your name to be mentioned simply on a conversation with a person that has an interest to save themselves from personal legal issues. And when you leave off the poster boys of this steroid era (which often is based on suspect evidence as well) then why mention names. Many of the players mentioned were not even good players or players that fit the description of a steroid user. I do not know if anyone ever saw David Segui, but he is smaller than I was in HS. The wind could blow and he would fall over and he is in the report as a steroid user.

Peace

So, you fall into the category of picking both.

Nothing happened since there was no testing, and nothing happened involving THESE players since many more (for which there was also no testing) were NOT named. It is a circular justification for denial.

The lack of hard evidence means the union could probably successfully fight any disciplining of players. But, if they do fight the kind of weak-kneed response that would be consistent for the pretend commissioner, there may be bigger trouble ahead.

If the union fights this, or if the pretend commissioner's response is too weak, Congress is just itching to wade into this. And, make no mistake, Congress will have no problem viewing the work of one of their own as being credible.

[Tim C]

I have a simple question:

"What is the difference in the Mitchell Report and the reports that Joe McCarthy used in the 1950's?"

The style of reporting seems to be very similar. No?

Regards,

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I have a simple question:

"What is the difference in the Mitchell Report and the reports that Joe McCarthy used in the 1950's?"

The style of reporting seems to be very similar. No?

Regards,

Simple answer to what is different: McCarthy's report was done with the power of government behind him. Mitchell's was done by a private entity with no criminal or police powers.

Does baseball have a problem with performance enhancing drugs? Absolutely, without a doubt, yes.

Does this problem extend the width and breadth of the sport, touching even to the top of the potential HOF-quality players? Absolutely, without a doubt, yes.

Does that include, specifically, Bonds, Clemens, others named? Yes to Bonds (we'll see the paper trail on him soon enough); others, probably but perhaps not certainly.

Should the records of the last 15 years in MLB be stricken from the books?
Should any of these players ever be inducted into the HOF?

Those last two would be for MLB to decide, and given the track record of the pretend commissioner, I expect the answers will be "no" and "yes."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Simple answer to what is different: McCarthy's report was done with the power of government behind him. Mitchell's was done by a private entity with no criminal or police powers."

McCarthy sullied the reputation of many people that were not guilty of anything other than what McCarthy thought was a moral issue (siding with communism). I do not recall many people being prosecuted for what McCarthy was accusing them of. And many of the people McCarthy brought to congress were not guilty of anything, but they paid a price with their reputation and are not very different than what is taking place in this report.

I am sorry, but I do not see much of a difference.

Peace

[jicecone]

Oh ! So the report was written by McCarthy.

Dear to my heart. My dad lost his job and lifetime career because of his willingness to stand up for people rights when he was a Union leader.

Good ole Eugene!

Late Breaking News

Congress has stated that they will hold hearings on all of this hearsay about Baseball. GW has threatened to use his veto power, the republicans think it is the influx of people that are crossing the border that is ruining Americas pastime and the democrates are trying to establish an Iraqian conference for the League in exchange for lower oil prices.

Bill Clinton has finally stated that he did not do any performance enhancers, or was that performing dancers?

Both Britney Spears and Pairs Hilton have volunteered to do half-time shows at next year World Series. When informed, that there is no half-time in baseball, they cried. To which Tom Hanks had a few things to say about that.

Finally, is there truth to the rumor that scratching is a sure sign of using too much cream?

Details at 11:00pm

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

McCarthy sullied the reputation of many people that were not guilty of anything other than what McCarthy thought was a moral issue (siding with communism). I do not recall many people being prosecuted for what McCarthy was accusing them of. And many of the people McCarthy brought to congress were not guilty of anything, but they paid a price with their reputation and are not very different than what is taking place in this report.

I am sorry, but I do not see much of a difference.

Peace

I'm with Rut and Tee on this one. It reminds me very much of what happened in the '50s to many good, patriotic Americans who had their reputations sullied by false accusations.

And maybe some did experiment with steroids long before the negative effects were widely understood. People make mistakes. There sure was a whole lot of illicit drug use back in the '60s and '70s by mainstream, star athletes. I don't see anyone calling for their records to be wiped out. The greenies on the training table were certainly intended to "enhance performance," so it really is an apples to apples comparison.

I think they just need better and more often testing for these drugs, and deal with each athlete on a case by case basis. Certainly not a tribunal like this one which resembles the Salem Witch Trials of 1692.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Both Britney Spears and Pairs Hilton have volunteered to do half-time shows at next year World Series.

I agree that Paris does have a nice pair!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

McCarthy sullied the reputation of many people that were not guilty of anything other than what McCarthy thought was a moral issue (siding with communism). I do not recall many people being prosecuted for what McCarthy was accusing them of. And many of the people McCarthy brought to congress were not guilty of anything, but they paid a price with their reputation and are not very different than what is taking place in this report.

I am sorry, but I do not see much of a difference.

Peace

Was McCarthy right about Soviet espionage?

[SanDiegoSteve]

It just shows the extremes McCarthy went to in order to "out" communists. I did nothing to expose the real spies of the Soviets. As the article admits, the findings do not exuse the excessive tactics of Joseph McCarthy. I don't personally feel that it is worth ruining many innocent people in order to find a few rotten ones.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I agree that Paris does have a nice pair!

You would think by now I would know the difference betwee a city and it's parts.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Was McCarthy right about Soviet espionage?

Its not always the message but, how its delivered.