Mitchell Report?

[TussAgee11]

The purpose of this report was not to name names. That isn't really what is important, as Mitchell said.

The recommendations from a 3rd party (this can be argued) to the commissioner's office is what is important. That was the goal of this report, and it met those goals.

To say it wasn't successful is because the general public wanted something other than the goals set forth by Mitchell. But that wasn't his job.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

The purpose of this report was not to name names. That isn't really what is important, as Mitchell said.

The purpose may not have been to name names, but that is essentially what Mitchell has done. It might not be important to him, but to the good name of some great athletes, it has done irrepairable damage.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

The purpose may not have been to name names, but that is essentially what Mitchell has done. It might not be important to him, but to the good name of some great athletes, it has done irrepairable damage.

You say that with such certainty. Please provide the evidence behind it. Tell us the names of those who are mentioned who are completely innocent.

[GarthB]

For the Bond apologists who insist he must be innocent because he never tested positive for performing enhancement drugs:

The report includes a mention that the San Francisco Chronicle has a tape of his trainer boasting that he always received advance notice of the testing.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

For the Bond apologists who insist he must be innocent because he never tested positive for performing enhancement drugs:

The report includes a mention that the San Francisco Chronicle has a tape of his trainer boasting that he always received advance notice of the testing.

I think the thing you do not understand, is some of us do not care if Bonds did or did not use drugs. The problem is that you have never proven that he took them and when other than hearsay information and very suspect evidence. You cannot say someone's hat size is the proof someone took drugs. If that is the case then I am a drug user because I have gained weight and look nothing like I did when I was in my early to mid-20s. The drugs that Bonds and others are accused of using were not illegal as it relates to the game of baseball. And even during some of that period of time, steroids were a legal substance by law in many jurisdictions. Major League Baseball had no drug testing like the NFL for example that banned many substances that are very legal by law, but illegal by NFL Drug Policy rules. I do not really care what someone thinks now after the fact. If MLB cared that much, they would have had a policy back then as did the NFL and other sports governing bodies (Olympics for example). Ben Johnson was banned in 1988 from the Olympics and stripped from his World Championship medals. If I recall correctly the NFL had a steroid and drug policy at that time. All MLB did was reinstate a pitcher about 8 times for taking cocaine and other drugs. To be so wrapped up in what Bonds and anyone else took is a little too late. And does the fact that Sosa and McGuire not listed in the report change your mind about whether they might have used? Probably not. I am sure this drug use was more widespread than less than 1% of players over many years.

Peace

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

You say that with such certainty. Please provide the evidence behind it. Tell us the names of those who are mentioned who are completely innocent.

If even one person named is not involved in steroid use, then it is a bad thing.

The witches of Salem also had to prove they were not witches, which is insanity.

I now call for all the names of former MLB players who used illegal drugs in the '60s, '70s and '80s. Let's throw them under the bus while we're at it. Oh, that was just speed and cocaine, no big deal, right? Drug use is drug use, so why now all the urgency to expose even the people who were least involved with steroids?

I think it's bad for baseball overall. It makes the do-gooder, feel-free-hug-a-tree crowd happy, but it going to hurt the game in the long run.

I would rather have cheaters in the game than quitters like the Falcon's Patrino, or dog killers like Vick. JMO.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If even one person named is not involved in steroid use, then it is a bad thing.

The witches of Salem also had to prove they were not witches, which is insanity.

I now call for all the names of former MLB players who used illegal drugs in the '60s, '70s and '80s. Let's throw them under the bus while we're at it. Oh, that was just speed and cocaine, no big deal, right? Drug use is drug use, so why now all the urgency to expose even the people who were least involved with steroids?

If I am not mistaken, MLB very recently outlawed drugs like "Greenies" and other amphetamines that were common for players to use during that time. I guess that was OK or not performance enhancing?

Peace

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

All MLB did was reinstate a pitcher about 8 times for taking cocaine and other drugs.

Thank you for reminding me about Steve Howe. If ever there were a player who illustrates our point, he is the poster boy. Doc Gooden and Darrel Strawberry come to mind as well. I don't remember the same hysteria, even though illicit drug use was widespread and fairly commonplace.

[gordon30307]

In a Court of Law could the suspected users of PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS be convicted? I would say no. Unless I'm mistaken, you can check the record books for all sports, performance declines as athletes age. You don't suddenly in your late 30's or early 40's significantly increase your stats. That's precisely what happened with Bonds, McGuire and Clemens. Sammy Sosa was not "named" as user. However, I'm 99% sure he was. All you need to do is look at a picture of him when he was hitting 60+ HR's per year and compare it to recent pictures from last season. He shrunk in size. I would assume his workout routine hasn't changed. He's just not getting the chemical boost.

Look just because they never tested positive doesn't mean they weren't users. You have to be a knucklehead to get caught. I understand that Marion Jones was tested 160 times while she was using and never tested positive. This happened despite the fact that she was subjected to a much tougher testing program than MLB has.

The other thing I'm wondering about is what happened to players hitting 60 + HR's. Juiced balls may have helped. But as quickly as it appeared the days of 60 + has disappeared. Could it be the suppliers are heading to the s***house and increased scrutiny by MLB?

Just as I'm certain that innocent people are in jail and the guilty unjustly go free I'm sure some of those named are not users. They only have MLB and thier Union to blame for turning a blind eye and allowing this to happen.

Quite frankly, I welcome the "witch hunt". I'm hopeful some good will come out of it.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Thank you for reminding me about Steve Howe. If ever there were a player who illustrates our point, he is the poster boy. Doc Gooden and Darrel Strawberry come to mind as well. I don't remember the same hysteria, even though illicit drug use was widespread and fairly commonplace.

Steve Howe was and still is an addict. Hopefully he's not using but never the less he's an addict. He's dependent on chemicals. As were Gooden and Strawberry. To my knowledge they were not taking Performane Enhancing Drugs. Alcohol, Cocaine, Heroin are not going to boost your performance. This is an entirely different issue.

[mbyron]

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,

I have a simple answer:

"The difference between the threat to the U.S.A. posed by communism and the threat to baseball posed by steroid abuse."

Also, it's worth noting that communism is not illegal.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think the thing you do not understand, is some of us do not care if Bonds did or did not use drugs.

No, you seem to care only that people keep accusing him of doing so.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The problem is that you have never proven that he took them and when other than hearsay information and very suspect evidence.

Why should anyone here prove anything to you? First, you don't care whether he did steroids, and second, this is not a criminal proceeding.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The drugs that Bonds and others are accused of using were not illegal as it relates to the game of baseball.

Baseball does not have laws, it has rules. Steroids have long been illegal according to U.S. law. They are now also (belatedly) prohibited by MLB.

Your argument boils down to: everyone's doing it, but nobody has any proof.

[D-Man]

Angry Mob: "We found a steroid user, may we burn him? (BURN HIM!)
Sir George: "How you know he is a user?"
Angry Mob: "He looks like one!"
Sir George: Bring him forward."
Roger Clemens' lawyer: "He's not a user, he's not a user!"
Sir George: "...but he looks just as one."
Roger Clemens' lawyer: "they dressed up my client like this, and that's not his gigantic hat, it's a false one!"
Sir George: "Well?"
Angry Mob: "well...we did do the hat, and the eyebrows...but he is a user! (YEAH, BURN HIM!)"
Sir George: "Did you dress him up like this?"
Angry Mob: "NO! No, no...yes, a bit, a bit...he has got a back zit!"
Sir George: "How do you know he is a user?"
Angry Mob Guy: "His trainer said so!......he did lie on national television."
Sir George: "There are ways of telling if he's a user."
Angry Mob: "Are there? Tell us!"
Sir George: "What do you do with steroid users?"
Angry Mob: " BURN THEM?"
Sir George: "and what we burn apart from steroid users?"
Angry Mob: "MORE STEROID USERS (OW!) ..uhm...child molesters and serial killers?"
Sir George: "gooooood!.... so, do child molesters and serial killers (apart from OJ) get to walk the streets?"
Angry Mob: "no..No their careers are ruined!"
Sir George: "what else can you do to ruin your career?"
Angry Mob: "insider trading!...Little boys!...screw around on your wife!..gravy!
King Bud "Leak bad info to the press!"
Sir George: "Goooood!, So logically.....
Angry Mob: "If we waste millions of taxpayers dollars on a cockamaimie study that most non-sports fans don't even care about...the media will pick it up and run with it."
Sir George: "...and therefore..."
Angry Mob: "their careers will be ruined by heresay and conjecture! (BURN THEM!)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by GarthB

You say that with such certainty. Please provide the evidence behind it. Tell us the names of those who are mentioned who are completely innocent.

And while you're at it, name those who suffererd "irrepairable (sic) damage".

If we're going to compare this to the legal process (and I don't think we should), I'd consider the Mitchell report to be more along the lines of "suspect" / "arrest" / "indictment" than "conviction."

I once heard someone suggest teh way to stop this is to have everyone pee into a vat at the end of the game. Test the entire vat. If it tests positive, the team forfeits the game. (Of course, this assumes that urine tests are avaialble for the substance). the idea has some merit (and, yes, there ae some problems with the idea as well).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by greymule

In San Francisco, 75% of murder trials end in acquittals, and the prosecutors pursue only the most obvious cases. Does anyone—even the juries—really think 75% of those defendants are innocent? Even so, not everyone in jail is guilty.

Even if your 75% number is correct, you need to understand that fewer than 5% of those charged with a crime go to trial. 95% of criminal cases are plea bargained and never see a jury.

Assuming that the 95% number is also correct for murder cases in San Francisco, that would mean, using your 75% number, that less than 4% of those charged with murder are acquitted.

It's also worth noting that the main purpose of jury trials is NOT to get at the truth, but to protect defendants from state power. Concern with the truth is important, but the design of the adversarial system has much more to do with curbing state power.

Today's civics lesson is concluded.