Mitchell Report?

[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 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!

[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.

[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.

[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 Dakota

Was McCarthy right about Soviet espionage?

Its not always the message but, how its delivered.

[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]

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.

Wow. You don't?

McCarthy used the full force of the government to attempt to prosecute people for what they thought...not for what they did. McCarthy tried to deprive people of making a livelihood forever for this.

Mitchell investigated, at the direction of the players' employer, behavior (actions taken) that was either illegal or against "company policy" at the time of the behavior and to identify those involved. Mitchell recommended against taking away the players' ability to make the livelihood from baseball.

McCarthy kept secret his "sources" and deprived those who he accused of the opporutnity to refute the accusations prior to putting them "on trial" in front of his committee.

Mitchell named his sources throughout his investigation and advised all those who he named of the accusations and the evidence and provided them an opportunity to address those prior to finishing his report.

Anyone confusing the Mitchell report with McCarthyism does not understand one or the other or both.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Anyone confusing the Mitchell report with McCarthyism does not understand one or the other or both.

The comparison is that McCarthy named names of people that were not guilty of what they were accused of. And when those did not cooperate with the McCarthy investigation (which many choose not to answer questions) they were accused of being communist even if the evidence was not complete or the people were not convicted of anything. Of course it is a little different because one was a government action and another is a sports league or organizational report. The result is possibly the same. You have attached people’s names that are seen as guilty even if they did not give information. And folks like you are accusing those on the list as having done something wrong because they did not “defend themselves” by talking to the Mitchell people. This report has ruined the reputation of people based on a lot of hearsay and innuendo. Forgive me if I want more than a conversation to implicate someone of a wrong act. I guess anytime an official has a conversation with someone about what they feel, someone can accuse them of cheating or doing other things just based on a conversation. That is the only comparison I was making and if that is hard to understand then I really do not know what to tell you. This is why it is called a comparison, I did not say these two things were exactly and 100% the same.

Peace