Mitchell Report?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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).