Mitchell Report?

[jimpiano]

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,

Well, for one thing Mitchell's report named people, by verifiable evidence, who used steroids.

McCarthy named people who he said were communists without any verifiable proof.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

McCarthy named people who he said were communists without any verifiable proof.

That is not entirely true. There were people at that time that sided or belonged to the communist party and were pointed out by McCarthy. The problem is that communism or a belief in communism did not automatically mean you were against this country or that you wanted to overthrow the government. Just like taking steroids does not mean that you did so to gain an advantage that the fact that you took them you gained some competitive advantage. If what Andy Petite says is true, I do not see that as a major violation. There were no rules against it and he had a right to explore treatments to get him back onto the field.

Peace