Mitchell Report?
 

The Mitchell Report is out (mlb.com). Not surprisingly, no current or former MLB umpires.

That's partly because baseball doesn't test for creatine.

Or No-Doz for those exciting mid-August four plus hour affairs between cellar-dwellars

Awwww c'mon! Everybody loves a Pirates/Devil Rays doubleheader!:p

HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY .... Let's watch the Pirates' cracks. Can't we at least go with Royals/Devil Rays? At least they're in the same league! At least the Buccos are somewhat competitive during 60% of the season! Then they decide to go on 17, 19, etc. game losing streaks!

BTW .. at my count .. at least 4 former Pirates on the list, headed by Denny Neagle (and Barry Bonds, of course)

Let's just hope they don't start testing for Advil were all done! Just make sure you use plenty of masking agents for it.....Beer, it always works

As a co-worker of mine says: "Crap they get for the crap that they've done."

Doesn't pass the smell test, yet
 

I have not read the Mitchell Report, but I have some real reservations about it, and the process.

First, Everybody says the problem is so bad, but he comes up with 80 names.
Second, for a lot of these folks the proof is pretty flimsy, somebody said something, or I saw this guy take it once, etc. Nuts, you have tarred some of these guys for life, and they are not all Roger Clemens or Barry Bonds on the ladder of MLB players. Take that "proof" into a court and see if you can get a conviction.

And I'm sorry, but an offer to testify from a Star Chamber like this thing was is no real offer at all. Any player worth their salt would not testify. some guys testified with Federal Agents in the room? Please, don't make the case that this all fair and above board.

Third, convicted felons dropping names needs to have more evidence about a person's involvement than what was shown. I have not read all of the report, and the evidence might be more robust than I think it is, but I am not convinced about it.

Fourth, George Mitchell was a hyper-partisan, ruthless Senate majority leader. I really think he was a terrible leader for the country, and so I have real questions about him running anything like this, and any kind of fairness he might have. He was not independent in this case, he is serving the Commissioner's Office, and for many years after people forget about the blame
he heaped on MLB, the players named will be reviled like Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose. That is wrong.

Fifth, since I am an Indians fan, I know about the Paul Byrd case. Paul Byrd took HGH when it was not illegal to do so, under a doctor's prescription, to recover from an injury. If you want to say that he is using illegal stuff, then what you need to do first is charge the attending physician with a crime. Becuase if it was wrong of him to take it, why did his physician prescribe it? If it is a bad substance, where are the medical ethics people and why are they not hounding the physican to get a state board to remove his liscence? To tie Paul Byrd with Barry Bonds, maybe Gary Sheffield, and maybe Roger Clemens is wrong.

I guess whenever I see someone accused of cheating, I really look hard to see how the charges are made and what the evidence is. As umpires we ought to have that same level of care, since no matter our reputation on the field, all we have to do is be accused of cheating by someone, and our reputation can go up in flames like so many other people's have, unfairly.

I hope people like Clemens, David Justice, Paul Byrd and others sue MLB and Sen. Mitchell to clear their names. Then we will have a pretty good idea about where the truth lies here.

Freaking incredible.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic...l+(psychology)

Stop yourself. Drug use in baseball is rampant. Drug testing in MLB is a joke. If you think otherwise you're naive. Concerning Paul Byrd he's a cheater. Human Growth Hormone? How does this make your boo boo go away?

That's not what Bob Dole said. Sounds more like Rush Limbaugh. Consider the source.

Mitchell quipped that it was easier to resolve the issues in Ireland than to bring the owners and players of MLB together concerning this problem.

I agree completely. However, I don't think that you'll ever see <b>ANY</b> of these substance abusers sue anybody. They won't sue for the same reason that Barry Bonds never has. They <b>know</b> that they would have to tell the truth under oath if they do so.

If they truly were innocent, they'd sue in a heartbeat. Wait and see how many of them actually do.

That is not true at all. If you sue you have to reveal a lot of things and spend a lot of money for a cause that is very hard to prove. You cannot win a case of slander just because someone lied. You win if the information that was not true was malicious or purposely a lie to destroy your reputation. This is the very reason you do not see celebrities sue tabloids when the information is obviously untrue. You would be suing for every lie that is out there and why bother opening yourself up to other things you do not want the public to know. Suing is not going to prove anything. And in some cases there were names that were only put on the list that had a conversation with someone, not any paper trail or first hand knowledge of actual drug use. The report is a joke. There are more than 80 players that took performance enhancing drugs. And the funny part is that Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa were not listed at all. I bet not very many people believe they were not taking stuff to enhance their performance. ;)

Peace

No McGuire or Sosa, but boy that Wally Joyner, he's a baddy alright.:rolleyes:

The list is a joke and so is George Mitchell. Thanks for naming names and destroying the reputations of good guys without hard evidence against them.:(

Take that "proof" into a court and see if you can get a conviction.

Unfortunately, whether a U.S. court would convict somebody is hardly a test of the truth. Guilty people walk out of court every day, acquitted and laughing. 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.

In the case of baseball's steroids/HGH problem, the truth is what matters, not whether someone would be convicted in court. Mitchell's report is not a prosecutorial brief. And anyone with half a brain can see that baseball has a serious problem.

Eight, 10, 12 years from now, maybe sooner, we're going to start seeing some early deaths among these players (probably accompanied by assurances from their lawyers and physicians and MLB that the cause of death was anything but steroids/HGH).

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

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

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

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.

Hmmm,
 

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."

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

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

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.

I agree that Paris does have a nice pair!;)

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.

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

Its not always the message but, how its delivered.

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.

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.

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

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.

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? :rolleyes:

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

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

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.

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.

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!)

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).

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. ;)

I find it interesting that the implications of this report all over the media are that the players named are all CURRENT users. Rick Ankiel says he DID use, but hasn't for more than five years. Matt Herges, a local boy who is a journeyman pitcher, is on the list and the "proof" of his involvement is a check that is four years old.
I suspect a lot of current and former users will never suffer any reprecussions legally, but will be embarrassed enough by the whole thing that they will never use - or THINK of using - again. While the Mitchell report is a crude tool, it will be an effective one.
JMHO

JJ

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.

Protecting defendants from state power is the purpose of having a jury, "twelve good men and true" independent of the state. The trial itself is supposed to get at the truth in an effort to seek justice. The framers of the Constitution, well aware of the abuses of British courts, believed juries, as well as the adversarial system, to be key to that overall effort.

95% of criminal cases are plea bargained and never see a jury.

It's true that the system is so overloaded that almost everything is plea-bargained, including many murder cases (I doubt that it's 95% for murder, though). Thus both prosecutors and defendants often consider time and expense and risk over truth and justice. As for curbing the power of the state, don't think that innocent defendants haven't agreed to plea deals to avoid the expense of a trial and the risk of a severe sentence, since courts are known to make examples of defendants who force the issue to trial.

The framers of the Constitution acknowledged that they had designed a system suited for a generally law-abiding populace. They could not have conceived of a Newark or a Camden, where only the most serious crimes are prosecuted, and where the entire system would grind to a halt if even 1 in 20 cases went to trial. They also could not have conceived of anyone being permitted to pile up 10, 20, 30 convictions for burglary, robbery, assault, etc. Anyone aware of the horrendous home invasion in Cheshire, Connecticut, a few months ago knows that both murderers had more than 20 burglary convictions each yet were free to rape a woman and her two daughters and then burn them to death.

At any rate, my point regarding baseball was that whether or not this player or that would be convicted in court is irrelevant. Probably few or even none would be convicted. (And no player will face actual legal prosecution anyway simply for having taken steroids/HGH.) But the overall picture is clear: the truth is that many players took drugs.

Many people are addicted to taking steroids. They are considered Performance Enhancing Drugs. They do not necessarily enhance performance. In many cases they deteriorate a user's body, and do not help the athlete in the least. An athlete needs to have the talent to start with in order to get any enhancement at all.

Alcohol is legal, so let's leave that out of the conversation. I never mentioned heroin, so leave that out as well. Athletes took speed, coke and smoked weed in order to enhance their performance, whether these drugs are labeled as such or not. The athletes who took them did so (in their minds, at least) to enhance their performance.

Greenies and other amphetamines were intended to give energy and clarity of thought. They put them on the training table in bowls for any player who wished to use them. Cocaine has anasthetic qualities and gives a feeling of invincibility which can enhance overall performance, at least subconsciously. It is not an entirely different issue at all. It is like the steroids issue in that the players are looking for any edge they can get to gain an advantage over their competitors.

Question, have you ever taken either of these drugs to know what effect they have? If not, you cannot make a blanket statement that discounts the performance enhancing qualities of these drugs. Those players who used them felt that the drugs were helping them at the time.

If that is what you think I have been saying or my argument, then you have not been reading my comments very well.

Peace

Yikes
 

"Steve Howe was and still is an addict."

Err, no he is not. Steve Howe is dead. RIP 4/28/06

REgards,

Damn, you beat me to it.

Peace

1. You missed the point of my post, Steve. The report you slam for making "assumptions" is based on much research, direct testimony, questioning and providing those implicated with the opportunity to address their specific issues.

On the other hand you make assumptions based on what? Where is your research? Who did you question? Were they under oath? What did you do beside read a newspaper?

2. You stated: "I would rather have cheaters in the game than quitters like the Falcon's Patrino, or dog killers like Vick." I'm amazed that you would tolerate cheating under any circumstances and more amazed that you think there should be a choice made amongst activities, all of which should are harmful to the activity.

I guess I have to understand that when one repeatedly posts on a subject it means they don't care about it. It's a difficult concept, but I'm working on it.:rolleyes:

The last time I did check I do post on this site for entertainment purposes. That means that what is said is not going to drastically change my life one way or the other. I watch many sports games and I do not recall that outcome of many of them is something that will affect me either, but I still watch the game. I look at this board and this discussion in a similar way as I just stated a line or two before. It is entertaining, but I do not recall what we talk about here is going to affect me personally. I personally do not care if everyone used drugs, I still say there are other factors to why numbers are they way they are and I do not see this as a major moral issue when there were no rules that prevented the taking of many drugs.

You are right, you do have some things to work on, like everyone does not share you point of view on things. ;)

Peace

Oh, I understand and accept that, Jeff. I often learn from many of those with whom I initially disagree. But, again, you attempt to shift the focus of what I was addressing. I've learned to accept that as well.

Put simply, it will always be difficult to accept that one has no interest in a topic he discusses and defends ad infinitum. That's my only point at this time. Feel free to debate it, ignore it, or, once again, attempt to change the subject. Another point worth considering...my post was not addressed to you, but to "Bond apologists." Interesting that you were the first, and so far, the only one to reply. Hmmmmmmmm.

I have nothing to add to it and will move on.

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.

If given the choice of having to pick 1 of the 3 choices, yes, I would take cheaters over quitters or dog killers. Which would you choose? I don't condone cheating, but if faced with an either/or situation I would choose the cheaters over the other two choices.

Give me a Ken Caminitti over Patrino any day. At least Ken was trying, and always gave it his all. He may have been a druggie, but he never quit.

Give me Barry Bonds over Michael Vick too. Vick is scum and got off easy with 23 months. He'll do 18, get out, then play football again most likely. He should have gotten a much longer sentence.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Allow me to repeat:

I'm amazed that you would tolerate cheating under any circumstances and more amazed that you think there should be a choice made amongst activities, all of which should are harmful to the activity.

Clear yet?

No?

Okay, who would you choose for a partner in a new business enterprise in which you have sunk your enitre fortune and bet your future?

A. Someone who would cheat you.
B. Someone who would leave you when times got tough.
C. Someone who would kill your dog for sport.

If you wrote in "none of the above", you're starting to get it.

Smoking dope and snorting cocaine do not enhance athletic performance. Players took speed to alleviate the effects of the hangover from drinking and chasing women and stumbling into the hotel after the strip clubs closed at 4:00 AM.

I don't do drugs. And I don't smoke. I don't have to smoke to know it's cancer causing. Oops since I don't smoke I can't make a blanket statement concerning it's harmfull effects.

d.

My bad. Point is an addict is so for life. They are always in recovery.

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

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


I rest my case.

Since you mentioned it, there is conflicting evidence that steroids have such an adverse affect as people have tried to make it. There is a significant part of the medical community that does not see steroids used under a doctor's observation that these drugs have many benefits. And before you say, "How can you say that?" Many drugs in this country are prescribed, but when people take doses above and beyond their intended use, they are abusing that drug and can create other symptoms they would not have had if they did not take the drug at all. I was prescribed Viacotin after a car accident; I did not take it after its intended use. But Farve from the Packers was an addict.

Peace

Once again you cannot accept that someone on this board does not agree with your position. I can decide for myself what is credible and what is not.

And as it relates to this issue as compared to the Vick issue or these other things you are debating with SDS. I could give a damn about what you think is a cheater if there were no rules to make it illegal at the time. You can only cheat when you are violating a current rule. You cannot cheat after the fact when you have decided something is wrong. It would be like me penalizing a team for a rule that is not in the rulebook yet, but later because illegal. I do not care about what Petrino did because he did not do it to me. I do not play on the Falcons and that is between the Falcons and Petrino and Arkansas. If the Falcons are so hurt by this, why not sue the man for violating a contract? I also do not feel that dog fighting is that big of a deal. I live in the Midwest where hunting is a major past time. Fellow classmates when I was in HS could get out of school justifiable by going hunting. You would have thought the man killed a human being rather than an animal that we kill all the time because we do not want to take care of them. I can look at each issue and form my own opinion on these things.


Peace

Hellsbells, Jeff. There you go again. I certainly can do accept that people don't agree with me...happens all the time.

I can also recognize when your posts indicate you haven't a clue about what McCarthy was about. Perhaps the blame lies with the Chicago public school system.

As for your final, (one can only hope) point: I agree that you certainly have shown that you can decide what is credible "for yourself." No argument about that.

I know that people take Steroids for various medical conditions.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7569266?MSNHPHMA

Imagine that.

One of the problems with this whole report is what do we do with?

Many of the names on the list are only known to avid baseball fanatics, not fans. Just taking a shot in the butt will not make you a better hitter. You need the talent and the eye, the drug will not give you that. To throw a splitter requires dexterity of the hand and control of the ball. The drug give you none of that, only hard work and talent.

The real problem is that it is not the drug that makes the player, the drug allows the player to work harder. Hard work makes the player better. It's a catch 22.

So if we strip Clemens (for example) of his awards, do we negate all the pitches? This will raise all the batting averages for the batters that he faced. But what if they also took steroids?

Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate the use of steroids unless directed by a doctor for a medical problem. But in reality, this whole report is a farce. The "accused" cannot defend themselves nor can they challenge their "accuser". I tend to agree with the thinking of Rush Limbaugh on this in that Baseball cannot and will not strip any awards. What's done is done. The future is what has to be changed.

Just my opinion.

Apparently I was not clear enough with you. Are you trying intentionally to miss my point?

If you HAD TO CHOOSE one of the three. No "none of the above" option. You had to choose between a cheater, a quitter, or a dog murderer, which would you choose? I thought that was pretty simple.

Of course I don't want the cheater. But I'm not giving choices here in this HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE.

You are way too freakin' literal. Jeez, try to make an analogy. Jesus himself would have been frustrated with you when trying to tell a parable.

I agree with most of what you have here, Ozzy. Performance enhancing drugs do just that, they enhance performance. Some of those at the lower levels of performance, took them to enhance their performance to just stay in the game, while others at the upper levels used them to get just a bit better.

I disagree, however, that the "accused" cannot defend themselves. They were given, and will again be given that opportunity if Selig decides to ignore Mitchell and take action.

The Mitchell report, despite the handwringing and illogical charges of McCarthyism, did not convict anyone. It was similar to an indictment, many of which are handed down daily, and which contain the names of and outline the evidence against the accused. There is nothing sinister or unAmerican about the process so far. It is quite normal.

What will happen from this point? God only knows. Selig has been a weak sister of a Commissioner in the past and just might try to make himself appear tough by taking some kind of action. I'm with Mitchell: get our heads our of the sand, stop the silly denial, turthfully acknowledge where we are, how we got here and agree on a procedure to begin getting everyone clean.

The record of the Steroid Era, with or without an asterisk, will always be a little tainted. We'll learn to live with it, and, hopefully, move on.

P.S.

Dear Roger:

"And the truth shall set you free."

Killing dogs for sport and hunting wild animals are like comparing apples and automobiles. They are not even remotely similar.

Dogs: Domesticated animals, family pets, man's best friend, etc. Not meant to be killed for not performing up to dog fighting standards.

Hunted animals: Wild animals, not normally associated as pets, license required to hunt them, hunted for sport for centuries, used as food to feed the hunters' family (except trophy hunting, which is just wrong).

If what Vick did was not wrong, why are there laws against it and why is everyone sickened by it? We don't prosecute hunters because they perform a service by thinning out the overpopulated herd. Killing dogs is just cruel.

Oh, as ridiculous as it was, I got it. Did you miss mine? I don't participate in silly hypothetical games. Reminds me of the old, "your mother, your wife and your son are drowning....which one do you save?" exercise. As soon as someone in enough of an idiot to pick one, they're accused of killing the other two. Dumb.

Let's debat on a higher level, Steve.

No. Jesus never tried to force anyone to do or say something stupid by presenting only ridiculous options to a situation. He recognized and taught that there is always a correct and viable decision available.

I loved his defense that it was a "cultural thing." I'm still trying to figure out to which culture he was referring.

nut in honey
 

Reputations of the East German women be damned. Not one athlete created the products they stuck in their butt. You had to be blind not to know that steroids were being used in every major professional sports as early as 1985. The only thing good to come about the whole Jason Giambi fiasco was the destruction of the long established steroid pipeline within MLB.

Must be SAUmp's culture. I think he has consumed too many dog tacos.:eek:

Or Nuevo Laredo. Or Dien Bien Phu.

The same Rush Limbaugh that accuses Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and anybody else in the Democratic Party for whatever he can so he will have a listener audience. Or, the same Rush Limbaugh that got busted for illegal possession of prescription painkillers for which he was downing about 80 per day. Limbaugh is farce personified.

That might be true in your value system, but it is not much different in my value system. Just like all Christians have different beliefs, many animal lovers do to. ;)

Well in some cultures Dogs would be food. And in other countries or cultures, you cannot kill any animal even if it is a rat. We all do not see dog fighting in the same light. Of course I am not a fan of this, but I was not outraged either. And considering some people get less time or consideration for harming human beings (Leonard Little of the Rams killed a woman and got less time than Vick has and he is still playing football and I do not see the outrage over that fact)

Also depending one what animal is involved, you cannot hunt all wild animals either. That is fine if there are different standards, but I find that a little hypocritical based on my values.

What is illegal and what is morally wrong are too different things. It is illegal to have possession of drugs and just having possession can send you to jail more than murder or sexually violating children. That just shows from my point of view that our values are out of whack.

Now I am not asking you to agree with my point of view or really trying to debate the issue any further. I just wanted to illustrate how different people with different backgrounds view the same events very differently. And just like you and I might agree on what is right or wrong as it relates to the Mitchell Report, we disagree big time on the Vick situation and dog fighting. And I am a person that owns a dog (or did before I moved out of my parent’s house). And I love dogs and could never see myself doing what Vick did. I was not outraged to the point I would not have bought his jersey or watched his games. I just value human beings more than I do animals and if it is an animal or a human being, I am taking sides with the human being. I tend to get outraged over other things and if Vick got no prison time I would not have cared.

Peace

Dog fighting is largely a southern and rural activity. Just like hunting deer is a rural Midwestern cultural activity. I live in the Chicago area now, but I do not know many people in this metropolitan area that openly talk about going hunting. It is not in the culture of this area. Just like cock fighting is something you see in rural areas in the south you would not likely see this activity in California for example.

I have an officiating friend that goes hunting all the time and he talks all the time about when they went out hunting. I worked a game with him recently and we took a detour to a relative's house so he could get a gift for his hunting. While I was sitting there all the hunting talk was Greek to me, but it was something he grew up doing and many folks in that part (where I grew up) do often. This not something widely talked about in the area I currently live.

Peace

Just because an activity takes place in a particular part of the country does not mean it is a "cultural thing."

Child molesting occurs in Chicago. In fact, each year there are more arrests for child molesting in Cook county than there are arrests for dog fighting in all of the state of Virginia. Is it a cultural thing? Probably not.

Jeff & Garth,

Hey, have you guys seen the new Michael Vick chew toy for dogs?

I can only say I wish I'd thought of it first.

http://www.vickdogchewtoy.com/

Have a great holiday.

John

All the word "culture" means is the beliefs, customs, practices, and social behavior of a particular nation or people. And just like certain people listen to certain music and participate in certain activities and eat certain foods, people that get involved in things like hunting and dog fighting are doing so based on some cultural behaviors. Also I do not recall anyone from the Vick camp ever saying anything about this as a cultural issue. I think that was something some media people tried to use in as an explanation.

There are probably more arrests in Cook County because there are more people in that area and it is a crime that the authorities care about. I do not see a major push to cut down on dog fighting as they do on child molestation. I do not see shows on TV called, "To catch a dog fighter."

Peace

[[/QUOTE]

IMO, if there is a so called "lesson" it is this.

Whenever BIG money is involved there will be cheating and not just in baseball.

The investigation was a way for Bud to try and save "face' so that his legacy would not be remebered as the Steroid " Commissioner. Also, MLB could not make it look like a "witch hunt" against Bonds so they had to find other players.

The Problem is that the list isn't complete and the information supplied was from individuals staring a prison term "in the face" They received immunity for drug trafficing.

Then there is the NCAA where they receive Mega Bucks from the networks. Do you think these kids go to class. Just about every year we hear about recruiting violations. The Presdients / AD's do not care at all especially when they receiving huge money from the BCS bowls.

Corporate America is just as corrupt as sports. En RON / World Com come to mind.

Then there is sports betting and casino gambling.

As far as baseball trying to "hold on to the sanctity of their records" IMO even before Steroids it "went out the window"

The ball parks were smaller. Night baseball replacing day baseball, the institutuion of the DH, and IMO, a HUGE change was the lowering of the pitching mound.

It's all about the money. MLB knew there was a problem back in the early 90's and did nothing about it. If the owners could field a team of androids and they drew 3.5 - 4 million people they couldn't care less.

IMO, the Fans do not care either. This is more of a media "thing" because the Fans are going to MLB parks in groves.

There will always be cheaters when BIG money is involved. Instead of "wasting" money and conducting investigations simply put in Stiff penalties that is all you can do.

Pete Booth

Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News chief Washington correspondent and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer. <HR width="25%">When I was a kid, all I wanted to be was a ballplayer.

We didn't have coaches back then until we got to high school. We learned the game from each other and from copying the major leaguers. We copied everything from their swings to the way they walked.

Because they chewed tobacco, I chewed. It was part of the game.

My dream to be a ballplayer ended but it left me with a heavy addiction to nicotine.

Years ago, I finally beat it, but it was probably the reason I have a disease called ulcerative colitis, and almost certainly the cause for my bladder cancer decades later.

I still take drugs to control the colitis. Surgery got the cancer.

But I can only thank the stars there were no steroids in my younger days.

My baseball dream ended when I hurt my arm in high school and it finally gave out during my first year of college ball.

Had I known of a magic potion that would have made me stronger and kept the dream alive, I would have been no more hesitant to try it than I had been to chew tobacco. If my heroes had done it, that was all I needed to know.

The baseball stars got their names in the paper last week but we buried the lead to this story. Deep in the report it said hundreds of thousands of kids - kids who have the same dream I had - are putting their lives at risk using this stuff.

Who do we blame for that? Where are they getting it? How can their parents and even coaches NOT know?

That's where the follow-up stories should begin.


<HR width="75%">

Before deferring, you should try reading with comprehension. Good preparation for that might be to start with the dictionary entry of sarcasm.

No.

Can be. Not always.

RIF, SA. I wrote that the simple locale of an activity did not make it a "cultural thing" as Jeff had said.

I did not write that a specific activity was not a cultural thing. An activity can indeed be "cultural" in some societies and not in others. The mutilation of women in female circumcision is a cultural activity in some societies and a felony in others.

My post simply referred to assigning an illegal activity to cultural status based on in what in part of the US it occurs. Fact is, illegal dog fighting occurs in most states. It is not solely confined to the redneck back woods of Virginia.

I submit that dog fighting is more of an activity for those with twisted, sick minds, rather than anything "cultural." It is about as socially acceptable as is the child molesting of which Garth referred.

I disagree, but that is why we can debate these issues.

Peace

Only in a culture where the head of PITA is the Ayatollah. No, wait... in that case dog fighting would be worse than child molesting.

As it is, in our twisted USA pop culture, dog fighting is worse than murder of a domestic partner.

Cruelty to animals as a spectator sport / gambling activity is unacceptable behavior, but it is hardly in the same class as child molestation or murder. Not even close.

People Eating Tasty Animals
 

That would be PETA. Pita is a bread that you can eat.

The rest I agree with. :D

May I assume that the above is hyperbole, or can you really name a state in which the prescribed penalty for dog fighting is more severe than that for murder?

I'm sorry,
 

"Your fragment is exactly that, a fragment. Please complete the fragment so that I can understand it properly."

Help me out . . . what the he11 are you talking about?

Thanks,

Certainly. My apologies for deleting a word in my haste. For those who couldn't figure it out, I left out the word "is" before hyperbole. I'm sorry if that interfered with anyone's ability to understand.

What? And What?

Please make a little bit of sense with your posts, please. Put down the bong for a while and be coherent.

The point was that both activities are totally unacceptable, other than to the people who engage in them, of course.

It's a good thing my wife wasn't the sentencing judge, or Vick would have gotten Life without the possibility of parole. We have argued this already, and of course, I lost.:)

And the sentence would have been overturned for cruel and usual punishment. That is not the penalty for the crime. And he was a person that did not have a criminal record. Hey, I guess we all can dream. :)

Peace

Thank you for assuming that my wife and I are not intelligent enough to know this.

I really didn't think I had to say something like, "after we change the law, then we could sentence..."

Yes, of course that isn't the penalty for the crime. In my wife's opinion it should be. The only cruel and unusual is what Vick is.

The fact that Vick did not have a criminal record may have had a little to do with the extremely light sentence. It was more like he is a celebrity, which probably contributed to knocking more off the sentence than the fact that he was a first-time offender.

For the record, Vick had a similar sentence that the other people he was charged with. And the other defendants had criminal records. Now those individuals were not celebrities of any kind. And Vick's sentence was typical of what others in that situation got. He did not get off easy and he lost a lot more than most defendants do.

I did not call you unintelligent, but when you do not know all the facts of the case and you assume that he got off easy, I have to question that my original thought. ;)

Peace

I'm a VT grad, but I don't defend Mike or any of his stupid crap, especially since it taints my school. But let me just clarify one thing:

Mike Vick certainly didn't "learn" his "culture" of dogfighting in the redneck back woods of Virginia. He/I went to school in the back woods of Virginia, mind, but .... :) Not to say that doesn't happen in those back woods, but Mike didn't learn it there.

Anything he learned/got into was from the mean streets of Newport News, Virginia. Not much in the way of woods around there - at least not where he lived.

Unless your domestic partner has ever been referred to as "dog ugly". ;)

I'm not assuming that he got off easy, I'm frigging telling you that he got off easy.

He did not receive the maximum penalty of 5 years because his attorney finally convinced him to cop a plea. Vick had wanted to go to trial and showed absolutely no remorse for his heinous crimes. He actually believed that he did nothing wrong.

The others cut deals to reduce their sentences for rolling over on Vick. I know the damn facts of the case, and he still got off easy and will be back playing in the NFL soon enough. He is suffering major financial losses, which is all his fault. He has nobody to blame but himself.

Underperforming animals were shot, drowned, hanged, electrocuted or killed by being slammed to the ground. If you don't find this to be cruel, I have to wonder about your values.