Mitchell Report?

[LakeErieUmp]

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by LakeErieUmp

Not surprisingly, no current or former MLB umpires.

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

[LakeErieUmp]

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

[DonInKansas]

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

[tmp44]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

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

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)

[justanotherblue]

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

[MichaelVA2000]

Originally Posted by LakeErieUmp

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

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

[jkumpire]

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.

[MrUmpire]

Freaking incredible.

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

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

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.

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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

George Mitchell was a hyper-partisan, ruthless Senate majority leader.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

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.

I agree completely. However, I don't think that you'll ever see ANY of these substance abusers sue anybody. They won't sue for the same reason that Barry Bonds never has. They know 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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I agree completely. However, I don't think that you'll ever see ANY of these substance abusers sue anybody. They won't sue for the same reason that Barry Bonds never has. They know 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

[SanDiegoSteve]

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

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.

[greymule]

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).