12/03/24
December 13, 2007
Mitchell report is Out: 50 to 80 names to be released. Clemens, Pettitte, Tejada to name a few.
I've seen some lists purporting to be "leaks", and while I can't vouch for their veracity, the names on them are, for the most part, not all that surprising (and in many cases, go a long way to explaining things). The name that maybe saddened me most was Darryl Kile. Notable names not on these "leaked" lists: Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Ken Griffey Jr., Arod, Vladimir Guerrero to name but a few. Of course, since the full report is not out yet, I could be full of it.
posted by trox at 01:03 PM on December 13, 2007
Well, a PDF of it just went up at mlb.com. Everyone, happy reading!
posted by chicobangs at 01:07 PM on December 13, 2007
Pujols is not in the report, though he was on the bogus list peddled by Deadspin and others. /Cardinals homer
posted by holden at 01:18 PM on December 13, 2007
It will be interesting to see how MLB deals with this. If the implicated players were cyclists, they would immediately be fired by their teams, subject to 2 year bans by WADA, and forced to refund all salary/bonuses paid them during time they used steroids. I'm guessing MLB reaction will be minimal. Given the difference - which sports really have a drug problem? The ones that are handing out harsh penalties to anyone caught? Or the ones that ignore the problem and try to sweep it under the rug?
posted by BikeNut at 01:38 PM on December 13, 2007
Complete (and correct) list here, but as the comments mention, this is just 'the guys who weren't smart enough to use cash.' So if your favorite player isn't here, that doesn't mean much, except that he's not quite as flagrant about it as these guys.
posted by tieguy at 01:54 PM on December 13, 2007
Actually, apparently that list isn't complete; that is just the names listed in one particular section. Oops.
posted by tieguy at 01:58 PM on December 13, 2007
Hmm, Phil Hiatt is on that list. I doubt many people here would know that name. He was basically a journey man utility player for several teams. I played with Phil in high school (he played short, I played second) and when we graduated he was a good player but I never dreamed he'd make it to the majors. He was about 6 ft. and scrawny. I didn't talk to him much after high school, but I know he bulked up considerably and went on to set minor league home run records (and again, he wasn't a home run hitter in high school). Neither here nor there, but interesting (to me).
posted by justgary at 02:03 PM on December 13, 2007
Born2con Ha! ha! ha!ha! ha!
posted by evil earl at 02:10 PM on December 13, 2007
Is there anything positive (other than the knowledge that one's favorite player[s] is not on the report) that can come from this?
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:10 PM on December 13, 2007
Is there anything positive (other than the knowledge that one's favorite player[s] is not on the report) that can come from this? I think the whole thing is unfortunate, in that those who are listed in the report are often identified based on hearsay or circumstantial evidence that would likely not hold up in court and even for those not listed, it's not as if that's conclusive of innocence (perhaps, as tieguy suggests above, it just means that they're smart enough to go through an intermediary or to pay in cash). This whole thing, with the backward looking aspect and the focus on "naming of names" is just a whole bunch of window dressing for the media and Congress in hopes that the story just goes away. Maybe there's something in the report that provides some hope or plan for going forward, but baseball already has done a lot to clean up its act. This exercise just strikes me a media-driven, puritanical witch hunt.
posted by holden at 02:19 PM on December 13, 2007
Is there anything positive (other than the knowledge that one's favorite player[s] is not on the report) that can come from this? Yes, that my most hated player is on the report. (I'm joking, really. The sooner we get back to real baseball the better)
posted by justgary at 02:21 PM on December 13, 2007
That is pretty much what I think. There isn't much that can be done about steroid use in the past other than punishing players for it now (which isn't a very viable situation, especially since I don't believe this evidence is entirely concrete) or by eliminating this entire era of baseball from the record books which is a terrible solution.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:22 PM on December 13, 2007
Notable names not on these "leaked" lists: Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz, Ken Griffey Jr., Arod, Vladimir Guerrero to name but a few. Heck, we knew Griffey wouldn't be on the list...otherwise he might stay healthy for 10 games out of the year. Is there anything positive (other than the knowledge that one's favorite player[s] is not on the report) that can come from this? Yes, the fact that I can mock my Astros fan friends for Clemens/Petite/Tejada being on the list. If only Biggio were on it, I would have enough ammo to last a lifetime. There was a pool going on in one of the newsgroups to name 5 guys that you thought would be on the list (not counting the guys that were already penalized)....I had Clemens and Tejada nailed at least. It will be interesting to see how MLB deals with this what can they do? You have to PROVE usage (with apparently no positive drug test) for something that wasn't against the rules when most of them were accused of doing it.
posted by bdaddy at 02:32 PM on December 13, 2007
Complete (and correct) list here I didn't see Barry Bonds name on this "[c]omplete (and correct) list" so does that mean that his name is not on the "Mitchell report" or that this isn't the "Complete (and correct) list"?
posted by BornIcon at 02:37 PM on December 13, 2007
Depressed to see Gagne on the list:( So, what ultimately does all this mean, other than personal disappointment in a large number of athletes?
posted by Drood at 04:07 PM on December 13, 2007
Aren't you supposed to fill in the "memo" or "for" section on a personal check? If needed I have carbon copies of all the illegal drugs I've bought. Plus, these days, most dealers have a Debit/Credit option.
posted by BoKnows at 04:14 PM on December 13, 2007
BornIcon; Barry Bonds was listed under the group of players that were allegedly involved with BALCO. The two Giambis and Sherfield were in the BALCO list.
posted by Cave_Man at 04:50 PM on December 13, 2007
Is there anything positive (other than the knowledge that one's favorite player[s] is not on the report) that can come from this? Yes, that my most hated player is on the report. I have to admit to a nice little flutter of schadenfreude at the relatively extensive and detailed entry on the Rocket.
posted by chicobangs at 04:50 PM on December 13, 2007
"Depressed to see Gagne on the list:(" Drood. Why are you depressed to see Gagne on the list? He fit the bill, a former great player that got injured and did what he could do to get back to where he was. Unfortunate, but PES allegedly was his route to regain lost form. After watching him a few times in 2007, I think that his biggest problem is that he is grossly overweight.
posted by Cave_Man at 04:55 PM on December 13, 2007
"I have to admit to a nice little flutter of schadenfreude at the relatively extensive and detailed entry on the Rocket. posted by chicobangs at 4:50 PM CST on December 13" Yeah. The disclosure that Rocket allegedly allowed a guy to shoot him in the butt with the stuff that he allegedly took is a bit much for me. If the allegation is proven true, the image of the Rocket as a man's man is going to take a hit, at least in my eyes.
posted by Cave_Man at 05:00 PM on December 13, 2007
To me it seems Baseball is just going to have to admit the problem is out of hand. So much so, that short of invalidating all the stats of the last 20 years, they will probably just suck it up and move forward. My guess is they will have an amnesty so to speak and try to move forward with a strict anti drug policy and let all the steroid use of the past become the memory of a time that was. Fifty years from now they will talk about the steroid era with that good old days nostalgic feeling. The days when homeruns traveled further and pitchers threw harder.
posted by Atheist at 05:05 PM on December 13, 2007
Why are you depressed to see Gagne on the list? He fit the bill, a former great player that got injured and did what he could do to get back to where he was. Unfortunate, but PES allegedly was his route to regain lost form. After watching him a few times in 2007, I think that his biggest problem is that he is grossly overweight. Gagne got shipments of HGH in the summer of 2004, when he was in the midst of racking up 45 saves and striking out 114 in 82 and 1/3 innings. So, no, he didn't "fit the bill" unless the bill is "trying to be as dominant as possible."
posted by holden at 05:20 PM on December 13, 2007
Well, I guess we can throw out that theory that this will get Congress off of MLB's back.
posted by holden at 05:22 PM on December 13, 2007
CaveMan: Clemens is less of a man because he let another man give him a shot in the butt? Leaving aside the obvious wisecracks, how is getting a shot not manly? They hurt -- Clemens even got some in the belly button. I'm not getting any younger. Should I make sure to have a female doctor when I get a colonoscopy?
posted by rcade at 05:28 PM on December 13, 2007
Yeah. The disclosure that Rocket allegedly allowed a guy to shoot him in the butt with the stuff that he allegedly took is a bit much for me. If the allegation is proven true, the image of the Rocket as a man's man is going to take a hit, at least in my eyes. Take it easy, Champ. Why don't you sit this next one out, stop talking for a while.
posted by jerseygirl at 05:29 PM on December 13, 2007
I guess this just blew the lid off the new contract Tejeda signed with the Astros!!Actually, not surprised to see Clemens' name on the list at all.
posted by Ghastly1 at 05:58 PM on December 13, 2007
Gagne' definetly fit the bill.Couldn't of been doing them with the Red Sox last year.If he was,they didn't benefit him or the Red Sox at all.I don't have his stats in front of me,but what I remember of him,he he pitched like shit!!
posted by Ghastly1 at 06:04 PM on December 13, 2007
"Say it ain't so ____ ! (fill in blank with favorite roided out player)
posted by irunfromclones at 06:21 PM on December 13, 2007
Mitchell + Bonds indictment= Black Sox scandal - Babe Ruth Do the math and balance the equations. Interesting piece of math you've proposed. Let me break that down: We subtract the Black Sox Scandal from both sides: Mitchell + Bonds Indictement - Black Sox Scandal = (Black Sox Scandal - Black Sox Scandal) - Babe Ruth We multiply both sides by -1: (-1)(Mitchell + Bonds Indictment - Black Sox Scandal = (-1)(- Babe Ruth) Getting: Babe Ruth = Black Sox Scandal - Mitchell - Bonds Indictment So Babe Ruth is equal to a major gambling scandal, less a perjury case and a McCarthy-esque report. Okay...
posted by grum@work at 06:42 PM on December 13, 2007
What I find interesting is that Jack Cust is implicated in the "List of the Damned", but the summary of evidence against him is: - Larry Bigbie says that Jack Cust once told him that he used steroids
posted by grum@work at 06:49 PM on December 13, 2007
Interesting piece of math you've proposed. Let me break that down O.k. That was awesome. Wouldn't waste my time though. It's the same drivel from the same person returning again and again under a different name.
posted by justgary at 06:49 PM on December 13, 2007
I'm still saying that their are inocent tell proven guilty, Not saying they are or arn't cheater but it's a report,and has to be taken with a grain of salt.
posted by rockstar2001 at 06:55 PM on December 13, 2007
I have to admit to a nice little flutter of schadenfreude at the relatively extensive and detailed entry on the Rocket. I have to admit a giant flutter of schadenfreude. If there's gotta be a report, then clemens being named at least gives me a smile. But I don't see how anyone could be shocked. Looking at his career, looking at his personality, I had little doubt. I had no idea the report would be the Roger Clemens report, however. Seth Mnookin's take on Clemens: Why, you might ask, would a sure-fire Hall of Famer risk his reputation and legacy over these last five or so years by taking PEDs? People asked me that question again and again during the pre-season frenzies of last season and 2006. I have no way of knowing; for some reason, Clemens won’t talk to me. But I do have an idea: because he has never, in his entire life, had to deal with the consequences of his actions. He can act like a teenage mutant ninja freak and throw broken bats across the field and it’s chalked up to competitive fire. He can demand ludicrous contract clauses like Hummers and private transportation and he’s indulged. Why, after years and years of this, would he suddenly think that the rules applied to him? I feel lied to. I thought clemens at least cared about the kids.
posted by justgary at 06:58 PM on December 13, 2007
I have to admit to a nice little flutter of schadenfreude at the relatively extensive and detailed entry on the Rocket. I have to admit a giant flutter of schadenfreude. Schadenfreude and, for me, vindication. I've gotten reamed in the past by some other spofites when I said that Clemens must be on steroids. I hope Clemens gets the full-on Bonds treatment.....from the media that is. I'm not expecting any federal indictments here.
posted by cjets at 09:03 PM on December 13, 2007
Now I need details on when Knoblauch used the steroids...hopefully it was after his involvement with the 1991 World Series team. Given that he hit the grand sum of 1 home run that year, I'm probably safe. I was going to have to take down the shrine I erected on my office wall if it was tainted. (FYI, the shrine is for the Twins, not Knoblauch) Will be interesting to see what MLB does with this.
posted by dviking at 09:50 PM on December 13, 2007
"I hope Clemens gets the full-on Bonds treatment.....from the media that is. I'm not expecting any federal indictments here. posted by cjets at 9:03 PM CST on December 13" Cave_man sez: Clemens, like Bonds is denying PED use. Time will tell whether they are clueless dunces to allow people to give them substances of unknown composition, or simple bald-face liars. Jerseygirl; Did not understand your link. I am having a humorless week, so forgive me. To the guy that mentioned having a female perform a colonoscopy. I just got one, I had a male doctor doing it with two female assistants. You get drugged, you will not feel anything or know where you are until you wake up in the recovery area. My statement about Clemens related more to his persona, the guy comes off as a macho SOB, I find it interesting that he would let a guy anywhere near his rearend, such guys are usually very homophobic and insecure.
posted by Cave_Man at 10:22 PM on December 13, 2007
Cave_Man: Use italics when you are quoting someone and then you type regularly underneath... Like this... My statement about Clemens related more to his persona, the guy comes off as a macho SOB, I find it interesting that he would let a guy anywhere near his rearend, such guys are usually very homophobic and insecure. I don't think Clemens comes off as a "macho SOB" more than any other player. I figured you were making some ill-conceived, homophobic, insecure commentary on his sexuality with your initial comment... that's why I suggested you sit this one out a while and stop talking.
posted by jerseygirl at 10:47 PM on December 13, 2007
I don't think Clemens comes off as a "macho SOB" more than any other player. No? How about churlish bully? Two incidents come to mind: The infamous broken bat he threw at Mike Piazza in the 2000 world series. This, after he nailed Piazza in the head during the 2000 season. And playing chin music with his son, after his son hit a homer of off him. What kind of asshole throws a fastball at or near his son's head (I wonder if William Tell used steroids)?
posted by cjets at 11:11 PM on December 13, 2007
Clemens, like Bonds is denying PED use. Time will tell whether they are clueless dunces to allow people to give them substances of unknown composition, or simple bald-face liars I've said this before during prior discussions regarding pro athletes and PED's. I do not believe for one second that a premier athlete like Bonds, Clemens, Marion Jones, or anyone else, would ever let someone give them any drug/medication without knowing what it was. I sure as hell don't take drugs that I'm unclear on, and I do not rely on my body to make my living. Besides, the effects of steroids are very well known, so if these guys took steroids, they knew it and they were taking them for a reason.
posted by dviking at 12:17 AM on December 14, 2007
Just an attempt to clear a name from an earlier post. (3 minutes into press conference I might add) Darryl Kile was not in the report. So, yes, you are full of it.
posted by BoKnows at 12:59 AM on December 14, 2007
Al Kaline was not on the list......as I expected he wouldn't be........
posted by commander cody at 01:01 AM on December 14, 2007
The guys on sportscenter were talking about this, and they had a quote from Jose Canseco. He says "The report is not complete or correct. They did not include Alex Rodriguez." When is this rat dastard going to shut his face, and quit being such a narc. Maybe the reporter he said it to had a twenty in his hand though, ya never know. Then John Kruk uses the excuse that Clemens had to be using, because he got better when he was aging instead of worse. He didn't even clarify it with ages or stats!! If the players assocation and the owners don't do something positive after this, I am afraid of the negative impact this could have on the game over all. Just because Pud Selig had some congressman do a 21 month investigation, that should have never been released to the press.
posted by jojomfd1 at 01:31 AM on December 14, 2007
When is this rat dastard going to shut his face, and quit being such a narc. Jose Canseco may be a rat bastard (or dastard), but of all the hundreds of people who've ranted about this in the media over the years, you know, he's been correct way more consistently than anyone else. It was the findings of a study, not an indictment, and one which is trying to break a clear and obvious code of silence. All the people you listened to on ESPN today are in on that code of silence. (You know how I know that? They all had information that could have helped the study, and none of them decided to talk to the commission.) If it weren't for Canseco, there'd have been no study, no inquest, just hooved beasts turning MLB into something resembling beer-league softball, and a whole nation of ostriches ignoring the risks to the health of the players and their young fans, as well as the health of the sport itself and its long history. If you really think this should just be swept under the rug because it's just the ravings of a couple of disgruntled workers, then you're watching way too much ESPN.
posted by chicobangs at 01:54 AM on December 14, 2007
After Jose Canseco made his cameo, I thought Ashton Kutcher was gonna jump out and yell.....well, you know. Maybe I'm a positive thinker, but I don't believe that this report/investigation will ruin the sport. It is what it is. I was fortunate enough to witness 5 HR's hit by Mcgwire in '98. And as I look back, I find that I don't care what he was on, Busch Stadium was ELECTRIC, and that was amazing. I'm sure all baseball fans that get those chills when you see something like that. Enter your example here: I am all for the governing of fair play, whatever it may be. But until MLB decides to take a definitive stance and enforce it, I'm gonna enjoy the players and game that we have. Record Book or not. HOF or not. Those AMAZING moments happened, and no one is gonna asterisk up my experience.
posted by BoKnows at 02:03 AM on December 14, 2007
What I find ironic is the outcry now by media (kruk) and some players that they didn't have a chance to defend themselves. Mitchell asked to meet with every single one and almost no one would talk to him. As an addition to my previous post regarding Phil Hiatt he emailed the local paper: This statement is in response to the accusation that I have used performance enhancing drugs during my professional career. First, it is important for me to publicly state that using performance enhancing drugs is wrong and has no place in sports," wrote Hiatt, who resides in Pensacola and runs the Triple Play Party Center, which caters to children. "I regret that I did try them on one occasion during the offseason of 2001. The report stating that I purchased them two or three times is not accurate. However, there is no excuse for trying them even once. I am so very sorry and would like to apologize to my family, friends, the city of Pensacola and the entire baseball community. I'm curious how many others will be as honest.
posted by justgary at 02:17 AM on December 14, 2007
I'm curious how many others will be as honest. posted by justgary at 2:17 AM CST on December 14 Will it be immediate honesty, or can I expect of book by each player as they retire. Or it could be a Mad-Lib.
posted by BoKnows at 02:46 AM on December 14, 2007
I feel this is going to give baseball a black eye and the ramification are going to be far reaching. I feel sick to my stomach and betrayed by this breach of trust I once granted players to the game I love dearly. Playing baseball into my 40's and watching my son at little league, high school and in college, I cannot comprehend why they would tarnish the sport that kept me out of trouble and probably prison (as so many of my friend ended up). Baseball was a outlet that kept me focused toward something better could come from my life. Baseball players were my heroes and my examples, and though I know as older person with grandchildren that they were not perfect, as a child they were the iconic and figures to look up to. I know now this is a sad day not only for me , but to all the boys and girls that attend baseball games and cheer for the home team. This day, I wish to turn back the clock, forget this ever happened and dream of hitting a game winning home run, with 2 outs, in the bottom of the ninth.
posted by Nakeman at 02:54 AM on December 14, 2007
I know now this is a sad day not only for me , but to all the boys and girls that attend baseball games and cheer for the home team. Why today? The report issued today wasn't some big surprise. Haven't baseball fans been expecting this for quite some time. I know that I was convinced that steriods have been a part of baseball since McGwire and Sosa during 97/98/99. Obviously, it started long before that. Why does this report change how you look at these players? And Why do you think that kids today would not also recognize the imperfections of their own heros/idols?
posted by BoKnows at 03:33 AM on December 14, 2007
The report gave a sense of finality. Presented and chaired by Mr. Mitchell -man I respect and admire. Guess I'm native and was hoping against the inevitable.
posted by Nakeman at 03:46 AM on December 14, 2007
The report gave a sense of finality. Unfortunately, its far from anything final. Native of what? I'm kidding, pretty sure you meant naive.. Fear not, Nakeman, Mr. Mitchell suggested to Selig to try to "maintain the integrity of the game." (which apparently wasn't a priority until today)
posted by BoKnows at 03:59 AM on December 14, 2007
Like Mr. Mitchell said, plenty of blame to go around. Wish they nipped this in the bud 10 years ago.
posted by Nakeman at 04:11 AM on December 14, 2007
Here's a wrench.....Not many of these players were EVER busted by a bad test. Let it run it's course.
posted by LeftyPower at 05:15 AM on December 14, 2007
Here's a wrench.....Not many of these players were EVER busted by a bad test. They were not busted by a bad test because MLB and the players union had their heads up their asses in the sand, and so refused to test. To me, the most damning part of the report was not the naming of names, but the letter from the player's union telling players not to cooperate with the report. That tells me the player's union is still deeply broken with regards to this issue.
posted by tieguy at 06:33 AM on December 14, 2007
No? How about churlish bully? I don't equate "bully" with "macho" generally. Cave_Man was calling his masculinity into question, not the fact that Clemens is/was a competitive asshole.
posted by jerseygirl at 06:47 AM on December 14, 2007
may be a rat bastard (or dastard) In the words of Brendan Behan's father: "To be a bastard, 'tis not your fault, but to be a dastard, you have to work at it."
posted by yerfatma at 07:40 AM on December 14, 2007
Kruk's whining on behalf of the players who "never had a chance to defend themselves" was ridiculous. I can't decide which was more disgusting, watching Bud Selig or Donald Fehr. They're both so slimy, they leave trails when they walk. A law should immediately be passed prohibiting Bud Selig from ever using the word "integrity" in any context for the rest of his miserable, two-faced, corrupt excuse for a life.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 07:52 AM on December 14, 2007
It's all really too much, and this entire report only creates more questions than it answers. I'm trying my best to continue enjoying the game of baseball for the game it is, and to forget all this other stuff that dominates the headlines. Unfortunately, it's becoming nearly impossible. Bud Selig should be the only casualty of this mess, because he's the man in charge at this particular time (sorry Bud, but that's the way it is). NOW he wants to enact some severe, get-tough policy on steroids and PEDs? He's a sham who led the way as baseball only wanted to capitalize financially on it's popularity, while choosing to ignore the problem for years. And I fully expect defamation-type lawsuits to start being filed by some of the players named in this report, since they are certainly only the tip-of-the-iceberg. I'm sure most of the players named are fighting right now the urge to throw other current/former players they know used these products under the bus. It's going to get worse before it gets better.
posted by dyams at 08:10 AM on December 14, 2007
To me, the most damning part of the report was not the naming of names, but the letter from the player's union telling players not to cooperate with the report. That tells me the player's union is still deeply broken with regards to this issue. It's not "broken". It's job is to protect the players. That is it's whole reason for being. It has no loyalties to baseball, the owners, the fans, or Selig. It's only loyalty is to the players themselves. It's akin to a defense attorney telling you not to speak without him being present. It's in your best interest, if you wish him to defend you, to not speak until he tells you what to say. Same with the players union.
posted by bdaddy at 08:27 AM on December 14, 2007
It's job is to protect the players. The union did not do a very good job so far. I know hindsight is 20/20 but try this on: 1. Each individual player under suspicion talks to George Mitchell privately. 2. The player would talk only about his own self. No here-say or tattle-telling.In return for the players honesty, the player would remain anonymous in any future report. 3. George Mitchell would issue report based on percentages of player use or abuse of PEDs. Seems like the players union could have worked a deal that might have prevented "The List".
posted by BoKnows at 08:55 AM on December 14, 2007
Pete Rose is looking better and better as a hall of fame prospect to me.
posted by Atheist at 10:16 AM on December 14, 2007
It's not "broken". It's job is to protect the players. The best thing the union can do for the players is to move aggressively to restore some integrity to the sport. Instead, it is 'protecting' them by keeping this cloud over all of their heads (both the guilty and the innocent); helping the guilty pressure the innocent into damaging their integrity and their health; and threatening the future of the sport. They are trying to protect the guilty, and not only are they doing a poor job of that, they are screwing over both the current innocents and all future players as well.
posted by tieguy at 10:26 AM on December 14, 2007
So where does this leave Mark McGwire? He is not on the list, and neither is Sosa (although he was referenced to the prior senate hearings.) You know he was probably investigated as much or more than anyone else, yet there was no evidence he took anything illegal. Does this mean Canseco lied? Does this mean he should be exonerated? Your thoughts please.
posted by cheftad at 10:53 AM on December 14, 2007
I don't think it clears a player not to be mentioned in this report. But I haven't read it yet. Bdaddy: The analogy between a union and a defense attorney isn't a good one. A union has a symbiotic relationship with ownership -- both sides have a common interest in the overall health of the enterprise. A union that doesn't keep this in mind, along with all its other goals, is hurting its members. In this case, the player's union contributed to the shame of the sport and helped several of its high-profile players walk right into a PR nightmare that will dog the rest of their professional lives.
posted by rcade at 11:21 AM on December 14, 2007
I thought the report by definition only scratched the surface. If a given player somehow wasn't included, that's far from exoneration. The names mentioned probably cover something on the order of 10% of the players actually using. This is only a document to help MLB to get in front of a problem that they had no way to get in front of. Just because McGwire or Sosa or Palmeiro or Koufax or Cap Anson or whoever wasn't mentioned doesn't mean anything, because now is when the real legwork starts. It'll be up to whatever independent agency the sleuthing is outsourced to, as well as whoever else is legally forced to talk, to ferret out this problem. It'll be like breaking the mafia, this will. If, like Gammons says, this is a 6 billion dollar business now, people will do a lot of things to get a piece of that very huge pie.
posted by chicobangs at 12:01 PM on December 14, 2007
So where does this leave Mark McGwire? He is not on the list, His name shows up on the Mitchell report 46 times in regards to his use of PEDs.
posted by jerseygirl at 12:38 PM on December 14, 2007
I'll reserve judgment on whether this does indeed cast a dark cloud over the game or represent a watershed moment a few months into next season when we see what effect, if any, this has on the attendance and TV numbers. In a way, this coming out now, a good three solid months before the season starts, is about as good an outcome as MLB could have hoped for. I have a hard time thinking this is going to be first and foremost in the viewing/paying public's mind come opening day, but I'm sure we can count on those in the media with a vested interested (in selling papers, books, filling air time in the dead period of sports, etc.) to try to see to it that it stays a story. I consider myself a pretty big baseball fan and maybe this is the biggest scandal since the Black Sox scandal (other than, of course, the introduction of the DH), but I just don't see the game as all that tainted. There are so many variables in winning a baseball game that the effect of steroids in terms of winning and losing is next to impossible to measure and may well be negligible. (I personally don't care all that much about individual records, so the whole tainted record book thing doesn't really bother me all that much.) Talk to me once they establish that Joe Carter had Devon White shoot him up with steroids immediately before his game-winning home run in the 1993 World Series. I hope MLB takes some proactive steps in combating the problem in the future, from stiffer penalties to a different testing regime, or whatever. But I hope that whatever is done from this point is forward looking and that this report marks the end of the "naming names" of past users.
posted by holden at 12:39 PM on December 14, 2007
Maybe I'm a positive thinker, but I don't believe that this report/investigation will ruin the sport. It is what it is. I was fortunate enough to witness 5 HR's hit by Mcgwire in '98. And as I look back, I find that I don't care what he was on, Busch Stadium was ELECTRIC, and that was amazing. I'm sure all baseball fans that get those chills when you see something like that. Which makes you a fan of the spectacle, not baseball. By your reasoning, you would be OK with your kids taking performance enhancing drugs just as long as you can get that ELECTRIC chill when you watch them play. eth·ics Pronunciation [eth-iks] –plural noun 1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture. 2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics. 3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence. hon·or Pronunciation: [ä-ner] -noun 1: good name or public esteem : reputation 2: a person of superior standing 3: one whose worth brings respect or fame : credit (an honor to the profession) 4: a keen sense of ethical conduct : integrity (wouldn't do it as a matter of honor)
posted by irunfromclones at 12:43 PM on December 14, 2007
By your reasoning, you would be OK with your kids taking performance enhancing drugs just as long as you can get that ELECTRIC chill when you watch them play. Which, frankly, is probably a majority position. You'll note that baseball attendance has been steadily increasing in the past few years despite the whole steroid thing and despite the media constantly obsessing over whether or not the sport will 'survive' the 'steroid era'.
posted by tieguy at 12:55 PM on December 14, 2007
Which makes you a fan of the spectacle, not baseball. By your reasoning, you would be OK with your kids taking performance enhancing drugs just as long as you can get that ELECTRIC chill when you watch them play. And by your reasoning, someone who watches porn would enjoy watching their daughter doing it.
posted by Ricardo at 01:15 PM on December 14, 2007
I don't think it clears a player not to be mentioned in this report. But I haven't read it yet. i doesn't clear anyone really. aside from the BALCO boys, those names were given up by only two men. and i doubt they were the exclusive suppliers of PEDs to major league baseball. they were just the only ones to get caught. and this is why i don't like that names were published in this report. if you can't name everyone, don't name anyone.
posted by goddam at 01:33 PM on December 14, 2007
I'm sure we can count on those in the media with a vested interested (in selling papers, books, filling air time in the dead period of sports, etc.) to try to see to it that it stays a story. It won't be someone from ESPN. I've had it on as background noise while cleaning today and have been amazed at the station's take:
- ESPN legal analyst: Not a big deal, not meaningful, Bud Selig just told us the new policy is working
- Sean Salisbury (!!!): "Was it worth it?"
- Buster Olney: not worth it because it's a lot of money for what amounts to a black eye and defames a lot of innocent players
posted by yerfatma at 01:37 PM on December 14, 2007
It won't be someone from ESPN. I've had it on as background noise If you're looking for background noise, might I suggest some less annoying substitutes: 1. Vacuum Cleaner 2. Blow dryer 3. Smoke Detector Alarm
posted by cjets at 02:01 PM on December 14, 2007
This isn't just a baseball issue, almost all sports are involved. The recent stripping of Marions Jones' Olympic medals is just one more example. Lets face it all the games have changed forever. Every advancement in drugs, fitness training, nutrition, orthopedic surgery, genetics, etc. serves to enhance the performance of athletes as time moves forward. Every generation of athlete has an advantage over those before them. Not just in setting new performance records but in longevity which affects the lifetime marks. Just knowing the or record or mark to be surpassed, is an advantage in and of itself. Lets face maybe Bary Bonds or Emmet Smith would have retired earlier if it wasn't for the fact that they knew how much longer to hang on to reach the all time mark. How many greats of the past careers ended too early because orthroscopic surgery was not around. Should every record have an asterisk? Shouldn't we just get over it all and realize there is no comparisson across generations, and this generation of baseball is what it is and the accomplishments are in the context of what is happening now. Obviously Bonds may have hit drug aided homers, but then again he hit them against drug aided pitchers. I think there is a really good argument for all sports to just move forward and try to define new rules for competittion in the modern age. We just can't go back. Those who long for the good old days when a defensive end only weighed 240 pounds are doomed. It's history. You will see bigger, faster, taller and stronger athletes as time goes on. Either by way of chemicals or genetic engineering. The genie is out of the bottle. The money is too big, and we as fans need more and more. We are just going to have to learn to live with this new reality of life. Don't be surprised when athletes are bred like race horses.
posted by Atheist at 02:05 PM on December 14, 2007
but I think something that's front-page news for every paper in the US is a story that matters Or its something the media thinks should be a story "that matters"
posted by bdaddy at 02:05 PM on December 14, 2007
And by your reasoning, someone who watches porn would enjoy watching their daughter doing it. Would you mind coming back when your thinking is a little less twisted and you can keep your comments in context?
posted by irunfromclones at 02:10 PM on December 14, 2007
Every advancement in drugs, fitness training, nutrition, orthopedic surgery, genetics, etc. serves to enhance the performance of athletes as time moves forward. I think that we, as a society, have an obligation to monitor and if necessary ban PEDs or other "advancements" that can cause brain cancer, roid rage, and (my favorite) shrunken testicles among other things. A libertarian might say that anyone can do whatever they want with their body. But, as soon as one athlete uses PEDS, it puts pressure on other athletes to keep up as well as putting pressure on younger athletes to start using so that they can one day hope to compete in the majors.
posted by cjets at 02:26 PM on December 14, 2007
No Hall of Fame for any of them!! JMHO Their reward, chosen by themselves, is the lengthened career and a pile of $$$$ We (the writers who vote) do not have to add to that by voting for Hall of Fame for any of them.... unless unmistakenly named... which is highly unlikely given the situation.
posted by Fly_Piscator at 02:52 PM on December 14, 2007
I think that we, as a society, have an obligation to monitor and if necessary ban PEDs or other "advancements" that can cause brain cancer, rage, and (my favorite) shrunken testicles among other things. Does HGH cause those things? I'm not so sure it does. Do steroids, properly adminstered by a medical professional, automatically cause those effects? I honestly don't know. Maybe, 30 years from now some of this stuff - HGH - will be viewed as a benefit for humankind. I just think that the "PED era" of sports is really just starting. Baseball is trying to cover its butt with this and I truly believe that the American public doesn't want to know what the numbers are in the NFL. From what I understand, there isn't a reliable test for HGH out there right now. So, outside of catching dummies who pay with personal checks, how is this helping to clean up the sport?
posted by MrNix at 03:09 PM on December 14, 2007
Clemens is a macho SOB. he was my hero. He let me down. He was the only big name not leaked that needed to be leaked. Mitchell dealth with him good and disgraced him. He tarred and feathered, then hanged, drawn, and quartered by Mitchell, all of which he deserves for cheating to get the rings. They should take them from him, and all the others in the Report. It was disgusting how Olney and all those on ESPN defended these cheaters. They hsoul;d get spat at, especially Oney when he said 22 should be in the hof. Rose desrrves it more. 22 does not at all, or bonds or big mac.
posted by SFValley_Dude at 03:20 PM on December 14, 2007
Which makes you a fan of the spectacle, not baseball. By your reasoning, you would be OK with your kids taking performance enhancing drugs just as long as you can get that ELECTRIC chill when you watch them play. A fan's relationship to Mark McGwire isn't anything like a parent's relationship to a kid. If someone wants to fondly remember McGwire's cheat-assisted achievements, you can disagree with that without suggesting that the person would 'roid up their kids for thrills. I run from your analogy.
posted by rcade at 03:48 PM on December 14, 2007
I'm more of the position that this won't affect my enjoyment of the game because: 1) - I'm not surprised. I imagine most professional athletes/teams/organizations will take every advantage they can. No ones out here trying to win medals or representing nations. They're in the business of making millions. (Oooo - I'm a cynic according to Websters) 2) - I'm not wholly convinced steriods = guaranteed success or improvement in baseball. I kinda think of it like golf. It's a skill sport. That's why a Howie Clarke can roid to the tits like a Bonds and there are two distinctly different outcomes. 3) - I am not a fan of the obvious double standard wherein baseball is eviscerated for promoting poor ethics and honour, having a low standard of behaviour and, I dunno - pissing on the flag, but the NFL is completely provided a free pass. That is the essence of bullshit. (and the hallowed record book has nothing to do with the concept of ethics or honour.) 4) - I see no rational way of punishing the guilty. The whole enterprise is responsible and you really can't simply erase a few decades of the sport from the record books. 5) - PEDs have been around for a lot longer than Lenny Dykstra. I think it's pretty fallible to assume that this is such a new thing. My bet is guys were roiding up as far back as the 60s and 70s. Why? Because they were available and these are the kind of jobs where you'd use them.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:55 PM on December 14, 2007
Completely with Weedy on this drug issue.
posted by yerfatma at 04:14 PM on December 14, 2007
I think this report might open up the Hall of Fame for a lot of players that would otherwise be shunned. Goes to show that it was not isolated situations, but widespread. If they let some in who are fingered, how do they keep the others out. And I mean those deserving of the Hall of Fame based strictly on stats, etc. I find it interesting that with Clemens' name so prominent that some of the TV spinners are saying they believe his denial because there is no proof, but they have no problem slamming other athletes who have never tested positive.
posted by graymatters at 04:45 PM on December 14, 2007
Ha Ha... Clemens* was not a surprise what is though is the number of fans who believed his wasn't juiced up. Time will tell if he ever makes it to the hall of fame. Hall of shame yes, next to bonds* and gambi*. What has bothered me is that 1) the commissioner is still the commissioner...he should pass his crown. 2) the $$ money $$ we fans now pay for team loyalty. 3) the fact that steroids are still available. I've heard that the new yankee stadium is going to be called Balco Field...sorry I can't help it.
posted by evil earl at 04:50 PM on December 14, 2007
Agreed on just about everything Weedy said.
posted by holden at 04:56 PM on December 14, 2007
+1 to most of what Weedy says, though I think in part the NFL gets away with it because it has no pretensions of being high and mighty and 'pure.' It is trench warfare, and people know it.
posted by tieguy at 05:23 PM on December 14, 2007
Weedy for President.
posted by jerseygirl at 05:25 PM on December 14, 2007
2) - I'm not wholly convinced steriods = guaranteed success or improvement in baseball That of course is the exact reason the steroids are so dangerous. If the outcome of using steroids was 100% predicable, there would not be such a concern about younger athletes using them. However, we know that some people react very differently than others, and that while some build strength, others develop severe life threathening issues. Beyond that, just because a method of cheating is not 100% successful, does not diminish the fact that one cheated. Greasing a fastball, or corking a bat does not guarantee the desired result, but it's still cheating. All that being said, I do agree with the rest of Weedy's comments.
posted by dviking at 06:02 PM on December 14, 2007
Has anybody heard a official reply from Andy Petite?
posted by Nakeman at 06:07 PM on December 14, 2007
By your reasoning, you would be OK with your kids taking performance enhancing drugs just as long as you can get that ELECTRIC chill when you watch them play. I could not respond any better than rcade, who said: A fan's relationship to Mark McGwire isn't anything like a parent's relationship to a kid. If someone wants to fondly remember McGwire's cheat-assisted achievements, you can disagree with that without suggesting that the person would 'roid up their kids for thrills. I have more admiration for my kids when they fail, then I would ever have for Mark Mcgwire or Barry Bonds or Joe Blow. And I appreciate the cut and paste from the dictionary... but ethics and honor. I too would love the idea of these two words being the #1 and #2 priority of every athelete. But, they are not. And they have not been for some time now. Maybe you should have chosen deciet and greed. All said, I will still attend baseball games, still root for my favorite teams or players, and still enjoy the ENTERTAINMENT they provide for us. And I will in no way encourage my children to believe that these athletes are some sort of perfect supreme human being. And when my children are grown, the athletes of their day will probably be accused of having some bionic arm or leg, or who knows what. But I know my kids will not be fooled. P.S. Well said Weedy.
posted by BoKnows at 06:29 PM on December 14, 2007
I too would love the idea of these two words being the #1 and #2 priority of every athelete. But, they are not. And they have not been for some time now. Maybe you should have chosen deciet and greed. Tell me something: what makes athletes different than human beings as a whole? Scrutinize the actions of CEOs or government officials, or anyone who has the authority to make decisions and the opportunity to profit from it, and you'll find plenty for whom "ethics" and "honor" are not paramount. You'll also find plenty whose deceitful and greedy actions make the baseball players you rail against look like pikers. This has been said many times before, in this forum and out of it, when someone professes to feeling disappointed at athletes not measuring up as role models -- but clearly it bears saying again: you put 'em up on a pedestal, so don't be surprised when they topple off.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 06:37 PM on December 14, 2007
Weedy for President. Agreed. I move that we make him lead us to freedom. Or free NFL Network for all.
posted by THX-1138 at 06:40 PM on December 14, 2007
Pete Rose is looking better and better as a hall of fame prospect to me. Comment icon posted by Atheist at 10:16 AM CST on December 14 Other people have "cheated", thus the biggest human stain in the past 60 years of the sport suddenly becomes a better candidate for enshrinement in the hallowed halls of baseball history? You're going to have to break that one down for me into short little sentences for me to have any idea why that would be the case.
posted by grum@work at 07:09 PM on December 14, 2007
And yes, I fully agree with Weedy.
posted by grum@work at 07:12 PM on December 14, 2007
I know hindsight is 20/20 but try this on: 1. Each individual player under suspicion talks to George Mitchell privately. 2. The player would talk only about his own self. No here-say or tattle-telling.In return for the players honesty, the player would remain anonymous in any future report. 3. George Mitchell would issue report based on percentages of player use or abuse of PEDs. You got step 3 wrong. 3. George Mitchell would issue the same report, except at the end of every section about each player it would say "[player name] denies that he used/purchased performance enhancing steroids." Which, as we know, the media would fully respect and report, and not simply overlook.
posted by grum@work at 07:15 PM on December 14, 2007
The thing I hate about performance-enhancing drugs in sport is that they make it harder for the athletes who are smart enough to know they are bad news. These athletes have to watch while the cheaters prosper, and they can decide to either fall behind or join them. A hypercompetitive nature is one of the things that makes a top-flight athlete. Turning down these drugs has to be tough. But as scandalous and disappointing as the Mitchell Report is, I'll still be excited when pitchers and catchers report. This is not a scandal that makes me question the integrity of future games. It just spoils my love of major records that the 'roiders broke. I can't imagine ever caring about the career home run record or season home run record again unless someone breaks them in a clean era, if such a thing is even possible.
posted by rcade at 07:25 PM on December 14, 2007
This has been said many times before, in this forum and out of it, when someone professes to feeling disappointed at athletes not measuring up as role models -- but clearly it bears saying again: you put 'em up on a pedestal, so don't be surprised when they topple off. Lbb, I agree completely. And I'm not railing against the motives of todays athletes. I was pointing out to irunfromclones that the words he used: ethics and honor, in no way describe said athletes. And I have no doubt that all professions have a version of this story.
posted by BoKnows at 07:33 PM on December 14, 2007
So when the dust settles the greatest hitter of the steroid era will be Frank Thomas.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 09:00 PM on December 14, 2007
Yup. Him & Ken Griffey, and that could be about it.
posted by chicobangs at 10:25 PM on December 14, 2007
So when the dust settles the greatest hitter of the steroid era will be Frank Thomas. Alex Rodriguez has been playing full-time MLB since 1996, which is 2 years before McGwire/Sosa went on their HR rampage. I think he qualifies as being part of the "steroid era", and his prime was right in the middle of it. ARod Thomas Griffey Ramirez Jeter I'm pretty sure all six of them will get into the HOF, and none of them have been painted with the "steroid" brush (rightly or wrongly).
posted by grum@work at 10:58 PM on December 14, 2007
Eyewitness testimony in Mitchell Report may be flawed. Of course, barely anyone is going to hear about that over the din of "Hang'em high!" Tough luck, Brian Roberts (and possibly anyone else implicated by the report based on this kind of testimony). It isn't a court of law, so it shouldn't matter to you what other people think...
posted by grum@work at 11:24 PM on December 14, 2007
I'm pretty sure all six of them will get into the HOF, and none of them have been painted with the "steroid" brush (rightly or wrongly). Yet. Jose Canseco may be a sales-obsessed pompous jackass, but he hasn't been wrong about a whole lot of this stuff, and he called out A-Rod immediately and emphatically yesterday. I wouldn't call it evidence or anything, but at this point, he's got at least as much credibility as, frex, a random clubhouse mule.
posted by chicobangs at 11:51 PM on December 14, 2007
If you really think this should just be swept under the rug because it's just the ravings of a couple of disgruntled workers, then you're watching way too much ESPN. I wasn't saying that at all, if you go back and read what I wrote I think it is now more than ever the time for the players and management to do something about this. I just also think it was a railroad job by the commissioners office to do it this way. It could have been handled a whole lot better. Without a bunch of players names being drug through the mud by the press. Think about it. If Selig had wanted, this all could have been done with sealed results. Only shared with the players and their respective teams, and the players association. Followed by a big sit down to figure out what will be done to change the way MLB handles things. Instead now you have up to 80 players that can't enjoy their off season any more, are pissed off as hell at the league, and most likely won't budge on a drug policy because most of the stuff in the Mitchell report is old info anyways. You know that will be the attitude too, it is hard to blame them sometimes. Canseco has been calling out A-Rod's name and roids before the end of this investigation. That does not make him right. When did they play together for him to see this?
posted by jojomfd1 at 09:12 AM on December 15, 2007
If Selig had wanted, this all could have been done with sealed results. Only shared with the players and their respective teams, and the players association. Ah, yes, because that would have made the player's association see the light. Or not. Don't get me wrong; I'm not thrilled with this outcome. But the player's association has mostly itself to blame for being so obstinate for so many years over this issue, and I'm not convinced that anything short of public shaming like this would have convinced them to see the light.
posted by tieguy at 10:18 AM on December 15, 2007
This report had to be public or news media and fans would have been all over owners, player association and Mitchell. Alledged cover up to hide the transgressors and to sweep under the table. I just don't see how this report could not be made public.
posted by Nakeman at 02:56 PM on December 15, 2007
Ah, yes, because that would have made the player's association see the light. tieguy, I added them in as a third party because they are the playuers union, and any player that is "called in" to management's office is going to bring his union representation with him anyways. If you want to soften up the stance on the players association, this was the wrong way to go about it, IMO. Also don't forget it is not just the players that are to blame that all of this got so far out of hand. Do you honestly think that an owner whose gate totals were jumping through the roof suddenly thanks to his player(s) getting bigger/better was going to push for a change? I just don't see how this report could not be made public. Here is your reason why it shouldn't have been. I feel this is going to give baseball a black eye and the ramification are going to be far reaching. I feel sick to my stomach and betrayed by this breach of trust I once granted players to the game I love dearly. Here is the truest thing Mitchell had to say out of all of this "There was a collective failure to recognize the problem as it emerged and to deal with it early on." This was also a quote from the article that should be noted since the Players association is being kicked "The players' union was largely uncooperative for reasons that I thought were largely understandable," Mitchell said. Here is what union head Donald Fehr said in response to why the players association represented the players the way they did. He made "no appologies" and offered this. "Many players are named. Their reputations have been adversely affected, probably forever," he said. "Even if it turns out down the road that they should not have been."
posted by jojomfd1 at 05:15 PM on December 15, 2007
jojomfd1-I see your point however with the public knowing about the report . How in the world are they going to contain something like this-with rumors and hearsay? This is very perplexing and I'm not even sure most of the public even cares. My initial comments indicated some blowup would be forthcoming, however after reading some surveys of fans and opinions of people I know, it appears I was mistaken. Does baseball just allow this to continue or are the safeguards in place adequate to stop the abuse? Appears I'll have to alter my opinion about the whole mess and just have faith in the powers that be to do the right thing.
posted by Nakeman at 06:04 PM on December 15, 2007
1. Ditto Weedy. His comments, as usual, are some of the most insightful and well-spoken of the debate (though I think I can expalin why the NFL gets a pass due to a: the fact that it doesn't rely so much on individual numbers as much as team accomplishments-note how many people are suggesting that the appropriate punishment consists of placing asterisks on the achievements of the named athletes or even of the whole era-b: because football is in its own Summer of '98 Home Run Chase, and no one wants to stop the good times, and c: as aforementioned by tieguy, people expect NFL players to be big, fast, human bullets, flying into brick walls). 2. So what was the Mitchell Report supposed to do? Name Names? It succeeded, albeit very few, and most of them were journeyman (I hear a lot of people asking about all the names not on the list). The biggest is obviously Clemens. Was it there to prove that people did PEDs? If so, mission accomplished. But due to limited returns, they were not able to prove that other people DIDN'T use steroids, which is what I think it was really meant to do. 3. Nobody seems happy with it. The Fans are unhappy that there aren't more names, and want more blood. The Players want to get their names off the list, or at least want to be crucified based off some real evidence. Bud Selig clearly isn't happy, because even though Sen. Mitchell wanted to move past the punishment and forgive and forget, Selig wasted no time in announcing the unilateral right to punish people based on his whim. The media is happy, because it allows them to fill a slow sports time (bowls not being played yet, basketball and hockey still in its meaningless phases, and pro football not yet into the playoffs). 4. Where do we go from here? I think in the end, we'll have to write it off to history, and say, this is an era where a lot of people did steroids. Can we say that anyone honestly thinks that this is all the guys who did PEDs were named on Thursday? If we assume that most of the players around did use PEDs, then can we really say that there was an advantage gained? Maybe the best way is to consider this was the steroid era, like the dead-ball era (but with Kirk Radomski). To answer Nakeman's question: Pettitte's response can be found here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TI5VC80&show_article=1 On edit: For some reason, whenever I try and link an article, it never shows up on the post. Does this happen to any one else?
posted by Bonkers at 08:59 PM on December 15, 2007
On edit: For some reason, whenever I try and link an article, it never shows up on the post. Does this happen to any one else? What you want to do is make sure the link is coded like this: <a href="http://www.google.com">This is the link!</a> It will then look like this: This is the link!
posted by grum@work at 09:40 PM on December 15, 2007
Has anybody heard a official reply from Andy Petite? Yep.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 10:20 PM on December 15, 2007
The best part of this is that A-Rod's record-breaking contract won't be the front and center story today. Sorry for starting the discussion off on the wrong foot. Just thought that it was funny. Pettitte is a bit of a surprise to me, although he is pretty old for a MLB pitcher. My guess is that a significant portion of PED users in this report will actually be older players, who are using to try to hang on to their careers.