Color me unimpressed by Mitchell's Report. It had to be better and more thorough. The only big "get" was Roger Clemens. He did steroids in 1998 and again in 2000 at the very least. All single sourced and no other evidence.
Now, just skimming the report and putting together other media accounts it would seem the only major active players that are cited are Pettitte and Tejada, who last had alleged usage in 2002. It is 2007, there has been 5 seasons of baseball since and that is the best we got?
What was the rule in baseball about HGH in 2002? How about a steroids program in the late 1990s. How about drug use in Oakland amongst the bash brothers in 1989?
This thing was a dog and pony show, designed just to take heat off MLB from Congress. Embarrassing performance.
It was all Radomski and little bit about the Yankee trainer.
How many stars outside of Clemens and Bonds?
Dog and pony show.
This is nothing. Bad job and a waste of money by baseball. It shed no light on the situation and the list is light. Single sourced.
Edit: So more things. Pettitte used HGH, according to his trainer, in 2002. No other usage reported. HGH wasn't banned by MLB until 2005. What does that mean? How can you suspend or call a player a cheater ex post facto?
Also, on the Pettitte and Clemens stuff, I do believe the report. But, there is no secondary independent corroboration of these events. No paper trail etc. Forget a court of law, where this is an easy win for the defense, but even as a journalist. If I wrote a one source story on this it gets spiked. That is troublesome to me. There needed to be supporting evidence no matter how compelling the single sourced evidence is.
Pettitte and Clemens' silence though is a part of this to though. What happens if they talk and say, "it's not true?
Where are we then?
And, why is everyone so hung up about asterisk's?
6 comments:
What are you talking about? The single source was someone who testifying with federal agents in the room with the threat of perjury and jail time.
If steroids aren't a big deal, then I hope your newspaper treated the Barry Bonds situation with the same attitude. Does Clemens get a pass because the media has been building him up for so long while trying to take Bonds down?
Maybe Bonds was right...it was a racist conspiracy to go after him and not a guy like Clemens who everyone knew was juicing. The Red Sox GM was right in 1997...Clemens WAS on the downside of his career. Just about everything he did from '97 on is tainted, as with Bonds post-2000.
I don't like the single source. Not saying it is untrue, but he has said in the past they never did roids, and now, under threat of jailtime, he sings.
How do we know he isn't saving his own ass? Maybe he is, that's why he is singing. You need more corroborating evidence than that. Hey, I think he did it, but I don't like a he said/he said situation.
The detail certainly lends credibility, but in the end are you going to believe a guy who is being squeezed by the feds to give up names? Or the pitcher.
Clemens denies the report. Where do you go from here?
And, why were these guys talking to mitchell under threat of perjury? What the heck is that? Why is the federal government using its muscle to aid a private investigation?
He wasn't under oath with Mitchell.
I think steroids are a big deal. And, if you go by the report, Clemens 1997 was his best season he ever had. His first with the Blue Jays. He didn't use steroids that year.
What does that tell you. He wasn't in the twilight.
Also, He didn't use roids in 1999 and only parts of 2000 and 2001. He didn't use after that according to his trainer.
So, for the last 6 years has Clemens been clean? If so, that's a lot of good pitching.
What is the longterm effect of steroids? If you use it are you still getting your performance enhanced 4 years later?
I don't know. I think Clemens is tainted, and I tend to believe the report.
But, this report was a joke. It wasn't an all-encompassing investigation. It was Mitchell talking to a New York based cartel. So, it was skewered to New york based players.
The connotation is that everyone else is clean. No McGwire, No Sosa, No I-Rod, nothing on Palmeiro.
What a joke. It is selective outing. It was a pretty unfair report to most of the players in my opinion.
The report was a joke because the players didn't cooperate, that's not Mitchell's fault.
And Clemens had his trainer with him (with the Yankees & Astros) almost continously since 1998 so it's a stretch to assume he just stopped using steroids for one year and then went back to them.
Besides, the rumors about Clemens have been around for years. How many pitchers in MLB history have been able to be that successful throwing that hard until their 44 years old? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out he was cheating the hands of time.
As for the single source all of a sudden singing...well, duh, jailtime is good motivation. Michael Vick's co-defendants weren't saying anything until jailtime became an option. Furthermore, what's his motivation for lying? If he's lying about Clemens (he said he personally injected him), then he could face jailtime for perjury. Even Mitchell said these guys have no motivation to name names that are untrue.
I'm just disappointed that a lot of media members have decried this report as heresay and such because guys they like (Pettitte and Clemens) are mentioned. Yet, when Barry Bonds' mistress was going off about Bonds, it was taken as stone-cold fact. The first suspcions against Bonds were much like these...just a single source. It wasn't until the feds got involved that it was proven but it didn't stop the media from crucifying Bonds.
Eh, who cares. I'm glad Clemens got named because it was too hard for me to believe that he got better as he hit 40+ years old. That doesn't happen naturally.
John, I totally disagree with your point that since only Clemens, Petite and Tejada were the only named stars, then the report is unimpressive. One of the objectives was to demonstrate broad-based usage of performance enhancing drugs across ML. That means stars and average players. Many average players may not have played in MLB absent steroids.
The benefit of this report was an independent third party (Mitchel) was able to demonstrate what much of the public already believes is true.
Petitt's acknowledgement that he took HGH gives credibility to the report.
All the report showed us was what we already knew.
I think it was worthless.
I think it was an unfair report to a lot of players. Also, why is Pettite under heat for doing something for 2 days but other habitual users now have the cloud lifted?
I could have done the report using lexus/nexus.
I think it has no impact. The only players anyone cares about are Pettite --in his final year or two -- and Tejada. And, this was stuff happening 6 years ago. Is everyone clean now?
Post a Comment