The Mitchell Report
[editor's note, by Randy Booth] Let's consider this an open thread: If you want to chat up the Mitchell Report, let's do it in this thread. I will definitely be watching ESPN as well as keeping an eye here to inject/read some opinion.
The Mitchell Report is scheduled to be released at 2:00pm EST today. The report is now expected to include between 60-80 names of former and current ballplayers, includes MVPs and All-Stars, and expose baseball's "serious drug culture." It's unclear how substantial the evidence will be against those players, but the Report is said to include 304 pages plus exhibits.
-CNN
Consider me not surprised.
[update, by SoxDevil:] Now that the report has been released, I've removed the unsubstantiated list for the time being. More news to follow!
0 recs |
118 comments
Comments
Re: The Mitchell Report
by leberquesgue on
Dec 13, 2007 11:11 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by Hughie Jennings on
Dec 13, 2007 11:22 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jeter?
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 11:45 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Jeter?
But Veritek, Vaughn, Damon, Garciaparra and Trot Nixon will be on the list.
by docgonzo on
Dec 13, 2007 11:48 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Damon?
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 11:53 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sorry Nana
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 11:56 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Damon?
Yankees (both current and former):
Clemens
Pettitte
Giambi
Farnsworth
Sheffield
Damon
Grimsley
Mondesi
Red Sox:
Varitek
Garciaparra
Mo Vaughn
Trot Nixon
Tavarez
Carl Everett
Rich Garces
by docgonzo on
Dec 13, 2007 12:18 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Damon?
by Randy Booth on
Dec 13, 2007 12:54 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Damon?
by Randy Booth on
Dec 13, 2007 12:54 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Trot
But no Papi, no Manny, no Pedro, no Curt, no Lowell. That's a positive.
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 1:01 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Trot
by SoxDevil on
Dec 13, 2007 1:18 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Trot
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 1:21 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Curt
by SoxDevil on
Dec 13, 2007 1:36 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Damon?
by MJMcC on
Dec 13, 2007 11:56 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yanks...
"It's going to be a rough day in the Bronx," the paper quoted the source as saying.
"Several" prominent Yankees? We've heard Roger and Pettite, but they're two, not "several". Jorge?
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 12:05 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
Ah well, still a first ballot HOFer.
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 11:45 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
And don't be so sure about the first ballot HoF. McGuire should have been in, except for the steroid controversy surrounding his name. If there is proof Clemens was using, I doubt he'll receive the necessary 75% to get in.
Also, I'm crossing my fingers that no Red Sox players will be in the report... knock on wood.
by Schulz on
Dec 13, 2007 11:51 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 11:56 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Clemens HOF?
Somewhere Dan Duquette is smiling. Although I never liked himn as GM, he has been vindicated.
by Drugs Delaney on
Dec 13, 2007 6:06 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by argo0 on
Dec 13, 2007 12:10 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by SoxDevil on
Dec 13, 2007 12:13 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 12:15 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Red Sox in the report
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 12:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
Some of the names like Garciaparra and Damon make sense, given some of their injuries..
Varitek's name on the list is going to put a damper on his patina in New England.
by superferret on
Dec 13, 2007 1:10 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by Schulz on
Dec 13, 2007 7:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 8:34 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by Schulz on
Dec 13, 2007 9:15 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They gave him immunity
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 9:21 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by superferret on
Dec 13, 2007 10:34 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Pujols!!!
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 1:05 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Pujols!!!
by Drugs Delaney on
Dec 13, 2007 6:07 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
Sign me,
Old Enough to Remember How Many "Lifetime" bans given to Steve Howe.
This whole investigation is a sham.
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 1:09 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
As much as MLB turned a blind eye to this problem for years, especially when they were still touchy about the 1994 strike and lost revenue. The Players Assoc/Players Union was just as bad to worse about confronting this issue or blocking any sort of sane controls in place
by superferret on
Dec 13, 2007 1:36 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by SoxDevil on
Dec 13, 2007 1:39 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
- There's so much attention being paid to who's on the list or not, when really that's not really the point. Not only do the names that Mitchell revealed come from only four primary sources, but it keeps our focus on the past rather than the future.
- Too many people haven't done their homework on Mitchell and his relationship to the Sox. I agree with those who say that his connection puts some shadow on the credibility of his report, but to say, as one post does, that "he's got a ton of money invested in the Red Sox" when in fact his Director position was non-voting (& non-equity) is irresponsible. Certainly the E-mails that he collected and reported from the Sox (regarding Gagne and Donnelly) aren't the sign of kid glove treatment.
- While the Mitchell Report, like all such productions, has a high quotient of CYA PR to it, the recommendations section was constructive (if not all that novel). The need to get an independent authority in charge of testing -- as in cycling -- is vital. I was also intrigued to learn how much worse MLB has been in informing players about steroid issues in contrast to their very strong push against gambling.
by MJMcC on
Dec 14, 2007 12:04 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by OilCanBoyd on
Dec 13, 2007 3:05 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Some big names mentioned
Bichette
Caminiti
Dykstra
Bagwell
Pujols
Jeez.
by SoxDevil on
Dec 13, 2007 1:16 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: Some big names mentioned
Why are people comming up with these names that I do not see on the list given at mlb.com?
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071213&content_id=2325070&vkey=news_mlb&fext=. jsp&c_id=mlb
by Schulz on
Dec 13, 2007 7:48 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
It shows that our core players in 04 and 07 were not cheaters. Manny, Papi, Schill, Pedro, Beckett, Lowell all are people kids and fans can look up too.
Shouldnt people start focusing on how awesome Pedro Martinez and Schilling were as pitchers to be dominant in this period of baseball without using steroids. Or how great a pair of hitters Manny and Papi truly are.
by SoxAcumen on
Dec 13, 2007 1:41 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
Think he'd be willing to pitch in the 'pen?
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 1:41 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by SoxAcumen on
Dec 13, 2007 1:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by spinz on
Dec 13, 2007 1:48 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by RSNexile on
Dec 13, 2007 2:19 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
A-Rod is just that damn good. He is a freak of nature.
by SoxAcumen on
Dec 13, 2007 1:48 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I love
Can't you all see how screwed up this whole thing is? No evidence or corroboration in this so-called investigation - just rumor and hearsay. As a Yankee fan, I wouldn't be jumping for joy even if Fat Papi was mentioned. The whole thing is disgusting.
by docgonzo on
Dec 13, 2007 1:58 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
Tek is an embarrassment. I am just happy Manny and Papi are not on the list, and Pedro and Schill, thats all.
"rumor and hearsay" LoL, I think ill read the report before I make that opinion.
by SoxAcumen on
Dec 13, 2007 2:19 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
Let's wait until the evidence is actually made public before we start celebrating or mourning anything -- other than that it's really screwed up that this whole situation was allowed to happen in the first place.
by RSNexile on
Dec 13, 2007 2:21 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
by SoxAcumen on
Dec 13, 2007 2:28 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
by 0157H7 on
Dec 13, 2007 2:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
They get a team, they manage, thats all.
IMO the MLBPA has stone walled this investigation and having their players get tested from day #1, they should at least try and get to a level that the NFLPA is at currently.
by SoxAcumen on
Dec 13, 2007 3:33 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 2:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
by RSNexile on
Dec 13, 2007 5:22 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
Of course RSN would've been sad had Tek been named. But he's not.
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 2:23 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
by docgonzo on
Dec 13, 2007 2:55 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 3:06 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
by SoxDevil on
Dec 13, 2007 2:24 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: I love
Former Sox on there include Gagne, Vaughn, Clemens, Mike Stanton, Mike Lansing, Manny Alexander, Jose Manzanillo, Jeremy Giambi, Donnelly, Kent Mercker, Chris Donnels.
Yanks include Clemens, Pettite, Giambi, Sheffield, David Justice, Rondell White, Kevin Brown, Chuck Knoblauch, Mike Stanton, Todd Williams, Ron Villone, Danny Neagle, Glenallen Hill, Jason Grimsley, Hal Morris.
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 2:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by spinz on
Dec 13, 2007 2:19 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
http://files.mlb.com/mitchrpt.pdf
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 2:42 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
He did nothing for ten years while all this transpired under his nose. He was called to testify in front of congress and thumbed his nose at their questioning.
Now he is the mastermind who authorized the Mitchell investigation
A list comiled with NO EVIDENCE, and NO POSITIVE TEST RESULTS!!!
This is heasay--speculation, nothing that would hold up in court.
Selig should be ashamed of himself.
By the way, where is the stinking list???
I still only see probables everywhere...
Mike and the Mad dog had top get off the air because they couldn't even read their list!!!
What a total farse
by mpieretti on
Dec 13, 2007 2:38 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by spinz on
Dec 13, 2007 2:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
baseball did nothing, that is true. it is the same for almost all the other big sports.
to make it short:
everything is fucked up in professional sports.
so here is a very good link for you who may not know it already, which was good before the Mitchell report came out:
http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/2006/10/evidence-against-roger-clemens.html
very funny is the sections with quotes.
i do not trust Mitchell at all that he was a neutral authority in this "investigaton".
they should have made the list public in a tv-show in pay-tv. that would have been the right environment.
by OilCanBoyd on
Dec 13, 2007 3:20 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 3:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
from the quote part of that site
"Do I feel cheated?... All the non-users feel cheated. I think in a silent way, a lot of people who hadn't cheated over the years are happy with the way the media exposed the problem, and they're happy we're making progress toward evening the playing field."
Quote Source: San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 3, 2005
"I worry about the game. I worry about if my kids want to be big-league players, like those kids out there (at the Dodgers' training site). I worry about the game not being clean and them not getting an opportunity. This problem has filtered to the kids at the high school and college level, and that's a shame."
Quote Source: San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 3, 2005
by OilCanBoyd on
Dec 13, 2007 3:53 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
LOL
http://www.baseballssteroidera.com
and noticing for the first time the google ads.
5 ads on the site.
ALL OF THEM FOR HGH !!!
by OilCanBoyd on
Dec 14, 2007 6:48 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 2:42 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by DougieGoingDeep on
Dec 13, 2007 2:53 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by drabidea on
Dec 13, 2007 3:01 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by DougieGoingDeep on
Dec 13, 2007 3:15 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
Oh, wait.. that's the actor... ;^)
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 7:50 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by SoxAcumen on
Dec 13, 2007 3:35 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
But taking money from gamblers in the first place was still a gross violation of the rules.
by RSNexile on
Dec 13, 2007 5:25 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
- As others have noted here, we still need to find out how certain names got on the list. In the absence of established evidence (e.g., Giambi's and Grimsley's admissions), one shouldn't treat the people on this list as guilty. We may learn more to support their inclusion on the list, but until then, we should avoid condemning them. That goes for Pettite just as much as Damon just as much as Varitek.
- On the flip side, many people sound relieved that certain names are not on the list. Yes, the players are innocent until proven guilty, but just because a player hasn't been named doesn't "prove" that he didn't take any PEDs, only that he wasn't caught in this investigation.
by argo0 on
Dec 13, 2007 2:39 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
Neither Damon nor Tek were named.
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 2:44 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by argo0 on
Dec 13, 2007 2:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by tommy.otm on
Dec 13, 2007 3:03 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by spinz on
Dec 13, 2007 2:40 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
When the Boston Red Sox were considering acquiring Gagné, a Red Sox official made specific inquiries about Gagné's possible use of steroids. In a November 1, 2006 email to a Red Sox scout, general manager Theo Epstein asked, "Have you done any digging on Gagne? I know the Dodgers think he was a steroid guy. Maybe so. What do you hear on his
medical?"
And when the scout Mark Delpiano confirmed steroids was in his past and that without the roids his durability or lack thereof could be affected..
It upsets me to think that Theo would still knowingly go after a player that has a checkered past, especially one that the scout said would be a risk...
by DougieGoingDeep on
Dec 13, 2007 2:41 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by OilCanBoyd on
Dec 13, 2007 3:31 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by Schulz on
Dec 13, 2007 8:01 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
The bit about the email from Theo appears in a Sports Illustrated article from earlier today:
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 10:05 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
So, don't believe everything you read - especially from the Ass. Press, who clearly don't have the intenstinal fortitude to name their authors.
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 10:08 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
lol
by mpieretti on
Dec 13, 2007 10:23 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by DougieGoingDeep on
Dec 14, 2007 10:00 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by DougieGoingDeep on
Dec 14, 2007 10:15 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by spinz on
Dec 13, 2007 2:47 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 2:52 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: who?
He played until 2003. No, not for the Sox, but this isn't about the Sox - it's about a bad joke being played on baseball fans.
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 3:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
Pretty bright guy.
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 2:52 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
WTH??
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 2:59 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
Just my thoughts.
by Hughie Jennings on
Dec 13, 2007 3:02 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
is the Mitchell report in any way a positiv list like all players not named are clean?
did the situation change because of the report (besides some silly namecalling from the MLB)?
if i personally get the impression (through what circumstances ever) he is clean and was for his whole career, i will say: "sorry, was wrong on that one."
on the other hand i accepted that professional sports was like that till now (and will be like that in the near future) and the players are not the only ones to blame.
i did not put the players on a throne so i do not have to kick them out of it (and back in because a report did not mention them).
this is just sports.
by OilCanBoyd on
Dec 13, 2007 3:42 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
Please, If Tek's name got put out to the media, I am sure his attorneys will be taking care of it as we speak.
by SoxAcumen on
Dec 13, 2007 3:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
Now, that wouldn't be so unusual, except that ...
... she's an obstetrician.
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 3:12 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
It's Bud Selig to the rescue...
our night in shining armor
Bud states: "This report is a call to action"
This press conference makes me sick
After 10 years of inaction-- now he's ready!!!
I think the Feds turned up the heat on Selig with their investigation of Bonds.
Selig cooked this "report" up to save his butt.
"It's time to move forward" Bud Selig
So why are they dragging up names from the past?
So Bud can punish them-- He's our night in shining armor
Farce: a: ridiculous or empty show b: mockery <the enforcement of this law became a farce>
by mpieretti on
Dec 13, 2007 5:10 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
the PRESS CONFERENCE - I saw on ESPN that Canseco actually showed up there - and they wouldn't let him in! Hahahaaaaaaa
Ol' Bud & George were probably afraid he'd start yelling out a bunch of names that SHOULD be on the list!
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 5:29 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by DougieGoingDeep on
Dec 13, 2007 6:01 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by BC14 on
Dec 13, 2007 7:47 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
This is baseball-- it's supposed to be fun
retribution is no solution
by mpieretti on
Dec 13, 2007 7:42 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
No one is claiming Bud Selig is saving MLB, I can't think of one person that doesn't think he did this to save face. It had to happen, and any other commissioner would have done the same thing. He is at fault for letting this go on and should step down, but before he does that, he had to make an effort to save his image, any human being would. When it comes down to situations like this, you'll always try to save yourself.
Mpieretti, you've done nothing on this board besides yell about how bogus it is, how terrible Selig is, and you have yet to bring anything decent to the discussion other than say it's BS. Have you even taken the time to read any of the report? I seriously doubt that Selig or Mitchell would let a report like this out without the time and research that Mitchell has put into it. There are probably hundreds of cases that he didn't report because there wasn't enough evidence against the players, but these 75 or so players that are named in it, they obviously came up enough in the past, giving them a reason to include them in this report. Not trying to be accusatory, but I don't remember seeing you on this site that often in the past (I don't post often so you might be in the same situation as me, big reader who rarely contributes), but you just come in out of no where yelling about how it's a scam which leads me to believe that you're a Yankees fan or something that is outraged that your players our mentioned and none of our current players are, in which case you really have no need to be on this board. And if you're not, than I'm sorry, I would just like to see you back up why you think this is a scam when Mitchell has dedicated about 2 years of his life to it, and you are just a fan who has no real insight to how the inner workings of the MLB are run. Until then, I'll take Mitchells word that these guys are suspect.
Besides that and the Theo/Gagne part (from the report that I've mentioned earlier), the other thing that bothers me is what Bigbie did to Brian Roberts. Roberts had a 2 paragraph section and the only thing about him was what Bigbie told Mitchell. That he did not participate when he and Segui did, but then goes on to throw him under the bus by saying Roberts admitted trying it once or twice. It just seems like there was no need to do that to Roberts. He never suspected Roberts, and if he had never gone to Bigbie as a friend and admitted to trying it once or twice, his name never would have surfaced. Just seemed like Bigbie was grasping and trying to save himself by turning in whoever he could. I feel bad for Roberts slightly. (This information was on page 158 of the report at the bottom)
by DougieGoingDeep on
Dec 14, 2007 10:32 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by DougieGoingDeep on
Dec 14, 2007 10:33 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by SoxDevil on
Dec 14, 2007 1:12 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
I have read the report [check]
As for why Mitchell spent 2 years to investigate steroids in Baseball... he was paid money to do so.
My problem is that Selig has chosen to try these NAMED players in the court of public opinion to save his own skin.
Where was Bud the last ten years when EVERYONE knew this was going on? Bud was in the stands counting his revenue, cheering the 70 home run race, and building smaller ballparks. Now he rides in to save the day by smearing the players who brung him.
Your Roberts point from above is my case and point. There is harder evidence on some players, circumstatial on others. My problem is that Selig has chosen to release this to the media- creating this circus- and the players have not, and will not get a fair trial.
If Selig really wanted to clean up the game, implement a strong testing policy, and try the players named by Mitchell on a case by case basis behind closed doors, and THEN release the results to the public. Do not release the PROCESS to make a big media spalsh to look like a hero!!!
My take on this Mitchell report is that it is really a power struggle between the comish and the players union. By giving these players a black eye, Selig is trying to force a stronger testing policy out of the union.
I just see his tactics as out of line, and his motives transparent.
Good stuff
by mpieretti on
Dec 14, 2007 11:23 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
This day and age though, there's no such thing as behind closed doors. With the internet and media all over these players, this list would have surfaced at some point, maybe including names that aren't even included, as seen by the list that was making the rounds earlier in the day yesterday. So maybe this way was the only way of damage control to make sure it didn't get any worse and bring other players names into it. I can't vouch for Selig's train of thought, that's just my assumption.
As far as posting on OTM I was just hoping you weren't a Yankee troll crying foul, and again I'm sorry cause I certainly would never want someone to think that of me. Hopefully this will all pass by the time Spring Training starts (doubtful) and we can just focus on winning another Series without the "help" of Gagne.
by DougieGoingDeep on
Dec 14, 2007 12:02 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
This vaguely reminded me of the Black sox scandal (and I could be getting this dead wrong), where the owners appointed the first commish, not so much to clean up baseball but to "look" like they were doing so (kinda like Selig did when he hired Mitchell to conduct this investigation), and the Commish ended up banning all those involved (which wasn't actually what the owners wanted, especially not the White Sox owner), so it kinda backfired. Same here kinda, Selig hired Mitchell to make it look like he wasn't at fault, and Mitchell turned around and basically said it was everyone's fault, including the commish
by Realistic on
Dec 14, 2007 5:14 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: The Mitchell Report
by SoxDevil on
Dec 14, 2007 5:56 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
FireJoeMorgan.com
look for the Pettite article.
too funny.
an excerpt to show how christians thinking works:
(http://www.beliefnet.com/story/167/story_16732_1.html)
"...
While God has me playing baseball, even where I play comes down to a question of His plan for my life. When my last contract with the Yankees expired I could sign with any major league team I wanted. But I knew that wasn't really my decision. I prayed and sought God's will throughout the 2003 baseball season because I wanted to know where God wanted me to play next.
..."
i could not imagine that a mercyfull god (as some christians still claim that their god is) ever wants to have somebody play for the yankees.
by OilCanBoyd on
Dec 14, 2007 8:47 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: FireJoeMorgan.com
No, I'm not launching into religious discussion. I'm just yanking your chain. I'm not religious and barely spiritual.
by SoxDevil on
Dec 14, 2007 10:17 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Re: FireJoeMorgan.com
and at least in the end that god wanted to have this "sinner" play for the Houston Astros not the yankees after the 2003 season : )
by OilCanBoyd on
Dec 14, 2007 10:43 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs













