The Mitchell Report

Remove all ads!

After 20 months of investigation, Senator George Mitchell released his anticipated report on Steroids in Baseball. No maybe we need an "Alley Behind the Colosseum" for topics like this, but I'll put it here for now.

Over 80 players named, all 30 teams involved, and several recommendations.

The only surprise I found was that Roger Clemens was identified as a user--during his CY Young year in Toronto! An embarrassing day for the Grand Old Game, but something necessary for the game to go forward.

Another thing that got me was that one caller to the radio show suggested that using Steroids was NOT cheating! He likens it to an imporvement in equipment or training practices. Could this be the direction that Sports is headed?

What are your thoughts?

 

As someone who doesn't care about baseball at all, but seeing a tendency all over the sportworld considering enhancement drugs it doesn't come as a surprise.

It's actually sad that it doesn't come as a surprise anymore. I think every sport imaginable probably has its fair share of abuse. It makes you think about every world record ever set, were they valid?

There's little to be done however as drug abuse and enforcement are technologically linked and both will find ways to keep ahead of the other.

 

To be honest, the only thing I found surprising was that Mitchell only had 80 names. I was expecting a lot more.

 

I was very disappointed to see Clemens' name on the list. Nevertheless, I have to say that I agree with Drew's sentiments. I think that every record that has been set in the last twenty years or so is now rendered suspect. It is a sad day for baseball.

 

The Mitchell Report doesn't even pretend that this list is all-inclusive. In fact, it even goes so far as to explicitly state that there were many more users over the last 20 years or so than are identified.

Personally, I'm not happy at all that the report named names, given how flimsy some of the evidence was on some people. Basically, if anyone said, "I think this guy was doing steroids" even if there was no evidence other than the guy's word, it made it into the report. I think Brian Roberts has the biggest beef, but he's not alone. I wouldn't be surprised if we see slander/libel suits.

I guess my main problems are these two:

1. The list is nowhere close to comprehensive. There are likely of hundreds more users, many of them big names, that aren't identified.

2. The list, even given it's limited scope, likely isn't accurate. There are probably several players on that list identified as users who aren't users. However, they're already guilty in the court of public opinion, and their reputations are forever tarnished, even if they can supply evidence proving their innocence (and we all know how hard it is to prove a negative).

 

Wow. American sports stars in performance enhancing drugs shocker .

 

Mitchell did site a lack of co-operation from players involved.

Another player said that he did see HGH, but chickened out when he saw the needles. So it's possilbe that he looked into HGH, but decided against it.

Jose Canseco did an interview with TSN a few years ago talking about Clemmens and Steroids that never aired because Clemmens and his attourneys threatened to sue. Now that Clemmens has been named (9 pages of a 409 page report), the interview did air. Canseco talked as if Clemmens was knowledgeable on the topic and that his trainers were injecting him with the drugs...

 

Now they are asking questions about hall of fame eligibility, in particular for Clemens and Bonds. Gosh, I thought Clemens would be a no-brainer but now they both have issues. I won't be surprised if they both make it in though, afterall Pete Rose made it while doing something illegal (can't remember what...)

If I was one of the clean athletes and was having a good career, I'd be so proud of being able to succeed against the juiced players.

 

Actually Pete Rose is banned from the Hall of Fame over his Gambling issues. He is suspended from MLB for life (including managing and front office positions). He is in the WWE Hall of Fame however. Likely a shot at MLB...

Actually, I would say that proven Steroid users could find themselves facing a similar ban from the Hall of Fame. If you get evidence on Clemmens, He's going to have to buy a ticket to get in...

 

First of all, Gnarff is right about Pete Rose. He is not in the Hall of Fame. He was banned from baseball for gambling, so not only is he not in the Hall, he never even made it to the ballot.

I also agree that both Bonds and Clemens may never get in the Hall because of this. I do not think that either of them will get banned from baseball - the penalty for a first time offense of steroids isn't a life time ban - so they will at least get their names on the ballot. However, remember that you need a 75% "yes" vote to get into the Hall. I think that at least 25% of the voters won't vote for them because of steroids.

The only big name from the steroids era at this point that has come up for a vote in the Hall of Fame is Mark McGuire. The evidence against McGuire was relatively less than what there is on Bonds and Clemens, and McGuire did not get in the Hall during his first year of eligibility last year.

 

Funny somehow I expected American Football to be the bigger steroid infestation and thought that steroids would mean less in baseball, guess I was wrong then.

 

@Morgoroth - The difference is that football has had a much stricter steroid testing program than baseball, and has had it for much longer than baseball. The steroids era in football was mostly in the 1970s and 1980s. For about 20 years now, football has had comprehensive steroids testing. Every once in a while you'll still see a football player getting caught on steroids, but it's only one or two per year.

I think that you're perception of baseball players - that they wouldn't benefit much from steroids - is why there was no official steroid testing program in baseball prior to 2005. Officially, baseball banned steroids years ago, but they didn't start testing for in until 2005. So even though it was banned for a long time, if you took them there was no chance of getting caught without a testing program in place.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only steroid McGuire admitted to using (and the only steroid we have evidence of him using) was Andro. At the time he used it, Andro was still legal since the government hadn't yet classified it as a steroid. You could even buy the stuff at GNC!

 

You're completely correct Drew. That's why I said the evidence on McGuire is less than what it is on Bonds and Clemens. Specifically, there's no direct evidence on McGuire at all! However, just the suspicion of steroid use has, to this point, kept him out of the Hall. While the Mitchell report does not offer anything close to concrete proof, merely suggesting such appears to be damning evidence in the court of public opinion.

 

I think, then, that keeping McGuire out of the hall over this is more than a little unfair. When he was taking Andro, it was not only not banned, but it was also classified (albeit wrongly) as a dietary supplement. In being denied the hall, I think McGuire is getting a raw deal. From the looks of things, it seems that Clemens is (will be) getting what he deserves, though.

 

I think that even though the substance McGwire used wasn't banned at the time, the perception is still there that he cheated and then lied about it. What makes it doubly damning for him is that he was tremendously popular and there was a general perception that he was a really upright guy. When people found out that he was "cheating" and then he didn't fess up to it, it caused a tremendous backlash. In reality, Bonds and Clemens didn't fall as far in the public eye because they weren't universally loved. They were universally respected, perhaps, but their dispositions are such that people either love them or hate them (especially Bonds).

 

The reason public opinion is against McGuire is NOT because of his use of Andro.

Remember a couple of years back when a bunch of baseball players (McGuire among them) were called in front of Congress? All of them EXCEPT McGuire made statements denying their use of steroids. Raphael Palmeiro even went so far as to wag his finger at Congress when he stated, "I have never, ever, used steroids period." That made him look particularly ridiculous when he tested positive for steroids a few months later.

The only thing McGuire said at those hearings, to every question asked of him was, "I'm not here to talk about the past." I'm surprised he wasn't ruled in contempt of Congress. Because McGuire refused to deny his use of steroids, it was basically regarded as an admission of guilt. And I can certainly see why. McGuire didn't want to be charged with pergury if it ever came out he was a user, and an omission of the truth is technically not a lie.

So in short, while there is no direct evidence linking McGuire to steroid use, McGuire's own words and actions place the legitimacy of his acheivements in doubt.

 

This is a good point. Thank you. I can see where his refusal to answer the question would be interpreted as a tacit admission of guilt. Not enough to charge him with anything, sure, but the hall isn't a criminal court.