The Official Mitchell Report Thread

[IJ Reilly]

The release of the Mitchell Report is only hours away.

Mitchell's report on drugs in baseball will name names

The findings to be released today are expected to detail use of performance-enhancing drugs by about 60 to 80 baseball players, with the implication the problem is widespread.

Former Sen. George Mitchell's report on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball will be made public today, ending 21 months of speculation about the names and details contained in its pages.

Mitchell, who was appointed by Commissioner Bud Selig to lead the investigation, will discuss his findings at a news conference in midtown Manhattan, set to start at 11 a.m. PST. Two-and-a-half hours later, Selig will hold his own news conference less than a mile away.

Anywhere from 60 to 80 players linked to drugs will be named in the 300-plus-page report, among them former MVPs and All-Stars, according to the Associated Press. Angels owner Arte Moreno told The Times last month that the report would name players "that people will be mad about."

Various reports said the document would indicate that baseball has a widespread drug problem and would make recommendations about testing.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-mitchell13dec13,1,4239116.story

[Naimfan]

Hope some good comes of the report. While I'd love to see all illegal drugs banned and players who use them banned, I know that's not realistic. A pity, because it's hard for me to take a lot of the performances seriously. My son asked me this morning if Hank Aaron is still the home run record holder. I told him that for me he is, because Barry Bonds cheated. Ouch to have to tell him that.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm hoping that one of the first casualties will be Bud Selig.

[MacNut]

I'm hoping that one of the first casualties will be Bud Selig.If he hasn't been taken out yet he will survive.

[Naimfan]

I'm hoping that one of the first casualties will be Bud Selig.

+1!

[MacNut]

Interesting to see how many Red Sox are on the list as Mitchell is tight with the team.

[zioxide]

ROID ROCKET

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3153129

A former New York Yankees strength trainer says information he provided to the George Mitchell investigation regarding supplying Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte with steroids is included in the Mitchell report scheduled to be released later today, a source close to the trainer told ESPN The Magazine's Shaun Assael.

Brian McNamee, who worked for the Yankees and as a personal trainer for Clemens and Pettitte, also told investigators that on at least one occasion, Clemens was in possession of steroids from another supplier, the source said.

The source said McNamee told investigators he supplied Clemens with steroids while Clemens was with the Yankees, and prior to Clemens joining the team.


Interesting to see how many Red Sox are on the list as Mitchell is tight with the team.

Yeah.. I don't know who from the Sox would be on it though. Possibly some former Sox players. Remember that all of this roid taking was a few years ago. It's going to be interesting.

The Bergen (N.J.) Record, citing a baseball industry official, says "several" prominent Yankees will be named in the Mitchell report. The paper said the source spoke to a third party who had seen the final report.

"It's going to be a rough day in the Bronx," the paper quoted the source as saying.

[MacNut]

Also means he was using as a Red Sox. They always say his best years were in Boston.

[zioxide]

Also means he was using as a Red Sox. They always say his best years were in Boston.

Definitely possible. Depends on how far back he used them and how far back the report goes.

He was with Boston thru 1996, Toronto 97-98, NYY 99-03, Houston 04-06, NYY 07

[MacNut]

Any thought about Ortiz, he was never as strong a player with the Twins.

[Silencio]

Interesting to see how many Red Sox are on the list as Mitchell is tight with the team.

Someone posted an unattributed list with a few current and former Sox on it.

There are a few well-known power hitters on the list such as Wilson Delgado and Neifi Perez (both already known to have been suspended for testing positive).

I do hope the report presents some good solutions to the problem, not just titillate with naming names and flinging mud.

Now when do we get the report on amphetamine use in MLB? That would be an even longer and more draining exercise.

[MacNut]

Some think the O's dumped Tejada on purpose.

[zioxide]

Any thought about Ortiz, he was never as strong a player with the Twins.

I don't really think so. It's not like his production just jumped up over night. It gradually increased over a few years as he got better.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3748

His HR and AVG were climbing steadily his last few years in Minnesota, then he came to the Sox (Fenway is a hitters park) and they continued a gradual increase.

If he took roids he would have had a larger increase in power numbers than ~+8 HR a year over a ~5 year period.

[Naimfan]

I've got to say I'd be surprised if Ortiz were on the list, for precisely the reasons Zioxide gave.

[IJ Reilly]

If he hasn't been taken out yet he will survive.

Not sure I get this remark, but I blame Selig for the present state of affairs. Baseball has needed a real Commissioner for a long time.

[MacNut]

Not sure I get this remark, but I blame Selig for the present state of affairs. Baseball has needed a real Commissioner for a long time.And that is why I said if he wasn't ousted yet he won't be forced out. Him and the owners have blood on their hands for steroids, its not just the players.

[zioxide]

As far as former Sox players, I'm gonna say Nomar and maybe Nixon could be on it. Oh and Eric Gagne

[MacNut]

As far as former Sox player I'm gonna say Nomar and maybe Nixon could be on it.I heard a rumor of Youk.

[zioxide]

I heard a rumor of Youk.

lmao

taking roids doesn't help you walk at every other at bat.


I saw a preliminary leaked version of the list.. only current sox player I saw was Julian Tavarez.

[zioxide]

Former American League MVP Miguel Tejada is mentioned in the Mitchell Report, due to be released by 2 p.m. on Thursday afternoon, SI.com has learned.

Seven-time Cy Young winner Roger Clemens, plus Andy Pettitte, who just re-signed with the Yankees, are in the steroids reports, SI.com has confirmed, as are ex-Yankees Mike Stanton, Chuck Knoblauch and Jason Grimsley.

Orioles second baseman Brian Roberts also is in the report, as is Yankees and Braves postseason hero David Justice.

Tejada spent the past four seasons with the Orioles and was acquired in trade by the Astros this week for five players.

ESPN.com first reported Clemens and Pettitte as being in the Mitchell Report.

SI: Jon Heyman (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/12/13/mitchell.news/index.html?eref=T1)

[IJ Reilly]

And that is why I said if he wasn't ousted yet he won't be forced out. Him and the owners have blood on their hands for steroids, its not just the players.

Right, I agree. The question is whether the Mitchell Report will say as much, which if it does, could lead to Selig's retirement.

[zioxide]

Right, I agree. The question is whether the Mitchell Report will say as much, which if it does, could lead to Selig's retirement.

Hopefully it does. Selig is awful.

Oh, for anyone who doesn't have access to ESPN or something, MLB.com is going to stream live video of the press conference at 2PM EST.

[Keebler]

i think it's sad for society that we have so many cheaters, but such is life i guess.

they should be banned...but they won't.

they should be also sued for fraud. think of the very sick money Clemens made last year. or pettite. if this is true, then it's money gained by fraud. There's probably no way they would have been able to continue their careers (assuming the 'roids were taken within the last few years) and that's when they made a crapload more money.

what a bunch of losers.

I was one of the biggest baseball fans around when until the big strikes years ago. I was just getting back into watching some of the games b/c it can be a great sport, but now, it's even more tainted.

The NFL has been tainted, but they have a strict policy now which I believe has curbed the illegal performance enhancing drugs.

Maybe this report will be cause all the major sports to review their policies.

what a shame, but it's the players association and the league's faults for not properly putting something in place.

Cheers,
Keebler

[xsedrinam]

"Oh, the humanity, and all the Hall of Famers (http://us.cnn.com/)..."

[zioxide]

Live video on http://www.cnn.com

edit:

Full Mitchell Report download @ MLB.com (http://files.mlb.com/mitchrpt.pdf)

[furcalchick]

phew, no current braves on the list. at least js dumped all the ex-brave cheaters rather quickly.

now what to do with cammy and kile (both are deceased). i think it opens up a whole can of worms of if kile's death was accelerated by the roids (i think he had a family history of men dying in their 50's).

i've downloaded the pdf document already and looking for names via the search on preview. so far so good for the braves. and better yet, jake peavy is clean.

[zioxide]

From a quick scan of the list, former/current Sox players:

Clemens
Manny Alexander
Mo Vaughn
Eric Gagné
Brendan Donnelly

I probably forgot/missed some

Yankees that I saw:

Clemens
Pettite
Giambi
Sheffield

[MacNut]

phew, no current braves on the list. at least js dumped all the ex-brave cheaters rather quickly.But Justice was there for the good years.

[furcalchick]

But Justice was there for the good years.

sorry, before my time (didn't have cable back then). i'm talking about since 1999 pretty much.

and clemens' name appears in the document 83 times!!!

[zioxide]

Mitchell did a good job backing up his accusations in this report. Lots of evidence.

[MacNut]

Mitchell did a good job backing up his accusations in this report. Lots of evidence.Unless there are actual test results it still leaves a lot of questions.

[Naimfan]

Mitchell did a good job backing up his accusations in this report. Lots of evidence.

Yes he did.

A few other Yankees I remember seeing--Stanton, Justice, Knoblauch, Brown, and Velarde.

[MacNut]

Why didn't Brown use them when he was with the Yankees then. Could of fooled me, it didn't help him any.

What options do teams have for forfeiting contracts after the list is out.

[Naimfan]

Unless there are actual test results it still leaves a lot of questions.

Not for me.

Why didn't Brown use them when he was with the Yankees then. Could have fooled me, it didn't help him any.

There. Fixed it for you!

I think Brown was already on the way down when the Yankees got him, so illegal drugs might not have helped.

[MacNut]

The problem I have with it is that it is a trainers word, do they have actual records or proof that a player used them. And why are they not showing up on the drug testing list. Or are these before that program started.

[decksnap]

Clemens... Petitte... Tejada.

[MacNut]

The thing that pisses me off is that Clemans got to Pettitte. I don't think Andy would even think about using but his buddy told him about it.

[Naimfan]

A couple of thoughts.

First, it is as interesting to see who is not listed as the list of implicated players. No Ortiz. No Ramirez. No Rodriguez. No Jeter. No Penny. No Pujols. Etc.

Second, this report doesn't cover everything, so we still don't know how prevalent illegal drug use is in baseball. Mitchell's report certainly demonstrates that it is more widespread than many thought.

[gauchogolfer]

Paul Lo Duca wasn't a name I expected to see...

Sucks about Tejada, right when the Astros pick him up, looks like those 'dumping' rumors were right on the mark.

I don't think Fernando Vina will be back on ESPN this season either.

The list of names on here is staggering...didn't expect Eric Gagne, though maybe I should have with his precipitous decline.

[MacNut]

A couple of thoughts.

First, it is as interesting to see who is not listed as the list of implicated players. No Ortiz. No Ramirez. No Rodriguez. No Jeter. No Penny. No Pujols. Etc.

Second, this report doesn't cover everything, so we still don't know how prevalent illegal drug use is in baseball. Mitchell's report certainly demonstrates that it is more widespread than many thought.The problem is that they only found trainers that would talk, I'm sure there are many more that won't. I don't think this is a full list as Im sure there are many more we don't know about.

[xsedrinam]

A couple of thoughts.

First, it is as interesting to see who is not listed as the list of implicated players....... No Pujols. Etc.

I'd have to say, I'm relieved Pujols isn't on it. I haven't downloaded the pdf. Is McGwire named? What about Sosa?

[Naimfan]

The problem is that they only found trainers that would talk, I'm sure there are many more that won't. I don't think this is a full list as Im sure there are many more we don't know about.

Hence my second point...

Haven't been able to read the whole report yet, but it's not just based on what a couple of trainers said.

[MacNut]

There is actually no direct link to Clemans, it is all the trainers words. So either the trainer is lying through his teeth or Clemans covered his tracks well.

[gauchogolfer]

I'd have to say, I'm relieved Pujols isn't on it. I haven't downloaded the pdf. Is McGwire named? What about Sosa?

No McGwire or Sosa from what I've skimmed through.

[Counterfit]

Any thought about Ortiz, he was never as strong a player with the Twins.

That's because they didn't want him swinging big, they wanted him to move the runner over.
From a quick scan of the list, former/current Sox players:

Clemens
Manny Alexander
Mo Vaughn
Eric Gagné
Brendan Donnelly


Who the hell is Manny Alexander? I'm not especially surprised that Vaughn used them, I just hope his new car wash near my house doesn't fall apart like his body did post-Sox. This might explain Gagné's elbow sucks, and Donnelly's too.

[Unspeaked]

Former Red Sox players named in report:

Roger Clemens
Mo Vaughn
Jeremy Giambi
Jose Canseco
Mike Stanton
Manny Alexander
Paxton Crawford
Eric Gagne
Josias Manzanillo
Chris Donnels
Brendan Donnelly
Steve Woodard
Mike Lansing
Kent Mercker


Current Red Sox players named in report:

None

[MacNut]

Gagne was current up till about a week ago.

The question is not when they were on the team but when were they using. How many of those players wore the Red Sox uniform and took steroids.

[Unspeaked]

Gagne was current up till about a week ago.

The question is not when they were on the team but when were they using. How many of those players wore the Red Sox uniform and took steroids.

I wasn't implying anything, I was just making an observation.

I think it's likely these players were doping while on the Sox:

Mo Vaughn (of course)
Jose Canseco (when wasn't he?)
Manny Alexander
Paxton Crawford
Chris Donnels

Maybe:

Mike Stanton
Kent Mercker

[Unspeaked]

Former Braves in report:

Matt Franco
David Justice
Denny Neagle
Todd Pratt
Kent Mercker
Mike Stanton
Paul Byrd
John Rocker

Current Braves named in report:

None

[aloofman]

The thing that pisses me off is that Clemans got to Pettitte. I don't think Andy would even think about using but his buddy told him about it.

I didn't realize you knew Andy Pettitte personally! You can't assume to know the character of someone you only see on TV. You just can't know who would be capable of doing anything. Even if you DO know someone personally, you can still be surprised to learn that a good friend could cheat on his wife or steal from his employer.

After a quick scan of the report, it looks like this McNamee guy was a link to a lot of players. He was with Toronto when Clemens was there and moved to the Yankees at the same time Clemens did.

Todd Hundley allegedly brought it with him from the Mets and got Lo Duca into it, who hooked up Kevin Brown and Eric Gagne. This, by the way, is a plausible explanation for how quickly the Dodgers dumped all of these players as soon as they were able. Hundley tanked right after he came over to LA, but the others might have been thought to be overachieving and on the verge of permanent breakdown.

[Unspeaked]

I didn't realize you knew Andy Pettitte personally! You can't assume to know the character of someone you only see on TV. You just can't know who would be capable of doing anything. Even if you DO know someone personally, you can still be surprised to learn that a good friend could cheat on his wife or steal from his employer.

After a quick scan of the report, it looks like this Radomski guy was a link to a lot of players. He was with Toronto when Clemens was there and moved to the Yankees at the same time Clemens did.

Todd Hundley allegedly brought it with him from the Mets and got Lo Duca into it, who hooked up Kevin Brown and Eric Gagne. This, by the way, is a plausible explanation for how quickly the Dodgers dumped all of these players as soon as they were able. Hundley tanked right after he came over to LA, but the others might have been thought to be overachieving and on the verge of permanent breakdown.

I noticed that myself; it's very clear there were pockets of players that were on teams together that started the use, and either moved to other teams alone or with trainers who spread the use.

Of course, we don't know how complete this list is. It could be that it only looks so chart-like because there was only a limited amount of people willing to provide evidence, and it pointed back to those in their own circles.

[tWoSour]

The question is not when they were on the team but when were they using. How many of those players wore the Red Sox uniform and took steroids.

as opposed to Roger using when the Yankees were winning championships*

[MacNut]

as opposed to Roger using when the Yankees were winning championships*And how many did Roger win, 2.

And now the Bud Selig excuse....rebuttal.

[Counterfit]

Hmm, reading through looking for Red Sox references, came across this about Gagné: 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?”425 The scout, Mark Delpiano, responded,
Some digging on Gagne and steroids IS the issue. Has had a
checkered medical past throughout career including minor leagues.
Lacks the poise and commitment to stay healthy, maintain body
and re invent self. What made him a tenacious closer was the max
effort plus stuff . . . Mentality without the plus weapons and
without steroid help probably creates a large risk in bounce back
durability and ability to throw average while allowing the change-
up to play as it once did . . . Personally, durability (or lack of) will
follow Gagne . . .426


That explains why he sucked in Boston. But you'd have to wonder why Theo went for that trade after hearing that. Gabbard is probably going to be a decent starter, and Murphy's not going to be too bad either I bet.

Similar stuff about Brendan Donnelly, minus the talent.

Mo Vaughn is reported to have first contacted Radonski in '03 while missing the season with an ankle injury. (Is this an okay spot for a "LOL METS"?)

[Unspeaked]

Mo Vaughn is reported to have first contacted Radonski in '03 while missing the season with an ankle injury. (Is this an okay spot for a "LOL METS"?)

I don't buy it, not with the way he played in Boston and his career tanking thereafter.

I also can't believe Nomar's not on the list, though that doesn't mean he's clean.

[IJ Reilly]

Hmm, reading through looking for Red Sox references, came across this about Gagné:

That explains why he sucked in Boston.

He'd also had two elbow surgeries and back problems.

[tWoSour]

And how many did Roger win, 2.

And now the Bud Selig excuse....rebuttal.

I think you meant 2*.....don't worry, I fixed it for you

[MacNut]

I think you meant 2*.....don't worry, I fixed it for youHow many did Gagne win with the Red Sox, 1.

Here is the full list.

According to the Mitchell Commission report, here are players mentioned and how they are linked to performance enhancing substances:

Information Learned During this Investigation Concerning BALCO and Major League Baseball (8 players/ 3 active in MLB in 2007)
From the report: "I requested interviews of all the major league players who had been publicly implicated in the BALCO case."
Marvin Benard Page 127
Barry Bonds Page 128
Bobby Estalella Page 130
Jason Giambi Page 131
Jeremy Giambi Page 133
Benito Santiago Page 134
Gary Sheffield Page 135
Randy Velarde Page 137



Information Regarding Purchases or Use of Performance Enhancing Substances by Players in Major League Baseball (53 players/ 18 active in MLB in 2007)
From the report: "The following discussion is organized in roughly chronological order. Records do not exist to document every transaction described by witnesses. [Kirk] Radomski stated that, with one exception noted below, the payments he received from professional baseball players were for performance enhancing substances, as opposed to personal training or other services, and this assertion was confirmed by those players who agreed to speak with us about their dealings with him.""
Lenny Dykstra Page 149
David Segui Page 150
Larry Bigbie Page 152
Brian Roberts Page 158
Jack Cust Page 159
Tim Laker Page 159
Josias Manzanillo Page 161
Todd Hundley Page 163
Mark Carreon Page 163
Hal Morris Page 164
Matt Franco Page 165
Rondell White Page 165
Roger Clemens Page 166
Andy Pettitte Page 175
Chuck Knobloch Page 175
Jason Grimsley Page 177, 249
Gregg Zaun Page 179
David Justice Page 181
F.P. Santangelo Page 182
Glenallen Hill Page 183
Mo Vaughn Page 186
Denny Neagle Page 187
Ron Villone Page 188
Ryan Franklin Page 190
Chris Donnels Page 190
Todd Williams Page 194
Phil Hiatt Page 194
Todd Pratt Page 195
Kevin Young Page 195
Mike Lansing Page 196
Cody McKay Page 197
Kent Mercker Page 198
Adam Piatt Page 199
Miguel Tejada Page 201
Jason Christiansen Page 205
Mike Stanton Page 205
Stephen Randolph Page 206
Jerry Hairston, Jr. Page 207
Paul LoDuca Page 208
Adam Riggs Page 211
Bart Miadich Page 212
Fernando Vina Page 213
Kevin Brown Page 214
Eric Gagne Page 217
Mike Bell Page 219
Matt Herges Page 221
Gary Bennett, Jr. Page 222
Jim Parque Page 223
Brendan Donnelly Page 224
Chad Allen Page 225
Jeff Williams Page 227
Howie Clark Page 228
Nook Logan Page 229

[nbs2]

I'll have to head over to ESPN to verify, but didn't Raffy say that he got his stuff from Miggy? And didn't the world villfy him for suggesting someone so honorable and upright as Tejada could have done that?

Maybe he was telling the truth. Maybe it was unintentional, and he thought it was whatever he said he thought it was. Maybe we rushed to attack the wrong guy and defend the wrong guy.

[windowsblowsass]

when it comes own to it the Mitchell report was pointless, none of the players will be punished because everything is hearsay the checks can be easily explained away because clubhouse guys often get things for players. i was disappointed to hear lenny dykestra, he was always my favorite player when he was on the phillies. I think if this opens doors then pujols will eventually be named by someone i am very convinced he is juicing. the only player i dont have doubts about is Kenneth Griffey JR.

[IJ Reilly]

The report won't be pointless unless the reform recommendations fail to be adopted. Notice how many of them are directed at the office of the Commissioner. It's not about punishment. It's about understanding the scope of the problem, and fixing it.

[tWoSour]

How many did Gagne win with the Red Sox, 1.


compare what Roger meant to the NY championships* to what Gagne meant to the Sox championship. Roger was a big part in winning, while the Sox won in spite of Gagne.

But keep telling yourself whatever you need to, so that you can celebrate your championships*

[Teh Don Ditty]

Can we please not turn this into a Boston v NY thread please? As a NYer I'm getting tired of it.

Please stick to the facts (if you will) of the report.

Thanks.

[zioxide]

compare what Roger meant to the NY championships* to what Gagne meant to the Sox championship. Roger was a big part in winning, while the Sox won in spite of Gagne.

But keep telling yourself whatever you need to, so that you can celebrate your championships*

and Gagne was juicing a few years ago, not this year.

Clemens was juicing when he won the WS with the yanks

[rockosmodurnlif]

compare what Roger meant to the NY championships* to what Gagne meant to the Sox championship. Roger was a big part in winning, while the Sox won in spite of Gagne.

But keep telling yourself whatever you need to, so that you can celebrate your championships*

I will.

and Gagne was juicing a few years ago, not this year.

Clemens was juicing when he won the WS with the yanks

And he won all his playoff games too.

Let go Yankees !!!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2087/2109518109_462e81199d_o.png (http://www.flickr.com/photos/21945735@N00/2109518109/)

[Unspeaked]

Can we please not turn this into a Boston v NY thread please? As a NYer I'm getting tired of it.

Please stick to the facts (if you will) of the report.

Thanks.

I'm afraid it's a proven fact that any baseball discussion, anywhere, will turn into a "Yankess vs. Red Sox" debate given enough time.

In fact, this could probably be expanded to include any discussion about sports in general!

:rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

I watched George Mitchell interviewed on PBS this evening. I was impressed by everything he said, and his completely direct, no nonsense way of saying it. Am I the only one who thinks that Mitchell ought to be the Commissioner of Baseball? Should we dare to hope for as much?

[luminosity]

I wouldn't put much stock in the report. It relies mostly on hearsay, and there's no way it caught everyone (or can ensure that those mentioned were doing steroids).

[rockosmodurnlif]

I watched George Mitchell interviewed on PBS this evening. I was impressed by everything he said, and his completely direct, no nonsense way of saying it. Am I the only one who thinks that Mitchell ought to be the Commissioner of Baseball? Should we dare to hope for as much?

I hear he's going back to the Red Sox board since this is done.

And I don't care how no nonsense the Commissioner is, he/she/it has to make the owners happy and work with the most powerful union in all of sports. Mitchell is on the outside looking in, he can be as no nonsense as he wants. Except for the All Star Game, I don't think Selig has done a bad job.

[yeroen]

Wow, this is front-page bold letter stuff over on the New York Times website today.

Queue up our politicians' state of moral panic and sanctimonious broadsides.

Was anyone here alive when Dock Ellis pitched a no-hitter, while tripping on LSD, against the San Diego Padres in 1970? I really wish today's baseball players would imitate that stunt. See the ball, be..be the ball.

[IJ Reilly]

I hear he's going back to the Red Sox board since this is done.

And I don't care how no nonsense the Commissioner is, he/she/it has to make the owners happy and work with the most powerful union in all of sports. Mitchell is on the outside looking in, he can be as no nonsense as he wants. Except for the All Star Game, I don't think Selig has done a bad job.

Mitchell has already proven his ability to work successfully with warring parties. If he can deal with the Irish, he can deal with the owners and players. Selig has been so ineffective for so long, I think we forget why the Commissioner of Baseball was created in the first place. Incidentally, Mitchell almost got the job once, after he retired from the Senate, but Selig would not give it up.

IMO, Selig has been an unmitigated disaster. For one thing, if it wasn't for his bumbling, the Mitchell Report probably would not have been necessary.

[rockosmodurnlif]

Mitchell has already proven his ability to work successfully with warring parties. If he can deal with the Irish, he can deal with the owners and players. Selig has been so ineffective for so long, I think we forget why the Commissioner of Baseball was created in the first place. Incidentally, Mitchell almost got the job once, after he retired from the Senate, but Selig would not give it up.

IMO, Selig has been an unmitigated disaster. For one thing, if it wasn't for his bumbling, the Mitchell Report probably would not have been necessary.

I hear a lot about Mitchell brokering peace. That's war, people die during war. War isn't baseball. It's not that serious. Baseball players can do other jobs than play baseball. They won't make tons of money but they can make a living. Do you get what I mean?
Am I the only one who remembers baseball almost went on strike again? Selig got drugs testing into baseball, he's been the commissioner during the resurgence of baseball since it's last strike. Furthermore, if the commissioner released this report on his own, the players' union would be all over him. So no I don't think this report or any press conference interview he does makes him a better candidate than Selig. Steroids got banned in baseball in 1991 but there was no testing for it. What do you want Selig to do?

What I read said the owners extended Selig's contract, but maybe you have different info than I do.

[Sayhey]

I saw Mitchell give his report and I saw him later during an interview on PBS' the NewsHour. I have only skimmed the report itself so far. With that disclaimer, let me say my initial reaction to the report. I find the naming of players repellant. The league and the players union have a collective bargaining agreement, in which discipline and the methods for grievance hearings for players charged are all spelled out. This report goes well outside this procedure and sets players up for ridicule and future discipline without the safeguards of impartial hearings. Mitchell's response is to say he invited players to come and tell him their side and almost no one did so. As a former judge, Mitchell, now functioning as the owner's investigator, ought to be embarrassed by such statements. This report, by releasing names, puts everything on the players - Mitchell's disclaimers about collective blame notwithstanding. I see this report as mostly a rehash of what has been uncovered by other investigations that highlight players names.

I start with this view of the "steroid era." Owners built this game during this period around the home run. They did so through the building of smaller parks and the conscious promotion of the home run hitter as the tool that packs the parks and generates the TV revenue. They did so with full knowledge that steroid usage helped make them money and endangered players' health. If we want an accounting of what happened with steroid abuse in baseball and why, it should start with the owners. Yet there is almost nothing in the report about the owners (the Giants' Peter Magawon maybe the only exception, but as I've said I haven't read the whole report.)

Certainly, there is nothing in the recommendations that will seriously change the situation from what it is today. If the owners really wanted to stop this crap, they would talk about team fines and team sanctions. When teams are stopped from playing in the post season, lose draft picks, and owners have to pay significant amounts of money or even have to sell their teams for allowing steroid and other drug abuse to take place - then and only then - will we know they are serious about stopping the use of PEDs. Right now, it is just another show to convince a skeptical public they should continue to watch.

[IJ Reilly]

I hear a lot about Mitchell brokering peace. That's war, people die during war. War isn't baseball. It's not that serious. Baseball players can do other jobs than play baseball. They won't make tons of money but they can make a living. Do you get what I mean?
Am I the only one who remembers baseball almost went on strike again? Selig got drugs testing into baseball, he's been the commissioner during the resurgence of baseball since it's last strike. Furthermore, if the commissioner released this report on his own, the players' union would be all over him. So no I don't think this report or any press conference interview he does makes him a better candidate than Selig. Steroids got banned in baseball in 1991 but there was no testing for it. What do you want Selig to do?

What I read said the owners extended Selig's contract, but maybe you have different info than I do.

Northern Ireland was a political problem. Diplomacy is diplomacy. Mitchell has proven himself to be very good at it, a skill which by contrast Selig completely lacks. To be an effective Commissioner, it also helps to be a figure who commands respect. Mitchell has the respect. Selig does not. I could go on and on, but again I think we forget why baseball decided it needed a Commissioner in the first place, and it wasn't simply to be a mouthpiece for the owners, which is all Selig has ever been. It was to oversee the integrity of the game, something Selig has utterly failed to accomplish. This is more obvious now than ever.

Selig presided over the only cancelled World Series. He turned a blind eye to juicing for years, because juiced players made money for the owners, of which he is one. Every recommendation made by the Mitchell Report should have been implemented years ago. That's what a Commissioner who was protecting the integrity of the game would have done. Selig did not because he's never really been the Commissioner of Baseball.

I don't know about the status of Selig's contract. Last I heard, he was still technically the "interim" Commissioner. At this point, I'm really just speculating on what could have been and what could be, if we had somebody with the stature of George Mitchell as baseball's "keeper of the faith."

[MacNut]

Selig was named full time commish after he sold the Brewers, he said he is going to retire after the 2009 season.

One problem I have with this being called an unbiased report is the fact that Mitchell works for a team. If they really wanted a true 3rd party report they would of found someone with no connections to baseball at all. By Selig hiring him he is still working for the front office. Why not have Congress do a report not funded by baseball and see what the results are then.

The only reason this report happened was because Congress was pressuring to do it themselves. Bud did not want that so he had this report done. Im sure it doesn't resolve more then half of the issues.

[IJ Reilly]

Selig was named full time commish after he sold the Brewers, he said he is going to retire after the 2009 season.

One problem I have with this being called an unbiased report is the fact that Mitchell works for a team. If they really wanted a true 3rd party report they would of found someone with no connections to baseball at all. By Selig hiring him he is still working for the front office. Why not have Congress do a report not funded by baseball and see what the results are then.

Thanks for the update -- I thought Selig and his family still had an interest in the Brewers.

Congress has already held hearings, and I expect they will hold more. A lot of people felt that Congress had no business investigating baseball as much as they've done already, so this is hardly an easy course.

I agree, it might have been better if the investigation had been conducted by someone completely outside of baseball, but I believe the results speak for themselves -- if you think about them not so much as indictments of individual players or teams, but as an assessment of the degree of the problem and recommended actions. Baseball has to do at least a much as the rest of professional sports to control drug use. That much has been known for years. Now, finally, something will happen.

[Sayhey]

Todd Hundley allegedly brought it with him from the Mets and got Lo Duca into it, who hooked up Kevin Brown and Eric Gagne. This, by the way, is a plausible explanation for how quickly the Dodgers dumped all of these players as soon as they were able. Hundley tanked right after he came over to LA, but the others might have been thought to be overachieving and on the verge of permanent breakdown.

If the Dodgers did so, then I think they are likely the only ones. I doubt seriously that any team, the Dodgers included, up until the anticipation of this report, dumped players because they thought they were using PEDs. I believe every team, if they didn't outright encourage the use of PEDs, consciously looked the other way in order to not see what was going on. This is true of MLB at least since the days of Jim Bouton's Ball Four.

btw, xserdrinam, my search function lists McGwire's name appearing in the report 46 times; Sosa's only once.

[Naimfan]

If the Dodgers did so, then I think they are likely the only ones. I doubt seriously that any team, the Dodgers included, up until the anticipation of this report, dumped players because they thought they were using PEDs. I believe every team, if they didn't outright encourage the use of PEDs, consciously looked the other way in order to not see what was going on. This is true of MLB at least since the days of Jim Bouton's Ball Four.


I agree with that completely.

IJ--It might be time, and this might provide the ammunition, to finally rid ourselves of the ridiculous notion that baseball is not "interstate commerce." :D

[MacNut]

This report only exposes one small group of players, Im sure they are many more that we don't know about because no other trainers were under indictment from the government. Mitchell got lucky he got what they got. Until more trainers come forward with more names this report will be unfinished. I still think we need solid evidence before we say that every player was using. A lot of it is still one mans word against another.

[MacNut]

Thanks for the update -- I thought Selig and his family still had an interest in the Brewers.Selig was named full time Commissioner in 1998,

Selig became an increasingly vocal opponent of Commissioner Fay Vincent, and soon became the leader of a group of owners seeking his removal. Selig has never stated that the owners colluded, while Vincent has:
Following an 18-9 no-confidence vote, Vincent resigned. Selig had by this time become chairman of the Executive Council of Major League Baseball, and as such became de facto acting commissioner.
Upon his assumption of the commissioner's role, Selig transferred his ownership interest in the Brewers to his daughter Wendy Selig-Prieb in order to remove any technical conflicts of interest, though it was widely presumed he maintained some hand in team operations. Although the team has been sold to Los Angeles investor Mark Attanasio, questions remain regarding Selig's past involvement. Selig's defenders point to the poor management of the team after Selig-Prieb took control as proof that Selig was not working behind the scenes.On December 1, 2006, Selig announced that he would be retiring as commissioner of baseball upon the expiration of his contract in 2009. Selig earned $14.5 million dollars from MLBA over the timespan October 31, 2005 to October 31, 2006

[zioxide]

Congress has more important **** to do than investigating a game.. like getting us out of Iraq and ****

[Naimfan]

Congress has more important **** to do than investigating a game.. like getting us out of Iraq and ****

True, but show when that has stopped them before?

[IJ Reilly]

IJ--It might be time, and this might provide the ammunition, to finally rid ourselves of the ridiculous notion that baseball is not "interstate commerce." :D

Baseball was declared exempted from antitrust by Congress, if that's what you mean. That was a peculiar legislative moment.

This report only exposes one small group of players, Im sure they are many more that we don't know about because no other trainers were under indictment from the government. Mitchell got lucky he got what they got. Until more trainers come forward with more names this report will be unfinished. I still think we need solid evidence before we say that every player was using. A lot of it is still one mans word against another.

I believe Mitchell's estimate is 3-7% use, but that "we'll never know the true number." It's not really important to get more names, or more evidence. Mitchell's conclusion is that it's more important to look forward than back, and I agree.

[MacNut]

Here is something too chew on, what if Clemans takes this to court and sues baseball for slander. Imagine everything that could come out at that trial.

[Naimfan]

Baseball was declared exempted from antitrust by Congress, if that's what you mean. That was a peculiar legislative moment.

It would have been a peculiar legislative moment! Take a look at Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc., v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, et al. 259 U.S. 200 (1922). That was where the Justice Holmes wrote (for the majority) that "The business is giving exhibitions of base ball, which are purely state affairs." Then, when Congress failed for 30 years to legislate otherwise, Federal Baseball was upheld in the Toolson decision, even if the dissent by Justice Burton, and joined by Justice Reed, is FAR more credible IMO. So in the absence of legislation from Congress, baseball retains the anti-trust exemption created by the Federal Baseball decision.

I believe Mitchell's estimate is 3-7% use, but that "we'll never know the true number." It's not really important to get more names, or more evidence. Mitchell's conclusion is that it's more important to look forward than back, and I agree.

I agree with that completely.

Here is something too chew on, what if Clemens takes this to court and sues baseball for slander. Imagine everything that could come out at that trial.

He won't, because he'd lose. Very difficult cases to prove, and besides, it would be a libel action--"slander is spoken."

[MacNut]

I find it kind of odd that people are going after Clemans for having a great career at a late age, what about Schilling being right behind. If you will make an issue about 2000 and one mans word, what's not to say that Schilling was using in 2004 but nobody has outed him yet.

[MacNut]

He won't, because he'd lose. Very difficult cases to prove, and besides, it would be a libel action--"slander is spoken."What does he have to prove, there was no evidence against him. If he is being slandered by someone doesn't he have a right to fight that. The difference is that people would be under oath. If the trainer is lying that would come out in a trial.

[Naimfan]

What does he have to prove, there was no evidence against him. If he is being slandered by someone doesn't he have a right to fight that. The difference is that people would be under oath. If the trainer is lying that would come out in a trial.

Here is a quick primer: http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel-slander/elements-of-libel-and-slander.html

[MacNut]

If Clemans is telling the truth that he did not use steroids how can they prove otherwise without solid proof. Isn't this more hearsay then anything else.

If the Mitchell report was used as evidence in a court of law the case would be thrown out on lack of solid evidence.

[Naimfan]

If Clemans is telling the truth that he did not use steroids how can they prove otherwise without solid proof. Isn't this more hearsay then anything else.

If the Mitchell report was used as evidence in a court of law the case would be thrown out on lack of solid evidence.

If Clemens (note spelling) were to sue, the burden would be on HIM to show that the allegations are false. The Mitchell report is not, by itself, evidence. Putting the people who spoke with Mitchell on the witness stand, however. . .

[Unspeaked]

btw, xserdrinam, my search function lists McGwire's name appearing in the report 46 times; Sosa's only once.

I was under the impression that McGwire was only referenced in terms of andro use (at a time in which the substance was not banned in MLB), not steroids?


This report only exposes one small group of players, Im sure they are many more that we don't know about because no other trainers were under indictment from the government. Mitchell got lucky he got what they got. Until more trainers come forward with more names this report will be unfinished. I still think we need solid evidence before we say that every player was using. A lot of it is still one mans word against another.

It's funny that everyone named is either retired, soon to be retiring or a very minor personality. In other words, none of the game's current stars (save for perhaps Tejada) was mentioned, even though there was a lot of speculation about Rodriguez, Pujols and others.


I believe Mitchell's estimate is 3-7% use, but that "we'll never know the true number." It's not really important to get more names, or more evidence. Mitchell's conclusion is that it's more important to look forward than back, and I agree.

I agree, as well, but I think it's too late for this now. He knew quite well he was opening up a can of worms, and now nothing short of a witch-hunt will satisfy some fans and media.


I find it kind of odd that people are going after Clemans for having a great career at a late age, what about Schilling being right behind. If you will make an issue about 2000 and one mans word, what's not to say that Schilling was using in 2004 but nobody has outed him yet.

As much as I dislike Schilling, I would be shocked if he was on one of these lists. For one, he never really had a major slump in his career like Clemens had in the mid 90s. For another, he's one of the most vocal critics of steroid use in baseball, and he's intelligent enough to not risk being called out on something like that; he's very PR-savvy.

[Sayhey]

If Clemans is telling the truth that he did not use steroids how can they prove otherwise without solid proof. Isn't this more hearsay then anything else.

If the Mitchell report was used as evidence in a court of law the case would be thrown out on lack of solid evidence.
These are entirely different standards you are mixing up. No one is talking about a court case against Clemens, but assuming there was such a case they would have to prove he possessed illegal drugs and it may come down to a "he said; no, he said" type of case. MacNut, like you, I'm not overwhelmed by the quality of evidence against Clemens, and I repeat, I think the names should never have been released.

An employer does not have to have that kind of proof before he or she disciplines an employee. The employer would have to follow the discipline laid out in a collective bargaining agreement, however. If Selig wants to use this to mete out punishment to any of these players, you can bet there will be grievances filed.

[MacNut]

I don't doubt that Clemens might have used, he probably did. But before they make a big case about it they need to have solid evidence.

[IJ Reilly]

If Clemens (note spelling) were to sue, the burden would be on HIM to show that the allegations are false. The Mitchell report is not, by itself, evidence. Putting the people who spoke with Mitchell on the witness stand, however. . .

I understand what you are saying, but this was not a Grand Jury report and won't result in indictments. It was never about prosecuting or even punishing ballplayers. Mitchell has been quite clear about this.

I agree, as well, but I think it's too late for this now. He knew quite well he was opening up a can of worms, and now nothing short of a witch-hunt will satisfy some fans and media.

Sadly I think this is probably true -- but these calls will come from people who aren't paying attention to Mitchell's recommendations.

[Naimfan]

I understand what you are saying, but this was not a Grand Jury report and won't result in indictments. It was never about prosecuting or even punishing ballplayers. Mitchell has been quite clear about this.

I know, and I agree. I was referring to Macnut's suggestion that Clemens could sue for libel, not that Mitchell's report was ever intended to result in punishing players (or anyone else).

Sadly I think this is probably true -- but these calls will come from people who aren't paying attention to Mitchell's recommendations.

Agreed.

[aloofman]

If the Dodgers did so, then I think they are likely the only ones. I doubt seriously that any team, the Dodgers included, up until the anticipation of this report, dumped players because they thought they were using PEDs. I believe every team, if they didn't outright encourage the use of PEDs, consciously looked the other way in order to not see what was going on. This is true of MLB at least since the days of Jim Bouton's Ball Four.


I think I was misunderstood. I was not saying that the Dodgers were dumping Brown and Lo Duca for ethical reasons. If anything, that part of the report makes it seem that the team knew about it long before and they were fine with it as long their players produced. I think it's safe to say that a lot of teams thought this.

What I meant is that they might have believed steroids to be a factor in Lo Duca's rise to the majors and strong first two seasons (after many years in the minors), and that he was due to regress. That would make him a good trade candidate because other teams would be higher on him than the Dodgers were. The team even noted that Lo Duca wasn't hitting many line drives anymore because he was probably off the stuff, and they speculated that after they traded him he'd get back on it because he'd have something to prove.

Again, going only on what's in the report, the notes indicate that the Dodgers knew that Kevin Brown was using PEDs and they thought his injuries were related to it, that his muscles had gotten bigger but his tendons and ligaments had not. This made him a trade candidate too because they knew more about his PED use than other teams did. Theo Epstein's comment indicates that other teams knew that the Dodgers were letting Gagne's steroid issues slide as long as he was mowing down hitters. (If true, this makes the whole thing seem even more incestuous, that teams traded info on each other's juiced players and it was common knowledge at all levels of the sport, which is the main point of the report.) As soon as Gagne started spending more time on the DL than off, the team might have figured the roids had caught up with him and he wasn't worth a big new contract. What looked like injury worries had a lot more behind it.

If anything, this paints the Dodgers as far more cynical and manipulative than we've heard about before. They were monitoring their players' drug use and using it to their advantage. They complain now that since there was no testing and no admissions of guilt, there was nothing they could do, but if they were against it they wouldn't have played along. If there's a bright side for the Dodgers front office, it's that none of those players are still with the team and there's a new GM and owner that can say that was all under the previous regime. But that just makes me wonder which players on the current team they know about.

And finally, it confirms what a crappy signing Todd Hundley was. :mad:

[IJ Reilly]

If anything, this paints the Dodgers as far more cynical and manipulative than we've heard about before. They were monitoring their players' drug use and using it to their advantage. They complain now that since there was no testing and no admissions of guilt, there was nothing they could do, but if they were against it they wouldn't have played along. If there's a bright side for the Dodgers front office, it's that none of those players are still with the team and there's a new GM and owner that can say that was all under the previous regime. But that just makes me wonder which players on the current team they know about.

I doubt very much that this behavior was limited to any one team. It was all part of the race to the bottom as far as ethical standards were concerned. No general manager who cares about keeping his job is going want to be the only one keeping to rules that nobody enforces. If we want less cynical and manipulative behavior from team owners, we need rules which are comprehensive and vigorously enforced. If the result of violating the rules was a penalty instead of a reward, then behavior would change immediately.

[decksnap]

what's not to say that Schilling was using in 2004 but nobody has outed him yet.

Yes good point. And who says moon rocks don't taste like bubble gum? :rolleyes:

[MacNut]

Yes good point. And who says moon rocks don't taste like bubble gum? :rolleyes:Many things we don't know and we might never find out.

[decksnap]

Canseco is wondering how the hell A-Rod did not get in the report. I gotta believe Canseco at this point.

[MacNut]

Then why wasn't A-Rod in his book last year. If he was such a big user then I would of thought that would sell a lot of books. Canseco is looking for attention now. Since he was shut out of the press conference yesterday.

[Sayhey]

I think I was misunderstood. I was not saying that the Dodgers were dumping Brown and Lo Duca for ethical reasons. If anything, that part of the report makes it seem that the team knew about it long before and they were fine with it as long their players produced. I think it's safe to say that a lot of teams thought this.

What I meant is that they might have believed steroids to be a factor in Lo Duca's rise to the majors and strong first two seasons (after many years in the minors), and that he was due to regress. That would make him a good trade candidate because other teams would be higher on him than the Dodgers were. The team even noted that Lo Duca wasn't hitting many line drives anymore because he was probably off the stuff, and they speculated that after they traded him he'd get back on it because he'd have something to prove.

Again, going only on what's in the report, the notes indicate that the Dodgers knew that Kevin Brown was using PEDs and they thought his injuries were related to it, that his muscles had gotten bigger but his tendons and ligaments had not. This made him a trade candidate too because they knew more about his PED use than other teams did. Theo Epstein's comment indicates that other teams knew that the Dodgers were letting Gagne's steroid issues slide as long as he was mowing down hitters. (If true, this makes the whole thing seem even more incestuous, that teams traded info on each other's juiced players and it was common knowledge at all levels of the sport, which is the main point of the report.) As soon as Gagne started spending more time on the DL than off, the team might have figured the roids had caught up with him and he wasn't worth a big new contract. What looked like injury worries had a lot more behind it.

If anything, this paints the Dodgers as far more cynical and manipulative than we've heard about before. They were monitoring their players' drug use and using it to their advantage. They complain now that since there was no testing and no admissions of guilt, there was nothing they could do, but if they were against it they wouldn't have played along. If there's a bright side for the Dodgers front office, it's that none of those players are still with the team and there's a new GM and owner that can say that was all under the previous regime. But that just makes me wonder which players on the current team they know about.
You're right, aloofman, I misunderstood what you were saying. Sorry. As I said, I think, at a minimum, all the clubs purposely closed their eyes to what was going on.

And finally, it confirms what a crappy signing Todd Hundley was. :mad:
LOL, think how we feel up here about the three year contract the Giants gave to Marvin Bernard. Marvin FREAKIN' Bernard!

I'd post his real middle name, but I'd get banned. ;)

[rockosmodurnlif]

Northern Ireland was a political problem. Diplomacy is diplomacy. Mitchell has proven himself to be very good at it, a skill which by contrast Selig completely lacks. To be an effective Commissioner, it also helps to be a figure who commands respect. Mitchell has the respect. Selig does not. I could go on and on, but again I think we forget why baseball decided it needed a Commissioner in the first place, and it wasn't simply to be a mouthpiece for the owners, which is all Selig has ever been. It was to oversee the integrity of the game, something Selig has utterly failed to accomplish. This is more obvious now than ever.

Selig presided over the only cancelled World Series. He turned a blind eye to juicing for years, because juiced players made money for the owners, of which he is one. Every recommendation made by the Mitchell Report should have been implemented years ago. That's what a Commissioner who was protecting the integrity of the game would have done. Selig did not because he's never really been the Commissioner of Baseball.

I don't know about the status of Selig's contract. Last I heard, he was still technically the "interim" Commissioner. At this point, I'm really just speculating on what could have been and what could be, if we had somebody with the stature of George Mitchell as baseball's "keeper of the faith."

What respect did Mitchell get from the MLBPA? I know of only one player Mitchell talked to during his investigation and that was at the urging of who? Selig. For all the players named, he didn't talk to any of them. And you know what? It's not his fault. Like I said in my last response, there was no drug testing in baseball during the 90s. The postseason was canceled in '94 because the Players didn't want a salary cap. If you think drug testing was going to come in because of rumors, because that's all there was back then, you're crazy. The people who knew weren't talking and still aren't talking. If it weren't for two trainers who had to comply to his questioning, he'd have nothing to report. The same thing Selig had all throughout his tenure as commissioner. Drug testing didn't even get in without random testing where you couldn't reveal who failed a test and even that was only because the government got involved. I'm not saying Selig's done a great job but with steroids he did what he could.

It's great to take this 'steroids bad' attitude now (which it is) but the voices complaining then were few and far between drowned out by the cheers for each ball that flew out of the park especially during 'the Chase.' And I'm not going to blame Selig for that.

When you watch baseball, and see a player performing exceptionally well, just think of him as natural talent with a little help (HGH) which is still undetectable, which is what I really gathered from Mitchell's report.

[IJ Reilly]

What respect did Mitchell get from the MLBPA? I know of only one player Mitchell talked to during his investigation and that was at the urging of who? Selig. For all the players named, he didn't talk to any of them. And you know what? It's not his fault. Like I said in my last response, there was no drug testing in baseball during the 90s. The postseason was canceled in '94 because the Players didn't want a salary cap. If you think drug testing was going to come in because of rumors, because that's all there was back then, you're crazy. The people who knew weren't talking and still aren't talking. If it weren't for two trainers who had to comply to his questioning, he'd have nothing to report. The same thing Selig had all throughout his tenure as commissioner. Drug testing didn't even get in without random testing where you couldn't reveal who failed a test and even that was only because the government got involved. I'm not saying Selig's done a great job but with steroids he did what he could.

It's great to take this 'steroids bad' attitude now (which it is) but the voices complaining then were few and far between drowned out by the cheers for each ball that flew out of the park especially during 'the Chase.' And I'm not going to blame Selig for that.

When you watch baseball, and see a player performing exceptionally well, just think of him as natural talent with a little help (HGH) which is still undetectable, which is what I really gathered from Mitchell's report.

Well maybe I am crazy, but I believe that management, ownership and the players conspired to avert their eyes from a known drug problem, and chief among those in denial was Selig. Other sports addressed this issue far more comprehensively years ago. Perfectly? Of course not -- but at least they've made a real effort. How did they manage that, I wonder. By contrast, MLB allowed the player's union to have its way with a nod-and-a-wink, because drug use was of value to both the owners and the players at a time when baseball was in the dumps in the minds of the fans. They all took the most expedient way out. Now they bill comes due, with interest. Let the backlash begin.

You may never agree with me that Bud Selig is about the worst thing to happen to baseball in the last 50 years, but I firmly believe it. Sure, the events of '94 were complicated, but they may not have become so dire if Selig was protecting the integrity of the game, instead of acting as the owner's mouthpiece, which is all he as ever been in my opinion. As I say, I think we forget why the Commissioner of Baseball was created. Sadder yet, maybe Bud Selig has succeeded in completely erasing that memory.

[rockosmodurnlif]

Well maybe I am crazy, but I believe that management, ownership and the players conspired to avert their eyes from a known drug problem, and chief among those in denial was Selig. Other sports addressed this issue far more comprehensively years ago. Perfectly? Of course not -- but at least they've made a real effort. How did they manage that, I wonder. By contrast, MLB allowed the player's union to have its way with a nod-and-a-wink, because drug use was of value to both the owners and the players at a time when baseball was in the dumps in the minds of the fans. They all took the most expedient way out. Now they bill comes due, with interest. Let the backlash begin.

You may never agree with me that Bud Selig is about the worst thing to happen to baseball in the last 50 years, but I firmly believe it. Sure, the events of '94 were complicated, but they may not have become so dire if Selig was protecting the integrity of the game, instead of acting as the owner's mouthpiece, which is all he as ever been in my opinion. As I say, I think we forget why the Commissioner of Baseball was created. Sadder yet, maybe Bud Selig has succeeded in completely erasing that memory.

Chief? How about chief among them were the players?

Drug use was of value to players, owners, writers and fans. Oh yes, yes, the writers and fans. If you're going to cast blame, blame everybody. This is tantamount to scapegoating, as if Selig is the main problem, when he isn't. Steroids, performance enhancers and such aren't a one-man problem.

I haven't forgotten why baseball has commissioner and his first duty is to oversee the operation of the game, which becomes priority number one when there is a strike. The NFL began drug testing in 87, the NBA in 83, if you want to blame a baseball commissioner you can start with Peter Ueberroth or Bowie Kuhn, both commissioners when the NFL and NBA began their programs, respectively, or anyone that's followed after but to throw this all on Selig is ridiculous.

[swiftaw]

Pettitte admits to using HGH: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3156305

[Counterfit]

One problem I have with this being called an unbiased report is the fact that Mitchell works for a team. If they really wanted a true 3rd party report they would of found someone with no connections to baseball at all. By Selig hiring him he is still working for the front office. Why not have Congress do a report not funded by baseball and see what the results are then.

He disclosed that in the report:
I have been a consultant to the owners of the Boston Red Sox since that club was
acquired in 2002 by an ownership group led by John W. Henry. The club labels
that position “director.” I am not and have never been involved in any way in
baseball operations, and I have no vote on any decisions by the owners. I do not
now hold, nor have I in the past ever held, any ownership or other equity interest
in the Red Sox.
I find it kind of odd that people are going after Clemans for having a great career at a late age, what about Schilling being right behind. If you will make an issue about 2000 and one mans word, what's not to say that Schilling was using in 2004 but nobody has outed him yet.

You just need to stop trying to take shots at the Red Sox at every chance. They won, the Yankees choked. Get over it.
What does he have to prove, there was no evidence against him. If he is being slandered by someone doesn't he have a right to fight that. The difference is that people would be under oath. If the trainer is lying that would come out in a trial.

You need to remember that the trainer would be charged with a felony, making false statements, if he lied at any point during his interview with Mitchell.
Canseco is wondering how the hell A-Rod did not get in the report. I gotta believe Canseco at this point.

Then why wasn't A-Rod in his book last year. If he was such a big user then I would of thought that would sell a lot of books. Canseco is looking for attention now. Since he was shut out of the press conference yesterday.

I certainly can't say I trust Canseco. Has he even met A-Rod?

[zioxide]

Pettitte admits to using HGH: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3156305

At least he's man enough to admit it, unlike Clemens.

Honestly, I don't see the huge deal with using HGH to recover from an injury. Using it to better your performance when you're not injured is ********, but if you're injured you should be able to take drugs to make you better.

His situation is basically the same as Rodney Harrison's was. Rodney used it to recover from blowing out three ligaments in his knee.

[fotografica]

Pretty nice visual breakdown of the various parties and their PED spans:
http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/

Tom House May 2005
Admitted Using: Steroids (Non-specific)
What he said: In a telephone interview with San Fransisco Chronicle reporter, Ron Kroichick, House admitted to using steroids 'for a couple of seasons' during his career (1971-1978). House estimated that six or seven pitchers on every staff in baseball were experimenting with steroids in the 1970's. This was, and still is, the earliest account of steroid use in baseball. House's admission and comments are from a May 3, 2005 San Fransisco Chronicle article entitled House a 'failed experiment' with steroids.

[Sayhey]

Honestly, I don't see the huge deal with using HGH to recover from an injury. Using it to better your performance when you're not injured is ********, but if you're injured you should be able to take drugs to make you better.

The whole point of steroid use is to help one recover from the stress and strain exercise puts on the body. It is meant to promote healing, and does a good job at it, allowing people to exercise more frequently and build muscle mass quicker than without it. The problem is that it also has other effects on the body. So, if you think HGH use to recover from injury is ok, then why not steroid use to recover from the damage done by exercise or game play?

fotografica, your link is a good resource, but I notice it is wrong about Bonds. Barry has never confirmed he has used the clear and the cream. In his testimony before the grand jury he admitted to taking substances openly in the Giants clubhouse that met the description of the "clear" and the "cream," but that is not the same thing. It is his contention, believable or not, that if the stuff he took was the clear and cream he did not know it.

[IJ Reilly]

Chief? How about chief among them were the players?

Drug use was of value to players, owners, writers and fans. Oh yes, yes, the writers and fans. If you're going to cast blame, blame everybody. This is tantamount to scapegoating, as if Selig is the main problem, when he isn't. Steroids, performance enhancers and such aren't a one-man problem.

I haven't forgotten why baseball has commissioner and his first duty is to oversee the operation of the game, which becomes priority number one when there is a strike. The NFL began drug testing in 87, the NBA in 83, if you want to blame a baseball commissioner you can start with Peter Ueberroth or Bowie Kuhn, both commissioners when the NFL and NBA began their programs, respectively, or anyone that's followed after but to throw this all on Selig is ridiculous.

I clearly haven't "thrown it all on Selig." The first sentence of my post should make the incorrectness of that characterization very apparent. And everything which follows, in fact. I thought I was being completely clear that I am not interested in scapegoating anyone. I put Selig at the top of my long hit-list because he was the one person who could have done something about the situation, the one person who's got such things in his job description.

Perhaps you do forget why the Commissioner's office was created. It wasn't to look after the "operations of the game," but to look after the integrity of the game. The situation in 1920 wasn't so different than the situation today: the game was seen as tainted by gambling and other issues. The owners realized that they needed an arbiter, or the game would be destroyed from within. For nearly 25 years Kennesaw Mountain Landis lorded over the game with an iron fist. He was controversial, and a lot of people hated him -- but he was independent and did his job, and very possibly saved the game in the process.

We've seen a lot of failed Commissioners since then, but that does excuse Bud Selig his failings. The fact that he shirked his duty as Commissioner is made very evident by the Mitchell Report.

[rockosmodurnlif]

I clearly haven't "thrown it all on Selig." The first sentence of my post should make the incorrectness of that characterization very apparent. And everything which follows, in fact. I thought I was being completely clear that I am not interested in scapegoating anyone. I put Selig at the top of my long hit-list because he was the one person who could have done something about the situation, the one person who's got such things in his job description.

Perhaps you do forget why the Commissioner's office was created. It wasn't to look after the "operations of the game," but to look after the integrity of the game. The situation in 1920 wasn't so different than the situation today: the game was seen as tainted by gambling and other issues. The owners realized that they needed an arbiter, or the game would be destroyed from within. For nearly 25 years Kennesaw Mountain Landis lorded over the game with an iron fist. He was controversial, and a lot of people hated him -- but he was independent and did his job, and very possibly saved the game in the process.

We've seen a lot of failed Commissioners since then, but that does excuse Bud Selig his failings. The fact that he shirked his duty as Commissioner is made very evident by the Mitchell Report.

Sorry, your description of "chief among" sounded like you laying it all at his feet. Yes there were others to blame but first you blame Selig. We differ. I don't blame him first. Either way, the commissioner's job is to look over the operation of the sport, look it up anywhere for any commissioner of any sport.

And you're right, Selig could have done many things to curb the steroid use. He could've suspended or fined players, whole ball clubs even and it wouldn't even need to be against the rules of baseball for him to do that, so great are the commissioner's powers, I looked them up. He can ban steroids and take action against those he suspects but he can't force testing on the players. So when Lenny Dykstra shows up to spring training having gained 30 lbs. of muscle in the offseason the commissioner can suspend him or when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa are chasing Maris' home run record, he can suspend them both because it's suspicious how bulked up and home run happy they are. In Bonds' leaked grand jury testimony he all but admits to using steroids, so he could've suspended him too, hopefully he would have already suspended McGwire or we'd never hear the end of baseball and racism. Two thousand and how many consecutive starts? The wear and tear of the game doesn't seem to be taking a toll on him like it is the other players, Ripken, suspended. The Atlanta Braves made it to the NLCS 8 consecutive times with 14 consecutive post-season appearances, more than my beloved Yankees and their 13 season streak, well, suspend and fine management and ownership, must be something wrong there. He can look at Roger and suspend him since he should be retired anyway and criss-cross the league and gut whole ball teams all in the name of saving the game from itself. Yes, this is true, this is within his power.

By the way Major League Baseball suspended Jose Guillen for receiving HGH then the MLBPA filed a grievance on his behalf (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3149395&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines). And this is with rules banning the substance in place. Let's see how that works itself out.

[IJ Reilly]

Sorry, your description of "chief among" sounded like you laying it all at his feet. Yes there were others to blame but first you blame Selig. We differ. I don't blame him first. Either way, the commissioner's job is to look over the operation of the sport, look it up anywhere for any commissioner of any sport.

I respectfully disagree, but at least we're more or less on the same page now.

I don't pretend to know the history of the commissioner's offices in other professional sports, but the mission of the Commissioner of Baseball is quite specific to the circumstances in baseball at the time of its creation. I saw the wording a few days ago, though I can't recall exactly where, but right in the Commissioner's job description is protecting the integrity of the game. The reason Selig floats to the top of my blame list (the top, not alone), is because of his failure to do just that. A study like the Mitchell Report could have been commissioned ten years ago, and should have been. The player's union could not have stood in the way ten years ago any more than they stood in the way in 2007. Selig simply failed to act in a timely fashion to protect the integrity of the game. That's a firing offense, IMO -- not that I kid myself about this happening.

[aloofman]

LOL, think how we feel up here about the three year contract the Giants gave to Marvin Bernard. Marvin FREAKIN' Bernard!


Good news: we didn't waste much money on F.P. Santangelo.

Bad news: he was already off the juice by then. :p

Well maybe I am crazy, but I believe that management, ownership and the players conspired to avert their eyes from a known drug problem, and chief among those in denial was Selig.


I think it's much worse than that. Most of them weren't averting their eyes, they were aware and using it to their advantage.

[IJ Reilly]

I think it's much worse than that. Most of them weren't averting their eyes, they were aware and using it to their advantage.

Point taken. Another way of saying the same thing, really. It's difficult to avert your eyes from something you don't know is happening -- you won't know where not to look.

[Unspeaked]

I think it's much worse than that. Most of them weren't averting their eyes, they were aware and using it to their advantage.

That's true and that's why it's going to be so difficult to just give the named players amnesty and move on.

The owners, union and powers that be have already shown that they can't be trusted. This wasn't a matter of things slipping through the cracks or simple ignorance, which could be forgiven, it was deceit of the fans, the very public that buys the tickets and pays the player's salaries.

What did baseball fans get in return for their money and attention after the player's strike? A manufactured home run chase. A tarnished single season and all time home run record. Decades worth of speculation and questions that will never be answered.

If the intention to deceive wasn't so strong, this would be much easier to deal with.

[rockosmodurnlif]

I respectfully disagree, but at least we're more or less on the same page now.

I don't pretend to know the history of the commissioner's offices in other professional sports, but the mission of the Commissioner of Baseball is quite specific to the circumstances in baseball at the time of its creation. I saw the wording a few days ago, though I can't recall exactly where, but right in the Commissioner's job description is protecting the integrity of the game. The reason Selig floats to the top of my blame list (the top, not alone), is because of his failure to do just that. A study like the Mitchell Report could have been commissioned ten years ago, and should have been. The player's union could not have stood in the way ten years ago any more than they stood in the way in 2007. Selig simply failed to act in a timely fashion to protect the integrity of the game. That's a firing offense, IMO -- not that I kid myself about this happening.

The problem with doing this report 10 years ago is the two trainers who talked to Mitchell wouldn't have had incentive to talk back then and the MLBPA would tell their members not to talk. I don't see why they wouldn't have done so 10 years ago, the players liked the owners even less then. So the report would have nothing to report. To break this story you need some one to talk and no one was talking.

What did baseball fans get in return for their money and attention after the player's strike? A manufactured home run chase. A tarnished single season and all time home run record. Decades worth of speculation and questions that will never be answered.

Manufactured home run chase? As if MLB said 'you and you start hitting home runs.' The better term would be tainted.

And if my memory serves me, the home run records are Bonds 73, McGwire 70, Sosa 68, McGwire 65, Sosa 63, I believe those are the top five slots in order. And I don't know what speculation you mean, I basically consider any athlete performing above the level of other athletes to be making something unless a blood test says otherwise.

[IJ Reilly]

The problem with doing this report 10 years ago is the two trainers who talked to Mitchell wouldn't have had incentive to talk back then and the MLBPA would tell their members not to talk. I don't see why they wouldn't have done so 10 years ago, the players liked the owners even less then. So the report would have nothing to report. To break this story you need some one to talk and no one was talking.

Good point, but I have ask why they are talking now. They are talking now because they are under indictment. That probably could have happened ten years ago, too.

[Unspeaked]

\Manufactured home run chase? As if MLB said 'you and you start hitting home runs.' The better term would be tainted.

And if my memory serves me, the home run records are Bonds 73, McGwire 70, Sosa 68, McGwire 65, Sosa 63, I believe those are the top five slots in order. And I don't know what speculation you mean, I basically consider any athlete performing above the level of other athletes to be making something unless a blood test says otherwise.

I mean manufactured by the players themselves using questionable means. Also, manufactured by MLB in that after the first record runs after the strike, nearly all their marketing focused on home runs and "the long ball" unlike pre-strike years, obviously trying to get fans interested in record chases.

As for the the numbers you quote, you can't possibly be saying you've never heard anyone question validity of those home run total before. That's the speculation I was referring to.

[rockosmodurnlif]

Good point, but I have ask why they are talking now. They are talking now because they are under indictment. That probably could have happened ten years ago, too.

Yea, that's true. But I think everything as far as investigations and all that started happening around the turn of the century. I mean, remember when athletes used say they weren't taking steroids and it was just hard work and rigorous training we used to believe them. Now if you're accused people think you did it.

I mean manufactured by the players themselves using questionable means. Also, manufactured by MLB in that after the first record runs after the strike, nearly all their marketing focused on home runs and "the long ball" unlike pre-strike years, obviously trying to get fans interested in record chases.

As for the the numbers you quote, you can't possibly be saying you've never heard anyone question validity of those home run total before. That's the speculation I was referring to.

Baseball has home runs, football has deep passes, basketball has the slam dunk. I mean the average fan that watches baseball isn't watching to see a team manufacture runs one hit at a time, advancing players with bunts, base steals, the subtle mental game between batter and pitcher, no one wants to see a 4 runs walked in but a grand slam is great TV. Of course they're going to use it to market. And the home run chase was getting as much coverage as Ripken's quest to be baseball's new Ironman. It's no different than basketball. I don't get the fundamentals of basketball but I know it's more than what you see in an And 1 mixtape. I know people talk about and watch when one player scores 50+ points.

As for the numbers, what I meant was the top five slots are taking by three people many think are steroid abusers so what's to question? Either you think those are valid or you don't. You can't take them out of the record books, everybody knows that, but you either accept them or you don't. After those three is Maris and there used to be controversy about his record because he played in a longer season than Ruth, if memory serves me correctly.

[IJ Reilly]

Yea, that's true. But I think everything as far as investigations and all that started happening around the turn of the century. I mean, remember when athletes used say they weren't taking steroids and it was just hard work and rigorous training we used to believe them. Now if you're accused people think you did it.

Maybe, but we're still talking at least 7-8 years of inaction, by people who knew a lot more than they cared to admit until the pressure to acknowledge it became to much to ignore. I don't think it was the fans' responsibility to prosecute, if you get my meaning.

[Unspeaked]

Baseball has home runs, football has deep passes, basketball has the slam dunk. I mean the average fan that watches baseball isn't watching to see a team manufacture runs one hit at a time, advancing players with bunts, base steals, the subtle mental game between batter and pitcher, no one wants to see a 4 runs walked in but a grand slam is great TV. Of course they're going to use it to market. And the home run chase was getting as much coverage as Ripken's quest to be baseball's new Ironman. It's no different than basketball. I don't get the fundamentals of basketball but I know it's more than what you see in an And 1 mixtape. I know people talk about and watch when one player scores 50+ points.

Well, Tom Brady's flirting with the single season TD record but you don't see NFL promos shouting it from the hilltops every commercial break.

MLB had ads featuring McGwire and Sosa and "Will They?" in April and May back in those years. I can understand marketing it, but they were milking it for all it was worth; and again, I don't have a problem with this, per se, but the fact that they knew something was up and turned a blind eye to it is what's being questioned.

Your list has one player from the 60s that hit x number of home runs, then 35 years of no one coming close, then suddenly every year people are breaking the previous year's record? And when steroid and HGH investigations start, we're back to pre-1995 levels?

[MacNut]

WASHINGTON -- Congressional lawmakers announced plans Tuesday to review the use of performance-enhancing drugs, with star-studded hearings scheduled next month and legislation to limit access to steroids and growth hormones.

Two House panels are planning mid-January hearings featuring former Sen. George Mitchell, author of a bombshell report last week that linked more than 80 players to the illegal use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. Baseball players, likely some of those named in the report, could be invited to testify as well.

Meanwhile, a Senate Republican and Democrat on Tuesday announced legislation to limit access to those substances and stiffen criminal penalties for abuse and distribution.

Central to that effort is cracking down on the abuse of human growth hormone, or HGH, a drug for which there is no reliable test, said its sponsor.

The bill by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., would classify HGH as a "Schedule III" substance, equating it legally with anabolic steroids and bringing it under the watch of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

That would mean that possession of HGH, a naturally occurring hormone approved by the FDA for treatment of some medical conditions, would be illegal without a current, valid prescription. Penalty for possession could be as high as three years in prison and even higher for illegal manufacture or distribution.

A second proposal by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, would make it illegal to sell dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) to anyone under 18. DHEA is a naturally occurring precursor to testosterone and a dietary supplement that some athletes are using as an alternative to illegal anabolic steroids, Grassley said.

Two House panels, meanwhile, are planning hearings on the Mitchell report.

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has announced a hearing on the matter Jan. 15. Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and ranking Republican Tom Davis of Virginia said they will invite Mitchell, baseball Commissioner Bud Selig and Doug Fehr, president of the Major League Players Association, to testify.

Rep. Bobby Rush, chairman of the subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection, has scheduled proceedings for Jan. 23. Mitchell will be invited to testify as will other members of Major League Baseball, a spokesman said.

Mitchell's report implicated seven former MVPs and more than 80 players in all.

A former Democratic Senate Majority Leader who retired in 1995, Mitchell, 74, has said he will soon undergo treatment for prostate cancer, an illness he made public in August.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3159935

[MacNut]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3163602
Don't expect Roger Clemens to make his first on-camera statements about accusations of his steroid use before a Congressional hearing next month. Or any other player for that matter.

None of the 86 players mentioned in the Mitchell report released last week are expected to speak at a Jan. 15 hearing on steroids before the House Government Reform Committee, according to a published report.

"We don't want to turn this into a circus," Rep. Tom Davis told USA Today. "We just want to know what Major League Baseball plans to do about their problems. We understand the collective bargaining agreement complicates matters, but we'd like to see if they agree with Senator George Mitchell's recommendations, and move on."

Davis reiterated those comments Thursday on the Stephen A. Smith Show on ESPN radio, saying "no" to whether Clemens would come to Capitol Hill.

A few of the faces likely to grace Capitol Hill for January's hearings are Commissioner Bud Selig, MLB players union executive director Don Fehr, and Mitchell.

"If players believe they are wrongfully accused in the report," Davis told the paper, "they are welcome to volunteer and we'll take it under consideration. But as I understand it, all these players had a chance to cooperate [with Mitchell], and everyone declined to cooperate.

"So, to an extent, that's what they get."

Davis cautioned players about testifying, pointing out that they would be under oath and could face perjury charges if they are caught lying.

While the NHL has not been officially invited to take part in the hearings, NHL sources in Washington have told the league they can expect to be included.

The NHL took part in hearings both during and after the lockout. The fact politicians aren't rushing to ensure that the NHL is front and center in this latest round of discussions suggests they believe the NHL's drug testing policy is either adequate or the league doesn't have a significant problem with performance enhancing substances or both.

The NHL did more than 3,000 tests during the first two years of its drug testing policy and there was just one positive test, that belonging to Sean Hill then of the New York Islanders. Hill, now with the Minnesota Wild, was suspended for 20 games.

[rockosmodurnlif]

Well, Tom Brady's flirting with the single season TD record but you don't see NFL promos shouting it from the hilltops every commercial break.

MLB had ads featuring McGwire and Sosa and "Will They?" in April and May back in those years. I can understand marketing it, but they were milking it for all it was worth; and again, I don't have a problem with this, per se, but the fact that they knew something was up and turned a blind eye to it is what's being questioned.

Your list has one player from the 60s that hit x number of home runs, then 35 years of no one coming close, then suddenly every year people are breaking the previous year's record? And when steroid and HGH investigations start, we're back to pre-1995 levels?

And they didn't have those ads when Bonds was chasing either. What's your point? I'm not denying they profited. Everybody profited in some way. Football doesn't need to advertise that the Patriots are chasing the '72 Dolphins which makes Tom Brady's record is irrelevant. Its the single season passing TD record. That's like saying the most homeruns hit by a first baseman. Who cares? The single season homerun mark, much like the '72 dolphins, is iconic, it was big news when Maris and Mantle were chasing Ruth, it's big news when McGwire and Sosa were chasing Maris.

My list named everybody above Maris, which is three players. Out of everybody in baseball on or off steroids, on of off HGH, only three people broke the record and two of those people broke the record twice. So I'm not sure what point you're making. I'm not saying they didn't use, I'm saying those are the record holders, love it or hate it.

Thanks for your updates MacNut.

[MacNut]

As the Jason Grimsley affidavit was being unsealed in Arizona on Thursday, showing that the former journeyman pitcher did not name Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte as drug users, the equally notorious Kirk Radomski affidavit was being unsealed in New York, revealing several lesser names not included in the Mitchell report last week.

According to the Radomski affidavit, obtained exclusively by ESPN, the former Mets clubhouse attendant received a $3,500 check from former New York Mets All-Star Sid Fernandez, written in February 2005, six years after Fernandez last tried to pitch professionally.

The file, unsealed in the U.S. District Court in Central Islip, N.Y., late Thursday, does not specify what Fernandez's check bought. Fernandez did not return a call to his Hawaii home Thursday night.The Radomski affidavit was filed under seal in Dec. 2005, when IRS investigator Jeff Novitzky, the lead agent on the BALCO distribution case, sought a search warrant for Radomski's home in Manorville, N.Y. Radomski's name and the existence of the affidavit didn't come to light until April 2007, when Radomski pleaded guilty to distributing steroids. At the time, a version of the search warrant affidavit was released, but with numerous sections of the document redacted. Radomski is set to be sentenced Feb. 8.

Federal prosecutors asked the judges to unseal the files, saying they no longer needed to protect the information as part of their ongoing investigation into performance-enhancing drug distribution.

The most tantalizing section of the redacted Radomski affidavit included 23 blacked-out lines of information obscuring the names of his clients. As part of Radomski's plea agreement, he cooperated with former Sen. George Mitchell's investigation into baseball's doping history. Most of the names found in the unsealed affidavit appeared in Mitchell's report.

The names not used by Mitchell were not exceptional. Besides Fernandez, whose last major league appearance was a single start for the Houston Astros in April 1997, the only names that appear in the affidavit but not the Mitchell report are Ryan Schurman, whose professional career ended in 2002 and never rose above Double-A, and Rick Holyfield, another journeyman minor leaguer.

Many of the 23 entries were repeats: Only 13 different names are listed, including Grimsley, Adam Piatt, Adam Riggs, Jerry Hairston Jr., David Segui, Jim Parque (there is one reference to an "Adam Parque"), Denny Neagle, Larry Bigbie and Rondell White.Brian McNamee, the personal trainer who named names to Mitchell, is listed as having written four checks for a total of $7,500, and is identified as "former NY Yankee employee, personal fitness trainer for Roger Clemens & Andy Pettitte."

Also, in a section detailing Radomski's phone records, the affidavit says Radomski called Pete Rose Jr. numerous times in 2001, "which occurred during the time frame when Rose Jr. pleaded guilty to distributing performance-enhancing drugs."

Rose Jr. pleaded guilty in 2005 to distributing GBL, a drug that converts to the drug GHB in the body, in 2001. GHB, known as "the date-rape drug," is sometimes used by dopers to help them sleep.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3164232

[MacNut]

NEW YORK -- Roger Clemens' lawyers are investigating accusations in the Mitchell Report that say the star pitcher used steroids and human growth hormone.

Clemens was the biggest name in this month's report by former Senate majority leader George Mitchell that detailed widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. The seven-time Cy Young Award winner has repeatedly denied using steroids or HGH.

"On Roger's behalf, we are investigating the allegations about him contained in the Mitchell Report," Clemens' attorney, Rusty Hardin, said Wednesday in a statement. "To our surprise, we have identified several people who logic dictates the Mitchell team should have talked to but did not. That's troubling. We are asking questions and we encourage the news media to do the same."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3168534

[MacNut]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3179745Roger Clemens says he was injected with "Lidocaine and B-12" and not steroids or human growth hormone by former trainer Brian McNamee, according to a portion of an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes" released Thursday.

"Lidocaine and B-12. It's for my joints, and B-12 I still take today," Clemens told Mike Wallace in the interview, which is scheduled to be shown Sunday night. It is Clemens' first interview since the release of the Mitchell report in December.

According to CBS, Clemens calls the accusation that he used steroids and HGH "ridiculous" and says he "never" used any banned substances. The interview was conducted last Friday.

Wallace asked Clemens if he swears he didn't used banned substances. "Swear," Clemens responds.

Lidocaine is a local anesthetic that can be used by dentists and in minor surgery. It also is available as part of ointments used to treat skin inflammation.

Clemens is scheduled to hold a news conference on Monday, the day after the interview is broadcast.

On Thursday, The New York Times reported that a lawyer for McNamee said he wouuld sue Clemens if he accuses McNamee of lying in the interview.

"He's got a chance to protect himself," Richard D. Emery, a New York-based lawyer who specializes in libel and defamation actions, told The Times. "We're not going to sue him if he doesn't do it. But if he does it, we're going to sue him."

Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, told The Times his client has nothing to hide.Sounds kinda fishy to me. This sounds like the Bonds defense of I didn't know what was being injected. Why would Clemens not go to a doctor for these injections.

[MacNut]

Ok here is Andy Pettitte's deposition.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3243793