The Official Mitchell Report Thread

[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."

 

[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."

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.

 

[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?

 

[MacNut]

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

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.