Baseball Steroid Thread

[Brownian Motion]

I see in the news that Roger Clemens is a Bondanista too. Lots of idols falling this day.

[T.D.]

Is anyone really surprised by any of this s**t? I'm not. Given the money at stake, and the fact that the substances weren't even banned by MLB (even now, though they're formally banned, the testing protocol has loopholes you could drive a truck through), rational individuals would expect heavy dope usage. Clemens has long been an obvious doper, if you look at the typical "red flags" of body change and late-career improvement.

I don't care for doping myself, and am glad they're "cracking down", but you'd have to be super-naive to believe that any professional sport doesn't have serious performance-enhancing substance issues.

And for all those who today are decrying the drug use, what were you saying during the days of the Sosa-McGuire (two of the most obvious juicers ever seen outside pro wrestling) home run duel? It sure looked like MLB was complicit in the doping at that time. There's a heavy dose of hypocrisy out there...

[Added:] Well, here's one plus, albeit of the "No shit, Sherlock" variety. Quoting the NYT story aloc linked to on the Hot Stove thread:

Mitchell’s report on performance-enhancing drugs in baseball will be highly critical of the commissioner’s office and the players’ union for tolerating the presence of drugs throughout years of abuse, a person who has read the closely guarded report said Wednesday.

Edited December 13, 2007 by T.D.

[Tim McG]

[ahem]

I patiently await the over-focused media feeding frenzy to begin on this group of players.

Yeah...that'll happen

Clemens, Bonds, Tejada named in Mitchell Report

By RONALD BLUM, AP Baseball Writer

December 13, 2007

AP - Dec 13, 12:03 pm EST

NEW YORK (AP) -- Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada and Andy Pettitte were named in the long-awaited Mitchell Report on Thursday, an All-Star roster linked to steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs that put a question mark -- if not an asterisk -- next to some of baseball's biggest moments.

Barry Bonds, already under indictment on charges of lying to a federal grand jury about steroids, also showed up in baseball's most infamous lineup since the Black Sox scandal.

The report culminated a 20-month investigation by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, hired by commissioner Bud Selig to examine the Steroids Era.

It was uncertain whether the report would result in any penalties or suspensions.

Several stars named in the report could pay the price in Cooperstown, much the way Mark McGwire was kept out of the Hall of Fame this year merely because of steroids suspicion.

"Former commissioner Fay Vincent told me that the problem of performance-enhancing substances may be the most serious challenge that baseball has faced since the 1919 Black Sox scandal," Mitchell said in the 409-page report.

"The illegal use of anabolic steroids and similar substances, in Vincent's view, is 'cheating of the worst sort.' He believes that it is imperative for Major League Baseball to 'capture the moral high ground' on the issue and, by words and deeds, make it clear that baseball will not tolerate the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs."

Eric Gagne and Paul Lo Duca were among other current players named in the report, both linked to Human Growth Hormone.

"We identify some of the players who were caught up in this drive to gain a competitive advantage," the report said. "Other investigations will no doubt turn up more names and fill in more details, but that is unlikely to significantly alter the description of baseball's `steroids era' as set forth in this report."

[Tim McG]

To wit: Mitchell Report

[Aggie87]

All these players deserve whatever scrutiny is coming. Clemens, my new homeboy Tejada (who i'm not going to support merely because he's now an Astro), Pettite, etc. Bonds is one of them, and deserves scrutiny as well.

He also deserves separate scrutiny for what he's been indicted on, which isn't his use of steroids and/or HGH.

One thing about this report and the players that are named is that they are players from all backgrounds, all races. Nobody can claim it's a racist witch hunt.

[Tim McG]

Not so fast, Aggie.

You may want to read this first: Questions about the validity of the Mitchell Report

[alocispepraluger102]

i feel that barry has been unfairly singled out.

[Aggie87]

Not so fast, Aggie.

You may want to read this first: Questions about the validity of the Mitchell Report

Are you suggesting players who were doing unsportsmanlike things to improve their game (whether legal or not at the time) don't deserve scrutiny?

[J Larsen]

The cleared checks and handwritten notes in the report are damning evidence. The Paul Lo Duca note explaining why he hadn't paid up is pretty funny.

[Tim McG]

Not so fast, Aggie.

You may want to read this first: Questions about the validity of the Mitchell Report

Are you suggesting players who were doing unsportsmanlike things to improve their game (whether legal or not at the time) don't deserve scrutiny?

Not at all.

What I am saying is this report is so full of holes it couldn't pass for a screen door.

Credibility is now in question as well as any "evidence" garnered by this group.

Edited December 13, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Randy Twizzle]

Not so fast, Aggie.

You may want to read this first: Questions about the validity of the Mitchell Report

Wow pretty damning. A column written and published a few days before the Mitchell report even came out by a columnist who hasn't read it.

[7/4]

...at any rate, I'm not very surprised.

[Tim McG]

Not so fast, Aggie.

You may want to read this first: Questions about the validity of the Mitchell Report

Wow pretty damning. A column written and published a few days before the Mitchell report even came out by a columnist who hasn't read it.

And reading it changes the flawed method of research the Mitchell people used, um...how?

You know, I don't need to experience a shark bite before I can understand how much it hurts, either. I can read about it and be perfectly satisfied that shark bites suck.

I'm kinda funny that way.

Edited December 14, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Chuck Nessa]

I'm kinda funny that way.

[Tim McG]

I'm kinda funny that way.

No kidding.

Why thanks, Chuck.

Nice to see somebody here understands the difference between accepting anything the media feeds you at face value VS actual thinking and reasoning.

'Preciate it.

Edited December 14, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Chuck Nessa]

Thanks.

[J Larsen]

Not so fast, Aggie.

You may want to read this first: Questions about the validity of the Mitchell Report

Wow pretty damning. A column written and published a few days before the Mitchell report even came out by a columnist who hasn't read it.

And reading it changes the flawed method of research the Mitchell people used, um...how?

You know, I don't need to experience a shark bite before I can understand how much it hurts, either. I can read about it and be perfectly satisfied that shark bites suck.

I'm kinda funny that way.

I actually did read that article and it doesn't support your claim at all. If anything, the theme of the article is "in order to judge the report, we'll have to read it when it comes out." From the article:

Club executives are nervous that Mitchell will be unsparing in his assessment of their role in enabling the game's steroid culture, while team trainers and strength coaches feel the Mitchell team explicitly pressured them to "guess" about steroid use by specific players. The aim, say trainers and strength coaches, was to produce a report heavy on high-profile names but low on solutions.

The concerns regarding the investigation, these sources say, raise the level of intrigue and anxiety about what Mitchell ultimately will reveal. If he produces a powerful, comprehensive report, they believe these anxieties can be assuaged. But if the report fails to reach that standard, they say it will be clear that the obstacles the investigation encountered from its start were impossible to overcome. Accompanying that intrigue -- and perhaps because of that intrigue -- is a sense that not only will Mitchell's document fail to please everyone, it might fail to please anyone. If that happens, the report -- instead of providing an endpoint to baseball's steroids era -- will instead serve as another example of the game's inability to come to terms with the issue.

I'm suprised more hasn't been made of all the cashed checks and handwritten notes from players that are included as figures and exhibits in the report; I think I said it above but the one from Paul Lo Duca near the end is a riot.

[Tim McG]

Not so fast, Aggie.

You may want to read this first: Questions about the validity of the Mitchell Report

Wow pretty damning. A column written and published a few days before the Mitchell report even came out by a columnist who hasn't read it.

And reading it changes the flawed method of research the Mitchell people used, um...how?

You know, I don't need to experience a shark bite before I can understand how much it hurts, either. I can read about it and be perfectly satisfied that shark bites suck.

I'm kinda funny that way.

I actually did read that article and it doesn't support your claim at all. If anything, the theme of the article is "in order to judge the report, we'll have to read it when it comes out." From the article:

Club executives are nervous that Mitchell will be unsparing in his assessment of their role in enabling the game's steroid culture, while team trainers and strength coaches feel the Mitchell team explicitly pressured them to "guess" about steroid use by specific players. The aim, say trainers and strength coaches, was to produce a report heavy on high-profile names but low on solutions.

The concerns regarding the investigation, these sources say, raise the level of intrigue and anxiety about what Mitchell ultimately will reveal. If he produces a powerful, comprehensive report, they believe these anxieties can be assuaged. But if the report fails to reach that standard, they say it will be clear that the obstacles the investigation encountered from its start were impossible to overcome. Accompanying that intrigue -- and perhaps because of that intrigue -- is a sense that not only will Mitchell's document fail to please everyone, it might fail to please anyone. If that happens, the report -- instead of providing an endpoint to baseball's steroids era -- will instead serve as another example of the game's inability to come to terms with the issue.

I'm suprised more hasn't been made of all the cashed checks and handwritten notes from players that are included as figures and exhibits in the report; I think I said it above but the one from Paul Lo Duca near the end is a riot.

I seriously do not know how you can come to any reasonable conclusion that the authors of this article are promoting the notion we need to read the report and then decide what it means.

No.

What it clearly states is Mitchell had a vested interest in Red Sox Baseball and that his reseach techniques were fatally flawed or contain irrevocable errors due to shoddy research practices.

Edited December 14, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

Please notice his plea in a press conference reported on the Evening News today.

He asks that no ballplayer be punished as a result of his [obviously piss-poor] report.

Now what does that tell you, eh?

Edited December 14, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[J Larsen]

What it clearly states is Mitchell had a vested interest in Red Sox Baseball and that his reseach techniques were fatally flawed or contain irrevocable errors due to shoddy research practices.

That's absolute nonsense. It says that Mitchell was conducting research under an imperfect set of circumstances, namely that many parties refused to cooperate and he had no legal authority to compel them to cooperate, and that therefore the report is likely to be incomplete. This is an entirely different thing from saying that his research practices are poor. It is nearly certain that the vast majority of ballplayers who used steriods or improperly used HGH are not named in the report, but that can not be reasonably blamed on Mitchell. On the other hand, there is very damning evidence provided against most of the players who are named in the report, especially the cashed checks written to dealers.

[Noj]

From what I've read of the criticisms of this report, it would have been wise to shed all of the hearsay and go with only the hard facts. Who wrote checks, who bought what from whom. Too many names thrown in merely from conversations.

[J Larsen]

My admittedly very rough count is that there are about 13 current or former Red Sox players named in the report, and the report reveals evidence that the Red Sox knew that Gagne was taking steriods while they were considering acquiring him.

[Tim McG]

What it clearly states is Mitchell had a vested interest in Red Sox Baseball and that his reseach techniques were fatally flawed or contain irrevocable errors due to shoddy research practices.

That's absolute nonsense. It says that Mitchell was conducting research under an imperfect set of circumstances, namely that many parties refused to cooperate and he had no legal authority to compel them to cooperate, and that therefore the report is likely to be incomplete. This is an entirely different thing from saying that his research practices are poor. It is nearly certain that the vast majority of ballplayers who used steriods or improperly used HGH are not named in the report, but that can not be reasonably blamed on Mitchell. On the other hand, there is very damning evidence provided against most of the players who are named in the report, especially the cashed checks written to dealers.

Larsen,

He asked people to speculate....that isn't hard evidence; it is hearsay.

His chief rat, er..."witness" is a convicted drug dealer, fer crissakes.

The rest is forced MLB/Giambi testimony or the tabloid media jackals or waton assumption.

Did you read the article?

Edited December 14, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[J Larsen]

What it clearly states is Mitchell had a vested interest in Red Sox Baseball and that his reseach techniques were fatally flawed or contain irrevocable errors due to shoddy research practices.

That's absolute nonsense. It says that Mitchell was conducting research under an imperfect set of circumstances, namely that many parties refused to cooperate and he had no legal authority to compel them to cooperate, and that therefore the report is likely to be incomplete. This is an entirely different thing from saying that his research practices are poor. It is nearly certain that the vast majority of ballplayers who used steriods or improperly used HGH are not named in the report, but that can not be reasonably blamed on Mitchell. On the other hand, there is very damning evidence provided against most of the players who are named in the report, especially the cashed checks written to dealers.

Larsen,

He asked people to speculate....that isn't hard evidence; it is hearsay.

His chief rat, er..."witness" is a convicted drug dealer, fer crissakes.

The rest is forced MLB/Giambi testimony or the tabloid media jackals or waton assumption.

Did you read the article?

Of course he asked people to speculate - that's part of doing an investigation. A couple people speculate that Player X did steriods, and then you focus your effots on looking in to Player X. Either you find somebody who says "I saw Player X do steriods" or you find a check written by Player X to a dealer or you don't.

In fact, nothing in the report is speculative. For many of the accused players checks are provided as evidence - not the mere statement that checks exist, mind you, but actual images of the checks. For the remainder of the players (e.g. Clemens) the report states exactly who told Mitchell that the player in question did steriods. For instance, Mitchell reports that McNamee told him that Clemens asked him to inject steriods into his ass, and that he did so. There is nothing speculative about that; nor is it hearsay. Mitchell is simply reporting an allegation made by McNamee. In these cases, you can decide for yourself if the allegation is credible or not. Given that McNamee faced legal liability only if he lied, I tend to find this particular allegation credible.

[Jazzmoose]

Did you read the article?

Let me get this straight...you post an article criticizing the report that was written before the report was released, defended it with a statement about shark attacks, and then ask if someone read the article? What difference does it make; maybe he was bitten by a shark...