1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Mitchell Report

Discussion in 'Sports Programming and Events' started by jodyguercio, Dec 13, 2007.

  1. jodyguercio

    jodyguercio Active Member

    2,793
    0
    Aug 16, 2007
    What exactly is this going to do? Prove to the world what most have known for a while, people cheat to get ahead....well that and do nothing but let rivals have more ammo to use against others.

    Three things are certain.....

    1) Pete Rose broke the rules and he will never get in the hall ( he should though )

    2) Mark Mcguire was only suspected of it and he will never get in ( Andro wasnt illegal back then so save those comments )

    3) Barry Bonds will never play again ( nor does he deserve to )
     
  2. n3ntj

    n3ntj Hall Of Fame

    5,773
    13
    Dec 18, 2006
    Lancaster,...
    I don't know if this report is enough for GMs around the league to try to get out of some big $$$ contracts or not. Obviously, fans won't be happy. Should be an interesting off-season and spring training.

    Preliminary list: Here is an initial list of players, past and present, allegedly "linked to performance-enhancing substances:"

    # Marvin Benard

    # Larry Bigbie

    # Barry Bonds

    # Kevin Brown

    # Roger Clemens

    # Jack Cust

    # Lenny Dykstra

    # Eric Gagne

    # Jason Giambi

    # Troy Glaus

    # Jerry Hairston, Jr.

    # Glenallen Hill

    # Todd Hundley

    # David Justice

    # Chuck Knoblauch

    # Tim Laker

    # Paul Lo Duca

    # Kent Mercker

    # Hal Morris

    # Denny Neagle

    # Andy Pettitte

    # Brian Roberts

    # John Rocker

    # Benito Santiago

    # David Segui

    # Gary Sheffield

    # Mike Stanton

    # Miguel Tejada

    # Mo Vaughn

    # Randy Velarde

    # Rondell White

    # Gregg Zaun
     
  3. purtman

    purtman Hall Of Fame

    1,951
    0
    Sep 19, 2006
    The bad part about this report is that much of the information is from two sources. There was no rebuttal and the checks don't really prove anything. Do I think that players are innocent? Some yes and some no. The players union blew it by not allowing its players to meet with Mitchell, but the players still had a chance. One player did speak to Mitchell and was shocked to hear his name mentioned. Mitchell mentioned the cancelled checks, and the player wasn't sure what they were for. When Mitchell asked Rodamski, he didn't know either. Mitchell never mentioned the player in the report.
     
  4. jodyguercio

    jodyguercio Active Member

    2,793
    0
    Aug 16, 2007
    Not to be a Red Sox hater but were there even any of their players on the list....I dont consider Gange a Red Sox player.
     
  5. n3ntj

    n3ntj Hall Of Fame

    5,773
    13
    Dec 18, 2006
    Lancaster,...
    I heard Trot Nixon named...but did he leave Boston?

    I think they should test Manny.. he must be on drugs. Why else would he wear his hair that way and be hugging his teammates all of the time? ;-)
     
  6. jodyguercio

    jodyguercio Active Member

    2,793
    0
    Aug 16, 2007
    Yea he was with Cleveland last year I believe....but as to Manny (wait for it) "Thats just Manny being Manny"
     
  7. purtman

    purtman Hall Of Fame

    1,951
    0
    Sep 19, 2006
    Mo Vaughn and Brendan Donnelly. Oh, yes. George Mitchell, one of the owners, had his name under the by-line.
     
  8. Sharkie_Fan

    Sharkie_Fan Hall Of Fame

    2,535
    0
    Sep 26, 2006
    It is too bad that Mitchell didn't get information from more people, and that the players union didn't allow players to talk to mitchell.

    However, Rodamski's claims have been confirmed by other sources in several instances, so there's very little reason to doubt his other claims.

    FP Santangelo called a local radio host here in SF, and also on his AM show in Sac, and confirmed that he did in fact receive HGH from Rodamski, on several different occasions, when recovering from injuries.

    And Rodamski's claims about Miguel Tejada were backed up when Adam Piatt (a former Athletic) spoke to Mitchell and relayed the same story than Radomski had already told.

    I haven't read through the whole report, but I think that Mitchell took care to name only names that he was confident had done the deeds in question. I've also heard that Mitchell has at least two "anonymous" sources who confirmed the information in the report.

    As to the question posed earlier.. what does the report accomplish? Nothing, really, in and of itself. I think he's only scratched the surface of what was going on in MLB over the past several decades. There are numerous examples of players who spend a good portion of their career as average players and have a couple of superb years and then fall off the face of the planet (Brady Anderson, anyone?). Especially in the last several years as drug testing came into place. Miguel Tejada and Jason Giambi are a good examples. Good players who in the middle of their careers start putting up monster numbers (good enough to win MVP awards). After drug testing, they've failed to duplicate those numbers.

    Even if he'd been able to do a much more thorough investigation and come to the conclusion that the estimates of a guy like Ken Caminiti that 50% of MLB players were on steroids... what does that accomplish? I fail to see the point in the whole investigation... Anyone who hasn't had their head in the sand for the past 20 years knows that there are players on steroids. Probably a fair number of players. 25%? 50%? More? Less? Who knows, but it's more than 1 or 2 players. More than a dozen players. More than the 75 or so that Mitchell has named. But what does that knowlege do for us? What's done is done. They can't simply erase the last 20 years from baseball history. There's no equitable way to do that - you run the risk of erasing "legitimate" records with "tainted" ones.

    A writer here in Sf suggested that the first page of the MLB record books should be a "disclaimer". Something to the effect that it's hard to compare different eras in baseball. We've seen "deadball" eras, "live ball" eras, the "junk ball" eras, and, yes, even a "steroids" era. MLB does the best it can to weed out cheaters, but sometimes the cheaters are ahead of the curve. So, as you read these records, realize that records are shaped and effected by the era in which a player set that record.

    No asterisks, no erasing, simply realize that the last 20 years have experienced some degree of inflated numbers thanks to the fact that some unknown number of players were using performance enhancing drugs.

    All MLB can do is move forward from now, I think.
     
  9. Sharkie_Fan

    Sharkie_Fan Hall Of Fame

    2,535
    0
    Sep 26, 2006
    Chalk another one up for Mitchell and his report.

    Andy Petitte came out today and confirmed his use of HGH, as was outlined in the mitchell report.

    In what seems to be a recurring claim, he says he only used HGH twice and it was to heal from an injury rather than to boost performance. I don't know if these guys making this claims are giving their real motivations for using or if it's an attempt to save face in the court of public opinion, but it seems to be quickly becoming the standard answer when admitting to it's use.
     
  10. purtman

    purtman Hall Of Fame

    1,951
    0
    Sep 19, 2006
    Sharkie_fan, I would believe Pettitte. Integrity is something that means a lot to him. It's hard to take the report seriously. Here are a few reasons. Some of these people just happened to have had a conversation with the wrong person, be a roommate of the wrong person, or just happened to have been lied about. Brendan Donnelly of the Red Sox spoke to Rodamski but never purchased nor used anything. David Justice was also listed in the report. His house burned down this past year and he changed cell phone numbers. Rather than contact Justice's agent, those involved with the report tried his cell phone, couldn't reach him, and just went with what they had. Another player reportedly had been accused of purchasing drugs from Rodamski. When checks of his were found to have been written to Rodamski, Mitchell's people called him. The player told Mitchell that he did not know what the checks were for -- they could have been for pizzas for the team, lunch, dry cleaning, etc. Mitchell asked Rodamski what the checks were for and Rodamski did not know. The player was not listed.
    Just the fact that Mitchell is a part-owner of the Red Sox takes away from this report. Bud Selig should have been blasted in this report. However, Selig and the Red Sox have a "special" relationship. Selig allowed John Henry to purchase the Red Sox, even though Henry was not the high bidder and the fact that Henry owned the Florida Marlins. To get around that, Jeffrey Loria purchased the Marlins. Loria owned the Expos at the time. That's when MLB took over ownership of the Expos, creating the fiasco that led them to move to Washington, D.C. Selig also voided the Marlins' trade of Kevin Millar to Japan once the Red Sox decided they were interested in him. Sounds kind of shady to me. Later on, the Sox agreed to a deal with Arizona for Curt Schilling. The Sox had a 72-hour window to negotiate as is listed in MLB rules. However, they took over 75 hours before they could sign Schilling.
    Mitchell never should have been involved in this report. No matter what he says, it definitely shows signs of improprieties.
     
  11. purtman

    purtman Hall Of Fame

    1,951
    0
    Sep 19, 2006
    Sharkie_fan, I would believe Pettitte. Integrity is something that means a lot to him. It's hard to take the report seriously. Here are a few reasons. Some of these people just happened to have had a conversation with the wrong person, be a roommate of the wrong person, or just happened to have been lied about. Brendan Donnelly of the Red Sox spoke to Rodamski but never purchased nor used anything. David Justice was also listed in the report. His house burned down this past year and he changed cell phone numbers. Rather than contact Justice's agent, those involved with the report tried his cell phone, couldn't reach him, and just went with what they had. Another player reportedly had been accused of purchasing drugs from Rodamski. When checks of his were found to have been written to Rodamski, Mitchell's people called him. The player told Mitchell that he did not know what the checks were for -- they could have been for pizzas for the team, lunch, dry cleaning, etc. Mitchell asked Rodamski what the checks were for and Rodamski did not know. The player was not listed.
    Just the fact that Mitchell is a part-owner of the Red Sox takes away from this report. Bud Selig should have been blasted in this report. However, Selig and the Red Sox have a "special" relationship. Selig allowed John Henry to purchase the Red Sox, even though Henry was not the high bidder and the fact that Henry owned the Florida Marlins. To get around that, Jeffrey Loria purchased the Marlins. Loria owned the Expos at the time. That's when MLB took over ownership of the Expos, creating the fiasco that led them to move to Washington, D.C. Selig also voided the Marlins' trade of Kevin Millar to Japan once the Red Sox decided they were interested in him. Sounds kind of shady to me. Later on, the Sox agreed to a deal with Arizona for Curt Schilling. The Sox had a 72-hour window to negotiate as is listed in MLB rules. However, they took over 75 hours before they could sign Schilling.
    Mitchell never should have been involved in this report. No matter what he says, it definitely shows signs of improprieties.
     
  12. n3ntj

    n3ntj Hall Of Fame

    5,773
    13
    Dec 18, 2006
    Lancaster,...
    1. HGH was not banned in MLB when Pettitte acknowledged taking the hormone (2002). Hormones are different than steroids, but both are now banned.

    2. David Justice supposedly paid via a check(s). If this happened, why can't the canceled check(s) be produced to verify the purchase was made?

    3. The fact that Barry Bonds supposedly failed more than one drug test in the recent past, according to several reports, yet MLB hid this information during his 'run for the record' this year, leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many fans.
     
  13. Sharkie_Fan

    Sharkie_Fan Hall Of Fame

    2,535
    0
    Sep 26, 2006
    Purtman - I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment... He wasn't hard enough on the leadership of baseball. His "evidence" wouldn't land a conviction in a court of law. Selig's time as commissioner is as big a fiasco as any baseball has had. The Sox/Marlins/Expos deal was ridiculous.

    All that said, to completely discount the report is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In and of itself, standing on it's own, the report isn't worth a whole lot. In the greater context of what's been going on for the last 20 years in baseball, this is another tool to get a glimpse into the culture of baseball.

    Of the 85 or so names in the mitchell report, I heard on ESPN last night that more than a dozen had confirmed the details of their use in the report. I just heard the teaser - didn't stay up to watch the actual report, so I don't know who the dozen are. I know David Segui, FP Santangelo, Andy Pettitte. Apparently everyone who spoke to the grand jury with the exception of bonds with regards to balco admitted their use - the Giambi brothers, Benito Santiago, Marvin Benard.

    I would guess that over the next few weeks, even more of those names will come out and say they used some sort of illegal substance.

    Certainly with the lack of "hard" evidence, one could be of the opinion that some of the players named by Mitchell did NOT in fact take some sort of illegal substance. Personally, I'm of the opinion that in spite of Mitchell's shortcomings (and the shortcomings of the report), they took care not to name people whom they weren't sure of.

    I've yet to read all the evidence for all the players yet, so I reserve the right to change that opinion, but what I've read to this point, I don't think that we're going to find any of these players unfairly fingered.

    That said, I think if Selig condemns (or even punishes) anyone named in the report SOLELY on the strength of the report, it would be an aggregious error. IN many instances, it's a case of "he said, he said". Rodamski claims the checks paid to him were for steroids, the players will claim it was for personal training. That said, Rodamski's claims have been proven correct enough times that I'll accept the other claims he's made.

    Here's what kills me about the Mitchell report. He has as much evidence in most cases as the Federal Government has against Barry Bonds. In the case of Roger Clemens, even more, as they have a "smoking gun". They have the testimony of the man who injected steroids in his rear end. The Feds could never get that smoking gun against Bonds. And yet we all know Barry did what the government alleged. Why do we find it so hard to make the same judgement against other players against whom we have just as damning evidence? From credible witnesses who have already been proved right several times. The witnesses against Bonds? The jilted lover. Conte? The con who claims to know that Bonds took steroids, but never provided them to him or saw him use them. He provided steroids to Anderson, but claims to KNOW that bonds took them? And then he did a complete 180 and says he knows nothing about Bonds? Alleged doping calendars? Calendars which only Greg Anderson knows the true meaning of, and he's not talking?

    And as to the player "not named"? Why is that a mark against the report? The player says "I never payed Rodamski for steroids". Rodamski says "The checks he paid to me were not for steroids, I can't recall what they were for". So the player in question is left out of the report. That, to me, seems to be responsible investigating. Facing a lack of corroborating evidence, they leave the player out. No one is claiming Rodamski's sole source of money was steroids. Its quite common for players to pay team lackies to do various tasks - take my luggage, bring us meals, whatever. Certainly that's how Rodamski was able to go so long without being caught - it wasn't unusual for a player to pay him for various tasks. So to leave off a player who claims not to have purchased steroids, and to whom Rodamski claims he has not sold steroids is not a hole in the report, IMHO. It's the right thing to do. If down the road, evidence surfaces that shows Rodamski and the player in question lied, then you can use that statement to throw doubt on the whole report. But as it stands, nothing Rodamski has said has been shown to be dishonest. To this point, anyway.

    As I've said several times, I don't think the report is enough to wipe out records, or put asterisks in the record books, or suspend or ban players from the league. It's simply a glimpse at the "dark side" of MLB. I look at the players on the list, for the most part, the same way I look at Bonds. Did they cheat? Yes. Did alot of other players cheat? Yes? Do we know how many? No. Will we ever? Nope. So we have to go forward from this point knowing that everything in the last 20 years was shaped in one way or another by steroids...
     

Share This Page