Public greets Mitchell Report with shrug

[Origen]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_mitchell_report_public_reaction;_ylt=Alt5FH50U uHrFRYU0ZHZ6U.s0NUE

Public greets Mitchell Report with shrug
By NANCY ARMOUR, AP National Writer

CHICAGO - The long list of disgraced players in the Mitchell Report didn't surprise Cubs fan Bob Burman. Didn't disappoint him. Didn't anger him. Didn't do much of anything, really.

After years of BALCO and Barry Bonds, fans like Burman are almost numb to news that yet another player took a pharmaceutical short cut. The Mitchell Report might have been bigger and more noteworthy, but its shock value wore off a long time ago.

"I'm kind of indifferent to it, I have to say," Burman said as he watched Thursday night's NFL game between Houston and Denver at Goose Island, a bar near Wrigley Field.

He wasn't alone. From coast to coast, in cities home to both major leagues and bar leagues, the public's reaction to the Mitchell Report was largely a shrug of indifference.

Baseball's two-year investigation simply confirmed what most fans had already assumed. If there was surprise about any players, it was the ones not named in the 311 pages.

Even the news that Roger Clemens was accused of spending part of his stellar career shooting up failed to generate much outrage.

"I really think, over the last decade, that we've been so inundated with athletes using performance-enhancing drugs that nobody is shocked by this report," said Eric Bronson, a sociology professor at Quinnipiac University who teaches "Sociology of Sport."

"You have to remember," Bronson added, "professional sports are more along the lines of entertainment than anything else right now. We're looking at sport as entertainment rather than sport as sport or competition."

Perhaps worst of all, fans doubt the report, no matter how embarrassing, will change anything.

"As a baseball fan, I just want to get over it. I just want to move on," said John Suwalski of Chicago. "It's not going to change anything."

It was impossible to avoid the Mitchell Report on Thursday. It was the lead story on both sports and news networks, and the report itself was downloaded 1.8 million times off MLB.com just in the first three hours after it was posted.

People were talking about it at sports bars and games throughout the country. It even caused a buzz at the women's volleyball final four at Arco Arena in Sacramento, Calif.

But as baseball has seen for the past decade, knowing and caring are two very different things.

Baseball has been dogged by whispers and rumors about steroids for almost two decades now, with suspicions of performance-enhancing drug use rising right along with the number of home runs. Most assumed Bonds was doping long before he was indicted for lying to a federal grand jury about his steroid use, and any player who bulks up or puts up career numbers is automatically suspect.

Yet fans continue to flock to the ballparks in droves. Major League Baseball set a total attendance record for the fourth straight season this year, drawing 79.5 million people. Eight clubs set season records.

"Every week there's something else. Every day practically," said David Swanson of Denver. "Eventually, it goes in one ear and out the other."

On the Los Angeles Times' Web site, one reader wrote, "I could care less about fair play as long as these overpaid athletes entertain me." On The Commercial Appeal in Memphis' Web site, someone said, "No one cares about this story," while another wrote, "All these guys are cheaters."

"We talked a lot this year about doping and steroids. Students were pretty cynical, realistic about things," said Orin Starn, a professor at Duke University who teaches a course on the anthropology of sports. "They said 'Look, we love sports. We know people are doping, and we don't like it. But we'll still go out to games.'

"In a way, we're a nation of addicts. How many of us are on Prozac or taking our caffeine in the morning?" Starn added. "It's just a part of society that's come to find solutions through drugs. In that way, baseball players are no different than the rest of us."

After hearing about this player doing this and another doing that for so many years in so many sports, fans no longer can muster the energy to care. Whether it was Mark McGwire, Marion Jones or now Clemens, fans have been disappointed by their heroes one too many times.

"Nobody plays without drugs," said Darren Schoenhofer of Fort Collins, Colo. "You are going for the edge. You'll do whatever it takes to play the game. They do it in football. They do it in baseball."

Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who conducted the 20-month investigation, said he believes steroid use has lessened since baseball toughened its drug policy. But human growth hormone remains a problem, and baseball still doesn't have a test for it.

Commissioner Bud Selig promised he would take action, but fans weren't nearly so optimistic. In a poll on the Web site of WCBS, the CBS affiliate in New York City, 70 percent said the Mitchell Report won't keep steroids out of baseball.

After all, baseball has promised to clean up its act before. Athletes have sworn up and down that they're clean, that they would never resort to using performance-enhancing drugs to further their careers.

Yet there the country was Thursday, learning one dirty detail after another of All-Stars, MVPs and journeymen looking for a quick fix while everybody else in baseball looked the other way.

"I'm just not surprised by it," Chicagoan Mike O'Malley said. "I'm not surprised by the names. I'm not surprised by any of it. It's old hat."

[silverwhisper]

the article's contention is that the indifference is largely a matter of overexposure. if true, this has me wondering: maybe this reaction is precisely what MLB was after?

[Parzival]

Roger Clemens was done, a washed-up power pitcher. Then a season later, came back at peak performance. He doubled the amount of innings that he pitched, regained his velocity, and became once again a dominant power pitcher.

<shrug> Thinking that drugs weren't involved takes a willing suspension of disbelief.

[carmachu]

Thats because it really doesnt tell the fans what we dont already know. Also, there arent any consequence.....baseball isnt going to clear up. Isnt going to strike records from teh books or ban folks from coopers town.

What did mitchell really expect?

[Dr. Mercury]

I'm halfway with the crowd that's shrugging and half with the crowd that wants Selig's head on a stick. The Mitchell Report has no teeth to it.

I knew baseball played fast and loose with their prescription drug rules long before the MLB was hounded into instituting a steroids policy. When skinny slap-hitting second basemen suddenly balloon out into mini-McGwires (http://seattlest.com/2005/02/14/did_boone_juice.php), it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together--although Det's opinion does count for something. :D

[Dr. Mercury]

While both the Mitchell Report and Olney's opinion piece below (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3157032&name=olney_buster&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos2&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fesp n%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3157032%26name%3dolne y_buster%26lpos%3dspotlight%26lid%3dtab1pos2) are a study in how to say water is wet with maximum verbosity, Olney is more on target about what was wrong with MLB.




Mitchell lacked critical insight

posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 | Feedback (http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/mailbagESPN?event_id=6999) | Print Entry (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3157032&type=blogEntry)
filed under: MLB (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=olney_buster&catID=Sport~10~10&catDesc=MLB)

After the commissioner's office received access to the report, word leaked out that the Mitchell report was tough on Major League Baseball; the advance notice was that individuals within the MLB offices were upset, angry. Which is, of course, what Major League Baseball needs everybody to believe: that it really got thumped.

Then George Mitchell stood in front of a microphone and said out loud, "Everybody involved in baseball -- commissioners, club officials, the players association and the players -- shares responsibility to some extent for the steroids era. There was a collective failure to recognize the problem and deal with it early on." Baseball had a drug culture, Mitchell said, a nice general thesis that was fresh when it was first reported years ago by the San Francisco Chronicle, ESPN, the New York Daily News, Sports Illustrated and just about every other major news outlet.

But if you expected any critical insight from the report into how that culture developed, well, forget it. Baseball's leaders should send a Christmas basket to Mitchell for the way he glossed over the decisions -- their decisions -- that created the vacuum in which hundreds or even thousands of players, in the majors and minors, felt free, or felt the need, to take drugs.

Oh, sure, Giants general manager Brian Sabean looks awful in anecdotes on pages 122-126 of the report, and union counsel Gene Orza is alleged to have tipped off a player to a forthcoming test. But the report is almost wholly absent of a direct examination and assessment of how the decisions of Don Fehr and Bud Selig led us to where we are today.

We are told of the alleged drug use of 86 players by name, but nothing that addresses almost all of the big-picture questions: Why did baseball not act decisively after the sport's first steroid scandal, around Jose Canseco, during the 1988 World Series? Why did the owners and union leaders do nothing?

In a 1995 article in the Los Angeles Times, Selig made reference to a meeting in which owners discussed steroids. What was said, specifically, in those meetings? What were owners saying about the change in size in bodies? What were they saying about the Athletics of the late '80s, the Reds of 1990, the Rangers of the early '90s, the Phillies of 1993?

We are told that after the noteworthy L.A. Times piece was published in 1995, with quotes addressing the perceived rise of steroid use from Frank Thomas, Tony Gwynn, GMs Randy Smith and Kevin Malone and Selig, there was no follow-up. Why not? What was Selig's thinking? Why didn't he view these words as an alarm in the night? Why didn't he ask Thomas, Gwynn, Malone and Smith about what they knew? Why didn't he do something? Why was it that when Kevin Towers spoke out loud in the spring of 2005 about how executives in the game had known for years about steroid use, he was admonished by baseball executives? Why did Selig issue a public gag order on executives on the issue of steroids?

In fact, there is no mention of Towers' statement in the report. There is virtually no information within the report about the players' union deliberations and conversations about steroids during the mid-'90s. Where was Fehr? Where was Orza? What were they saying and doing? What was being said in the meetings? We understand that the union didn't cooperate with the Mitchell investigators, but there have been many newspaper and magazine stories written about this, and Mitchell could have cut-and-pasted all of this for context, as he did in so many other places in the report.

The commissioner had full autonomy over the minor leagues and could have implemented drug testing at any time. So why did it take 13 years after the Canseco scandal to do so? What were owners saying about all this in meetings? Is it true, as sources indicate, that one owner was so fed up with the union wars that he said, in so many words, If the players want to kill themselves by taking that stuff, then let them. It's not our problem.

We got a whole lot of information about the symptoms of the problem -- the cases of individual players -- but almost nothing about the virus of failed leadership that is the root of baseball's drug culture.

Selig has said that he wanted the report because it would show that he had nothing to hide. But it was, in fact, another example of a lack of leadership, a lack of accountability.

In March of 2006, he could have stood up, perhaps with Fehr at his side, and said: We blew it. The entire institution of baseball shared in this failure to ask the right questions at the right time, and failed to take the right action at the right time. But we could learn the full extent of how pervasive that problem was, so the best thing that we could do would be to strengthen our drug-testing program as much as possible, and move forward.

A number of executives who work for Selig believed, in March of 2006, that a mea culpa was the best action possible for the sport. But Selig has never been someone to admit mistakes. So he hired a baseball executive to investigate the sport, paying Mitchell and his firm tens of millions of dollars -- and the leaders of the sport largely got a pass.

And it's possible that in lieu of Selig's standing up and taking the hit for his sport, individual players and the game itself may suffer enormous collateral damage.

None of that excuses the individual decisions that were allegedly made by players. Look, if Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens or others took performance-enhancing drugs, then they have to live with the ramifications of their actions.

But it's possible, as Fehr said, that players have had their reputations wrecked forever, and perhaps wrongly.

Mitchell established his own standard of fairness, his own standard of proof. A lawyer within baseball said early this week that because Mitchell had so much power, in deciding which names to include in the report, that he really needed to go on beyond a reasonable doubt in the cases of individual players.

And this, he did not do.

On page 146 of the report, it is written that former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski provided information, and in "many cases, his statements were corroborated by other evidence."

What the report does not say is that in many cases, the statements of Radomski, former Oriole Larry Bigbie and others were not corroborated by other evidence.

Now, we cannot be naïve to the probability that most and perhaps even all of the players named in the report used performance-enhancing drugs, and that the impact of steroid use on the game and the results of games has been nothing short of extraordinary. The belief here has been for some time that perhaps 75 percent of the major awards won from 1988 forward were done so with the use of performance-enhancing drugs, and we should assume that championship teams for the last 20 years probably fielded one or more players using the stuff. But Mitchell effectively ignored the possibility that in some cases, Radomski's version of events, or that of Larry Bigbie, might be untrue or inaccurate. If Kirk Radomski says he talked to you about steroids or sold them to you, well, Mitchell's report embedded Radomski's version of events into history.

Mitchell clearly was frustrated with the lack of cooperation from the active Players Association. But for some former players, challenging Radomski's assertions didn't make a bit of difference: Mitchell went full-speed ahead with the naming of names, in the face of denials, just as he did in the face of silence.

"It was," said one Major League Baseball lawyer, "nothing short of reckless."

Brian Roberts is in the report, on page 158, because Bigbie told the Mitchell investigators that Roberts "admitted to him that he had injected himself once or twice with steroids in 2003."

That's it.

Radomski told investigators that he sold steroids to Matt Franco, and the former Mets player denied this. There is no other evidence. A case of he-said, he-said. And Franco is in the report, on page 165.

Jack Cust is in the report because of a Bigbie interview. Nothing more.
Mark Carreon: Radomski interview, and nothing more.
Todd Williams: Radomski interview.
Phil Hiatt: Radomski interview.
Todd Pratt: Radomski interview.
Mike Stanton: Radomski interview.

In the cases of other players, the corroborative evidence is the fact that a phone number or address is in a book owned by Radomski.

These players could sue, of course; Roger Clemens's lawyer said his client has been "slandered," and he, more than any other player in the report, has the money to go head-to-head with Major League Baseball, which indemnified Mitchell in the event of possible lawsuits.

[Dr. Mercury]

Much to Olney's credit, he admits to screwing the pooch on the steroids issue in the '90s, along with the rest of the sports media. There are times I wonder if maybe the steroids issue is a leftover from the Cold War and our distatste with East German swimmers who were more riped than Mark Spitz.


But that probably isn't going to happen, and in any event, a lawsuit isn't going to change the reality that a player's name is in the Mitchell report, forever. There's not a damn thing you can do to change that if you are Brian Roberts and you just might be innocent; George Mitchell has already been the prosecutor, judge and jury in his case.

The issue of the steroids era is multilayered, with nobody really clean. For instance: There has never been anything tying pitcher Tom Glavine to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, and when his name appears on the Hall of Fame ballot, he will presumably be voted overwhelmingly on the first ballot, as a 300-game winner -- and rightly so. But in the '90s, Glavine was probably in the best position, among all players, to influence the velocity with which the Players Association dealt with the growing problem of steroids, as a leader in the union.

He had been willing to go to the White House in the midst of the players' strike and stand up for the union, but as steroids became more prevalent, he -- like Fehr, like Orza, like Selig -- did little or nothing. In the big picture, his decisions had a lot more practical impact in the rise of the steroid problem than Jason Grimsley or Chuck Knoblauch.

(And as has been written here and elsewhere (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/01/opinion/01olney.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) many times before, I believe I did a lousy job covering this issue in the '90s).

It's true that the problem really started with the players who cheated. They deserve most of the blame, and in the casting of the Mitchell Report, it is the players, generally, who are blamed the most.

But you cannot issue a credible report without fully addressing the actions of the most powerful men in the game, the caretakers of the sport in the '90s: Fehr, Orza, Selig.

A last thought: Baseball executives express their frustration often over the fact that their sport is scrutinized more than any other, at a time when baseball is hardly alone in its struggles to cope with performance-enhancing drug abuse. They've ceded their right to complain about that now, because Selig made the decision to plow ahead with an internal investigation that had no chance of ever providing the full context of the problem, something that the commissioners of the NBA and the NFL have never done.

• This report drew conclusions, but did not give baseball closure (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/sports/baseball/16vecsey.html?ref=sports), writes George Vecsey.

• Pettitte's hands were also dirty (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxMDYmZmdi ZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTcyMzQ1NjMmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZU VFeXk2), writes Bob Klapisch. Pettitte should spare us the contrived regret (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/12/16/2007-12-16_andy_pettitte_can_spare_us_the_crocodile.html), writes Mike Lupica.

Pettitte did the right thing (http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2007/12/16/pettitte_does_the_right_thing), writes Nick Cafardo, and Richard Justice agrees (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5382267.html).

• Jim Kaat is not surprised by the word of steroid use (http://www.startribune.com/sports/twins/12519686.html), writes Patrick Reusse.

• Alex Cabrera denied taking steroids (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071215.wsptcabrera15/BNStory/GlobeSports).

• Fehr and Selig should be removed from power (http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-steelefront1216,0,6118092.story), writes David Steele. Selig is to blame (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071216/OPINION03/712160321/1004) for this mess, writes Jerry Green. Selig should resign (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/16/SP65TUPM7.DTL), writes Scott Ostler.
Hmm, now there's a thought. Hey, wasn't That Cockroach Bug Selig supposed to be an interim commissioner? Just like George Steinbrenner's lifetime ban was three years, I guess the owners' idea of having one of their own as the interim commish is 15 years and counting.

Sort of like how Bug's idea of keeping the Pilots in Seattle, was to move them to Milwaukee and rename them the... Oh, don't get me started. WTF do you expect from a fucking car salesman?

Selig reiterates that he wants to develop an HGH test (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cs-071215sox,1,820941.story?coll=cs-home-headlines).
That's our Bug: Close the barn doors before people notice teh horses have already... Too late.

• The Rockies are standing by Matt Herges (http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_7729594), for now, writes Troy Renck.

• Drugs gave F.P. Santangelo a new lease on his baseball life (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-simers16dec16,1,2891621.column?coll=la-utilities-sports), writes T.J. Simers.

• C.J. Nitkowski tells Brian Costello that he has no reason to think that Brian McNamee lied (http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/sports/yankees/nitkowski__mcnamee_no_roid_pusher_205034.htm).

• Jonny Gomes doesn't think there was breakthrough information (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/16/Rays/Report_costly__not_va.shtml) in the report.

• Some teams may regret their free-agent signings (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-071215rogers,1,2010014.column?coll=cs-home-headlines), writes Phil Rogers. The Brewers get a bit of a black eye (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=696812), acknowledges GM Doug Melvin, with the inclusion of Eric Gagne's name in the report.

About half the players named in the report improved their performance (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=697258) within two years after their alleged use, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

[Dr. Mercury]

From Fox Sports on MSN re: the Mitchell Report, in comments for this story (http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7560120?MSNHPHMA) on A-Rod.

The Mitch-Hunt is a smoke screen. They also left out stimulants, and other drugs. Selig should go. The report said substance use was in place when he took over as interim commish, and he keeps saying decisions were made for economic reasons.
"Mitch-Hunt." Hee. :D
The Mitchell report ranks right up there with the Starr report. Millions of dollars spent to tell us something we already knew and to be told to us by a former senator because we all know how much integrity and high moral standards members of the (S)enate have.
Oh, snap!

[Brother Brian]

In reality, if we really care about the results, what options do we have?

Boycott baseball? A handful might, but not enough to hurt the leagues bottom line.

Really, as consumers, that's our only option.

[Kalzazz]

Then you have Paul Byrd, who given his post HGH physique really should demand a refund

[Dr. Mercury]

Boycott baseball? A handful might, but not enough to hurt the leagues bottom line.

Really, as consumers, that's our only option.
I'm just curious who cares, hence my question about whether a 'roids policy is an anachronism now that we don't have East German "women" swimmers to kick around anymore. While I'm fairly liberal/libertarian about drugs, I also recognize that certain workplaces need to ban them for safety reasons. While sports are entertainment, are traditional pro sports (football, baseball, etc.) the same as, say, pro wrestling, and, if so, should they abandon the pretense? When we have athletes playing under the influence, aren't we endangering not only them but their teams' financial investment in them?

Boycotting isn't our only option. Baseball's enjoyed an anti-trust exemption for roughly 100 years. In fact, the judge who did MLB that big favor, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, became commisioner of baseball soon afterward. Politicians made rumblings about reexamining or removing that exemption, and MLB suddenly instituted a 'roids policy after two decades of documented winking, nodding and dithering.

Perhaps we should lobby Congress to employ that stick again?

Selig should go; he was overdue 14 years ago, even by his own "interim" timetable. There should be a commissioner who is not an owner. The MLBPA is one union I wouldn't mind seeing busted. Anyone proven to have used a banned substance for competitive advantage should be banned from Hall of Fame eligibility. Any drug policy violation, whether it's abuse of prescriptions or use of steroids, should be a strike; three strikes, you're out. Period. None of these bullshit third, fourth, fifth, or, in the storied case of Steve "Hell, I'll Even Snort The Rosin Bag" Howe, seventh chances. Any team or league official caught covering up a violation should be (a.) prosecuted for fraud and (b.) banned from baseball for life.

Or maybe we should be okay with athletes popping, smoking, shooting, or snorting anything they can grab, as long as it gives them a competitive edge. In which case, how do we reconcile that with the rules we have to follow in our own workplaces?

[Wook]

In reality, if we really care about the results, what options do we have?

Boycott baseball? A handful might, but not enough to hurt the leagues bottom line.

Really, as consumers, that's our only option.

I haven't put a dime into baseball's coffers in ages. I think I've watched one game in the last 10 years? Haven't been to a game in longer than that, and can't remember the last time I bought memorabelia. Boycotting isn't that hard.

[Kalzazz]

How does the Hall of Fame voting consider offenses like corked bats and spitballs and emory boards and such?

I would think steroids should fall under the same category

[Wook]

I dunno about that doc. There was no policy against it. I'd love to see the stats and player set aside into their own box for the ages to remember as something *different* but there are far worse scoundrels already in the hall.

[Dr. Mercury]

I dunno about that doc. There was no policy against it.
Yes, there was. Why else would players obtain HGH and steroids from clubhouse attendants and not their or the team's physician? MLB forbade players from using any drug not prescribed by a doctor; this policy included steroids. Selig just didn't enforce it, as judged by the discussions going on between 1994 and 2002, and that's a measure of either incompetence or complicity.

I'd love to see the stats and player set aside into their own box for the ages to remember as something *different* but there are far worse scoundrels already in the hall.
You mean the spitters, gunkers, spikers, gamblers, racists, rapists, Klansmen, and other fine citizens? Even if there was evidence that they cheated their way into the Hall, or hit the betting booth with Pete Rose, we can't toss 'em. What's done is done. Besides, baseball has a tradition of seeing what you can get away with, from the 1890s Baltimore Orioles of the old American Association to Gaylord Perry.

I wouldn't mind asterisks, just for kicks, but I'm just throwing out these questions. Other sports have steroid policies. If MLB's is to have any teeth, maybe we draw the line here and anyone falling on this side of it is shit out of luck while, on the other side, Barry goes to Cooperstown.

The problem is, the stain of the Steroid Era has tainted supposedly clean players like Pay-Rod. While I believe he's a lying, cheating, money-grubbing sack of shit, I have no reason to believe he's a 'roid freak. He told the truth to Katie Couric when he said that he never felt the need because he's always been an elite athlete.

[Dr. Mercury]

Or, here's a thought: When MLB banned the spitball in 1920, it garndfathered in pitchers who had been active prior to that date. Maybe we just grandfather in those players active prior to 2002 and don't worry about it.

[carmachu]

In reality, if we really care about the results, what options do we have?

Boycott baseball? A handful might, but not enough to hurt the leagues bottom line.

Really, as consumers, that's our only option.


Have the congress yank their monolpoly license or whatever it is they have. Then see how fast they jump.

[Wook]

You mean the spitters, gunkers, spikers, gamblers, racists, rapists, Klansmen, and other fine citizens? Even if there was evidence that they cheated their way into the Hall, or hit the betting booth with Pete Rose, we can't toss 'em. What's done is done. Besides, baseball has a tradition of seeing what you can get away with, from the 1890s Baltimore Orioles of the old American Association to Gaylord Perry.

I wouldn't mind asterisks, just for kicks, but I'm just throwing out these questions. Other sports have steroid policies. If MLB's is to have any teeth, maybe we draw the line here and anyone falling on this side of it is shit out of luck while, on the other side, Barry goes to Cooperstown.

The problem is, the stain of the Steroid Era has tainted supposedly clean players like Pay-Rod. While I believe he's a lying, cheating, money-grubbing sack of shit, I have no reason to believe he's a 'roid freak. He told the truth to Katie Couric when he said that he never felt the need because he's always been an elite athlete.

That's kinda what I'm saying. If there was an unused roid policy then that tells you about how much the league cares about it. The only point at which they did it was when we pointed a boom stick at their monopoly exemption. If there was a culture of permissiveness, and that's how it looks, then I'm not so keen handing out lifetime bans. Instead we'll just put the * next to their numbers, implement a toothy roid policy, and move on. I'm not going to tell a roid freak "shame on you! No cooperstown!" when we already have such fine and upstanding samples of humanity in there. (Unless you want to wipe them out of coopertown as well...)

[Dr. Mercury]

That's kinda what I'm saying. If there was an unused roid policy then that tells you about how much the league cares about it. The only point at which they did it was when we pointed a boom stick at their monopoly exemption.
The timeframe we're talking about WRT the culture of permissiveness is roughly 1988-2002. Compared to the NFL and NBA, baseball was getting its ass kicked. The strike of 1994 didn't help matters, but MLB noticed that fans dig the longball,... And the rest is history, or in the Mitchell Report.
If there was a culture of permissiveness, and that's how it looks, then I'm not so keen handing out lifetime bans.
I am. Who directed the culture of permissiveness? Not the players, although, after a certain date, the kid gloves would come off.
Instead we'll just put the * next to their numbers, implement a toothy roid policy, and move on. I'm not going to tell a roid freak "shame on you! No cooperstown!" when we already have such fine and upstanding samples of humanity in there. (Unless you want to wipe them out of coopertown as well...)
I'm not too keen on revisionist historians gutting the Hall each time public mores change. Otherwise, the Bambino, for example, gets tossed for womanizing and for disregarding the 18th Amendment. However, after I'd posted my lengthy resply to Brother Brian, I flashed upon a possible solution (http://forum.criticalfumble.net/showpost.php?p=140779&postcount=16) to our dilemma inspired by the spitball ban's grandfather clause.

[Wook]

I'm talking about handing out bans to guys like Bonds and Clemens based on what the Mitchell report says. I'm ok with a harsh toothy furture policy going forward. IMHO an asterisk that will sit with them for the rest of their lives is just fine WRT Bonds, Clemens, and company...

[Dr. Mercury]

I'm talking about handing out bans to guys like Bonds and Clemens based on what the Mitchell report says.
Where people are caught dead to rights, I have no probelm with that whatsoever.
I'm ok with a harsh toothy furture policy going forward. IMHO an asterisk that will sit with them for the rest of their lives is just fine WRT Bonds, Clemens, and company...
The asterisk is beautiful, in that it causes HOF voters to take pause. Even the speculation without one was enough to deny Mark McGwire this year.

[Dr. Mercury]

Interesting piece about Roger Clemens, with some choice words near the end about John Kruk and Len Dykstra. Yeah, in retrospect, the bat throwing certainly seems as if it were 'roid rage.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7577358?MSNHPHMA


Bully Clemens not talking; you surprised?

Mark Kriegel (http://msn.foxsports.com/writer/archive?authorId=307)
FOXSports.com, Updated 1 hour ago</SPAN>

On Tuesday afternoon, five days after the release of the Mitchell Report, Roger Clemens finally had his agent release a statement. He denied using performance enhancing drugs, and asked fans to grant him the benefit of their now substantial doubt. He will only deign to answer questions "at the appropriate time in the appropriate way."

This strategy should surprise no one. Once again, he's looking for an edge. Roger Clemens isn't interested in a fair fight. Never was. For all his 354 wins, there was always a whiff of something fraudulent about him, as evidenced by his woeful record in elimination games. He was a bully on the mound. And like most bullies, he wanted to be feared, but needed to be protected. For all its shortcomings, the Mitchell Report — five solid reporters, members of the much-maligned media, could have come up with a lot more for about $20 million less — seems proof enough of Clemens' true character.

Recall that last week, while other ballplayers did their admitting or denying on their own, Clemens sent his lawyer, Rusty Hardin, into the fray. The lawyer emphasized that Clemens had never failed a drug test — the famous Marion Jones defense. What's more, the lawyer called the accusations of steroid use "slanderous." This was a big mistake, as Clemens will never sue for slander. The last thing a bully wants is to be called on his bluff.

For years, Barry Bonds has faced armies of inquisitors. To his credit, at least he wasn't two-faced, remaining as surly to the many as he was to the few. No one mounted a credible but-Barry's-really-a-nice-guy defense. By contrast, Clemens' unnatural longevity as a power pitcher was advertised as proof of his virtue, his holy work ethic. Hence, the speech he was scheduled to deliver next month before the Texas High School Baseball Coaches Association: "My Vigorous Workout: How I Played So Long."

Now it's believed that his long life as a power pitcher owes much to his association with Brian McNamee, a former New York City cop. McNamee told Mitchell and his investigators that he injected Clemens — at the pitcher's request — four times with Winstrol during the '98 season. In 2000, after being traded to the Yankees, Clemens convinced his new employers to hire McNamee.

From the Mitchell Report: "During the later part of the regular season, McNamee injected Clemens in the buttocks four to six times with testosterone from a bottle labeled either Sustanon 250 or Deca-Durabolin ... McNamee stated that during this same time period he also injected Clemens four to six times with human growth hormone ... On each occasion, McNamee administered the injections at Clemens' apartment in New York City."

McNamee — compelled by the feds to speak with Mitchell under penalty of perjury — is a bad guy. Required reading on this subject is Luke Cyphers' piece, "Clubbies Gone Wild" in ESPN magazine last May. In October, 2001, Clemens' workout guru "was found naked in a hotel pool, having sex with a woman rendered nearly comatose by the date rape drug GHB. Had security not dialed 911, the woman could well have died."

McNamee, found to have lied to police in his initial interview, was declared a suspect. And though the Yankees got rid of him after the case eventually fell apart, Clemens stood by his man, keeping him on his personal payroll. When asked about McNamee last spring, Clemens said: "I'll train with him anytime."

Now, suddenly, after the release of the Mitchell Report, the pitcher has his lawyer portraying McNamee — suspended once by the NYPD for reasons unknown — as "a troubled and unreliable witness who came up with names after being threatened with possible prison time."

You think? Actually, the two of them sound like an exceedingly dark indie version of a buddy flick, what with The Rocket dropping trou for the Bad Lieutenant. Then again, bullies will do anything to get that edge.

Consider the night of October 22, 2000, the second game of the World Series at Yankee Stadium, Clemens versus Mike Piazza, who always hit him hard. Earlier that season, Clemens had beaned him right in the helmet. Unable to beat Piazza in a fair fight, the bully tried to intimidate. Piazza was blessed to have left the ballpark that day with only a concussion.

Now, months later, they met again in the Series. It's worth noting that Joe Torre opted to have Clemens pitch at Yankee Stadium rather than Shea, a National League park where he would've had to assume the position in the batter's box. Again, bullies must be protected.

This time, Clemens shattered Piazza's bat. Piazza began running toward first as the ball went foul. Meanwhile, Clemens in a full fury, picked up a sharp shard of wood and flung it toward Piazza.

There was a moment of stunned silence, as 56,059 people tried to comprehend what they had just seen. Maybe it was 'roid rage. Or maybe, the juice had put a man's true nature on display, the inner bully of Roger Clemens.



More On the Mark:

Judging from the reviews, Zeppelin actually got better with age.

So who knows, maybe Radomski and McNamee got gigs as roadies.

By the way, you think McNamee informed Andy and Roger about the dangers of sharing needles?

Also, I don't mind Victor Conte turning up everywhere as pious purveyor of performance enhancement. But the mustache has to go. Guy looks like Don Tattaglia the pimp.

...

NFLPA boss Gene Upshaw doesn't want his players being turned into "pin cushions" for human growth hormone testing.

And 10, 15 years from now, when his former union brothers are suffering from heart disease, diabetes and acromegaly, he'll be retired in Hawaii.

...

After Hatton-Mayweather I'm starting to think boxing can make some big gains against mixed martial arts.

I'm still not entirely comfortable with a sport where the big move is a "rear naked choke." Just a little too Oz for me.

Then again, I listened to all these boxing promoters talk about how the best would be fightin' the best in 2008. Two words I didn't hear, though: Miguel Cotto.

....

If NBC's American Gladiators doesn't get the writers back to work, nothing will.

...

Funny, ESPN's John Kruk had an awful lot to say about Jose Canseco, with whom he never played. But not much about his former teammate, Lenny Dykstra.

Don't want to stereotype major leaguers as being, well, not the brightest guys. But even the lowest crackhead in the street knows better than to buy his drugs by check or money order.
....

[Dr. Mercury]

Now, while it's interesting to note that 16 current and former Yankees are implicated, I believe the organization in second place (10-12) plays its home games in the PNW. That having been said, I'm enjoying some of the headlines this story is generating.

http://images.sportsbybrooks.com/6/5/6520c0130e76b878231b774d58fc1671_clemenstookitinth ebutt.jpg

[Detritus]

Now, while it's interesting to note that 16 current and former Yankees are implicated, I believe the organization in second place (10-12) plays its home games in the PNW. That having been said, I'm enjoying some of the headlines this story is generating.
That is a sweet headline.

[Dr. Mercury]

http://images.sportsbybrooks.com/7/9/7998a572a9644dea5c6dad3d6a6670ef_rogerclemensandyp ettitte.jpg