Mitchell Report Thread

Around 2pm today the Mitchell Report will be released. In it, it is rumored to recommend that there be greater transparency in the drug program, such as naming the drugs that players test positive for. Some players try to dodge responsibility for positive tests by saying they unwittingly took a tainted diet supplement. Certain drugs could not possibly have come from supplements, but because baseball doesn't name the substances it discovers, the press and public can't determine whether the player is telling the truth.
The sources would not reveal the names of players included in the report, but confirmed that as many as 80 are listed. One lawyer expected several "very, very high-level names" to be exposed
Both lawyers told ESPN that the report assigns blame for the rise of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball "from top to bottom," and recommends that MLB and the union agree to outsource their drug testing program to an independent agency.
Here is a Chicago Tribune article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/cs-071212report,1,5911950.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Of interest:
"In some cases there might not be enough of a paper trail [to justify a suspension]," one highly ranked MLB source said. "In some other cases, guys may not be disciplined because of when the violation occurred."
-- --
I figured this would be the big news of the day and might as well be the dumping ground for all the speculation and reaction to the upcoming report.
0 recs |
304 comments
|
Comments
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I missed the threads back when Byrd had been suspended for HGH. I really liked the Ken Rosenthal piece that basically said that even if Mitchell conducted this investigation with integrity, the question will still linger for the average fan if there was any conflict of interest seeing that he is on the Board of the Red Sox.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:40 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm not making a comment on which teams will come out worse than other, just saying the "report" has little credibility because it largely boils down to he said/she said bullshit.
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Furthermore, I'm just not pleased that many of these allegations concern HGH, whihc is clearly not in the same league as anabolic steroids, yet these players will get dragged through the mud just as hard as though who were really on "the juice."
It's just a crock. Why isn't somebody looking into football, or basketball for that matter. Is someone honestly going to sit there and look at me with a straight face and tell me that most NFL players are clean? I'd call bullshit on that ten times out of ten.
I'm not saying it's a biased report per se, but at best, it's usefulness is unclear. Are they going to retroactively suspend all of these guys?
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
"I did receive one tip on this topic - my guy says the Yankees are in for a bad day (but Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera are not in the report)."
So....
Giambi (obvious)
Clemens (obvious)
A-Rod?
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:42 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I know we've discussed this before, but who from our Tribe would people not be surprised to see on the list?
I'm pretty much expecting Pronk to be. Wouldn't be surprised if Peralta is. Would be devastated if Grady is.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I wouldn't be surprised by Pronk either, but I'll still be disappointed if he is.
I think Lofton's a decent bet, although not a current Indian.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Matt Williams already has said he took them.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 10:49 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
We are expecting a massive storm in Boston this afternoon - a foot of snow of snow. But the city will still be able to conduct its business. However, if Ortiz were on the list, the city would be in complete paralysis...
This report is going to be huge news.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
You know who will be sleeping a lot easier tonight, after seeing Roger Clemens on the list? ... Barry Bonds. What sweet "redemption" - if the "greatest home run hitter" can't make it into the Hall, then the "greatest pitcher" can't make it either.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
just watch.
by aclockworkowens on Dec 13, 2007 11:04 AM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
He isn't, obviously, the authority on all matters drug related, but for whatever reason, I sort of believe him.
by aclockworkowens on Dec 13, 2007 11:07 AM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by aclockworkowens on Dec 13, 2007 11:09 AM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Some ESPN writer - Olney, Stark, Gammons, I don't remember - a few years back wrote that Grady had been tested at least 3 times in the minors (where the testing program is apparently more stringent) and had passed the test every time.
God, that sounds so unsubstantiated.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 11:11 AM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 11:12 AM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Albert Belle
Matt Lawton
Paul Byrd
Guillermo Mota
Betancourt
Juan Gonzalez
Wil Cordero
Brady Anderson
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 11:16 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
The Lawton one would make a lot of sense.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Complete Mitchell List - Brady Anderson, Manny Alexander, Rick Ankiel, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Aaron Boone, Rafaeil Bettancourt, Bret Boone, Milton Bradley, David Bell, Dante Bichette, Albert Belle, Paul Byrd, Wil Cordero, Ken Caminiti, Mike Cameron, Ramon Castro, Jose and Ozzie Canseco, Roger Clemens, Paxton Crawford, Wilson Delgado, Lenny Dykstra, Johnny Damon, Carl Everett, Kyle Farnsoworth, Ryan Franklin, Troy Glaus, Rich Garces, Jason Grimsley, Troy Glaus, Juan Gonzalez, Eric Gagne, Nomar Garciaparra, Jason Giambi, JeremyGiambi, Jose Guillen, Jay Gibbons, Juan Gonzalez, Clay Hensley,Jerry Hairston, Felix Heredia, Jr., Darren Holmes, Wally Joyner, Darryl Kile, Matt Lawton,Jamie Lissette, Raul Mondesi, Mark McGwire, Guillermo Mota, Robert Machado, Damian Moss, Abraham Nunez, Trot Nixon, Jose Offerman, Andy Pettitte, Mark Prior, Neifi Perez, Rafael Palmiero, Albert Pujols, Brian Roberts, Juan Rincon, John Rocker, Pudge Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa, Scott Schoenweiis, David Segui, Alex Sanchez, Gary Sheffield, Miguel Tejada, Julian Tavarez,Fernando Tatis, Maurice Vaughn, Jason Varitek, Ismael Valdez, Matt Williams and Kerry Wood.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Pujols ... really?
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 11:25 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Bolded for WOW factor, if true.
And surprise, surprise, no current important Red Sox on the list, other than Varitek.
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
But Pujols is pretty surprising. That's not good for the odds of a "pure" threat to Bond's career HR mark.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by JulioBernazard on Dec 13, 2007 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I've said many a time, I believe at least half, if not three-fourths of the league are doing something on the side (and this includes our guys). Just cause someone passes a test doesn't mean jacksh**. There are plenty of masking agents, etc.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
MLB unilaterally pushed steroid testing into the minor leagues starting in 2001, and only players on a 40-man roster were exempt. Minor leaguers could work around the tests, of course, but minor leaguers have far less resources to draw upon in acquiring test-proof PED's than major leaguers. I believe it's apprpriate to presume innocence at least for anyone who was in the minors, off the 40-man, in 2001 or later, and that includes most of our current roster.
It does not include Pujols.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Had E simply said, "Turk, I would not be surprised if Pujols was using," it would be different. Saying Turk wasn't paying attention implies that there have been numerous accusations or public insinuations towards Pujols' PED usage. There haven't. Until there are, Pujols is clean in my book. That's my opinion, and I wouldn't jab the attention span of someone else for disagreeing with it. I would never want to treat my opinions as infallible. One might come off as a jerk when you do that.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
If you demand proof that something DOESN'T exist, you will, of course, never get it. It's not a tenable strategy to use.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm not demanding proof. I think one might reasonably suppose that Pujols used. I'm not saying he did, and I don't assume he did. But if someone else wants to suppose it, I think it's reasonable.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
He wrote: Any person suprised about Albert Pujols wasn't paying attention.
You wrote: Pujols is clean in my book.
These statements do not contradict. Edgar's statement was not necessarily based on public insinuations as you suppose. It may well have been based on observation of Pujols' body type and performance, which since the moment of his major league debut been far beyond anything ever projected for him as a minor leaguer.
You say he's clean in your "book" based on the lack of evidence. That's fair enough. But that doesn't mean you'd be surprised to find out he was using. Those are two different questions.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That's beyond poor.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 12:07 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
ok, so that link is burned, but here's a screencap.
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5049/mitchelllistub1.png
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
the original CNBC link, as I screencapped, had the list with the misspellings and duplications listed.
When I went to respond, the link said the page did not exist.
Go to it again, and the article is back, with the list now omitted, where it previously had been right near the top.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm just incredibly paranoid and cautious about avoiding the witch-hunt atmosphere already so wide-spread. To have some sort of authority attached to fake names is even worse.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by wooglin on Dec 13, 2007 11:34 AM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:44 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
It really is a lazy compilation, adding to the misspellings, incorrect alphabetized order, and duplications... however, if anything it's fun speculation until the actual presser.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm a little surprised that Justice and Strawberry aren't on the list.
I'm surprised that Belle is on it, after what I've heard--say it ain't so.
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 11:40 AM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I mean seriously, what legitimacy does Mitchell have? The testimony of a bunch of random guys who could just be trying to "out" people they don't like. There is no hard eveidence here, no failed test results.
And even if there were, so what? Anyone who thinks this doesn't go on in any professional sport is totally naive. But only baseball and these players are going to suffer by having their names dragged through the mud.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
So, that will be the true barometer during the fall out.
It will be interesting to see what ball players will attempt to sue MLB or the commision because of false allegations.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm not surprised by anyone on that list.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/13/steroid.report/index.html
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
A high-ranking MLB official said there are several errors in the list provided to WNBC.com by two sources. Original sources are standing by the preliminary list provided to WNBC.com. Therefore, we working to clarify the list at this time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.wnbc.com/sports/14845845/detail.html
So, that would indicate that the list is pretty accurate ... except for a few omissions.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by NickFantana on Dec 13, 2007 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
So there is a large part of me that feels morally obligated to defend people accused of crimes regardless of the evidence against them, especially when that accusation is dubious in some way. The Mitchell Report seems to me to be dubious in a lot of ways.
For example, how many people on that list are people we already knew about? I counted 13 on the list above that I think were people already outed, maybe I'm off. So this guy found out about 50-70? Why so few? Is the evidence simply not out there? Is the problem so less than we've been led to believe? Is this the result of some personal vendettas or some kind of witch hunt? A lot is going to have to be explained to me in how Senator Mitchell went about this investigation and how these names made it on the list and not others if we're not convinced this is an exhaustive list.
On the other hand, it's hard not to be excited and feel a bit of schaudenfreud. Maybe it's the obsession our culture seems to have with seeing the rich and powerful fall in some way, having some moral superiority to them. I don't do drugs, so I can feel better than them. Plus, they're not really accused of any crimes, in as much as no criminal charges have been brought on anyone and I'd be really surprised if any were (though I certainly give some credence to the thought that Barry Bonds is facing perjury charges not because he lied but because they couldn't get anything else to stick).
Sorry for a rambling post. Too much studying for finals has messed with my brain, maybe. Trying to fill time before noon.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I don't think the list was ever meant to be exhaustive. Without any way to force people to co-operate, Mitchell could only get access to so many sources, and, therefore, so many players. If his list isn't exhaustive, that doesn't the players named should get off any easier.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I just hope that this list helps everybody move on.
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 1:04 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Sorry if that's not news.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Orioles second baseman Brian Roberts also is in the report, as are seven-time Cy Young winner Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch, Mike Stanton and Jason Grimsley.
One or two other Yankees are expected to be named on the list as well.
Tejada spent the past four seasons with the Orioles and was acquired in trade by the Astros this week for five players.
ESPN.com first reported Clemens and Pettitte as being in the Mitchell Report.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/12/13/mitchell.news/?cnn=yes
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by wooglin on Dec 13, 2007 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by wooglin on Dec 13, 2007 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Tejada's value was low yesterday because, considering his contract, his actual value is low, whatever he's taking these days.
Replacing Everett with Tejada is a good way to provide a stern test for your pitching staff.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Bottom line, this may help us move past this ugly chapter in baseball history, and may allow Bud Selig to congratulate himself for having taken up against the evils of steroids, but what else does this do for us or for baseball? There will be multiple "listees" who've already been caught, countless retired players (who gives a shit about them?), and probably 90% of the active players will have no proof-positive evidence against them. Sweet.
Finally, sorry for the ramble, the PED community in baseball has moved so far beyond steroids that this is like publishing a list of people did coke in the '80s. If you test positive for steroids now, you're just an idiot. If baseball wants to knock my socks off, keep the lists to a minimum, but tell me about a newly negotiated comprehensive testing program to root out cheating througout the game.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Rich "El Guapo" Garces made the list, and although the 'roids didn't help him out all that much beyond making him really really fat, he still provided the game with a great nickname.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I apologize to all Rich Garces fans out there - be assured that I am as relieved as you are.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
ESPN just showed Jose Canseco posing with fans while going into the Mitchell Report Press Conference. What a circus.
I'm almost hoping Roger Clemens' name isn't on the list at this point, just so he sues ESPN into oblivion.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Is that wrong? Am I being a jerk?
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 1:52 PM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
i keed, i keed... i'd like to see Beckett on there as well.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 1:57 PM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
The result is Cleveland sports history.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 13, 2007 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
good stuff appears to begin on page 176 of the pdf file, although i bet a majority of it will make good bathroom reading at the office for the next 70 days or so.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That negates one of Borowski's blown saves.
PUT UP THE ASTERISK!
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
and Fernando Vina? Must have really felt the pain from that run-in with Joey.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
In October 2001, officers with the Canadian Border Service discovered steroids, syringes, and other drugs in an unmarked bag that came from the entourage of a Cleveland Indians outfielder
Who could that be? Any guesses.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 2:23 PM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
According to the notes of an internal discussion among Los Angeles Dodgers
'Steroids aren't being used anymore on him. Big part of this.
officials in October 2003 that were referred to above, it was reportedly said of Lo Duca during
the meetings:
Might have some value to trade . . . Florida might have interest.
. . . Got off the steroids . . . Took away a lot of hard line drives.
. . . Can get comparable value back would consider trading. . . . If
you do trade him, will get back on the stuff and try to show you he can have a good year. That's his makeup. Comes to play. Last
year of contract, playing for 05.'
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 2:26 PM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:48 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Paul Lo Duca writing:
I haven't been able to call you back because my phone is TOAST!
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Oh, and, by the way.....F the Red Sox
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by FranklinScott on Dec 13, 2007 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Yeah, I don't think I'm learning the less Senator Mitchell intended.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Bahahahaha.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Bahahahaha.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Marvin Benard
Barry Bonds
Bobby Estalella
Jason Giambi
Jeremy Giambi
Benito Santiago
Gary Sheffield
Randy Velarde
Lenny Dykstra
David Segui
Larry Bigbie
Brian Roberts
Jack Cust
Tim Laker
Josias Manzanillo
Todd Hundley
Mark Carreon
Hal Morris
Matt Franco
Rondell White
Roger Clemens
Chuck Knoblauch
Jason Grimsley
Gregg Zaun
David Justice
F.P. Santangelo
Glenallen Hill
Mo Vaughn
Denny Neagle
Ron Villone
Ryan Franklin
Chris Donnels
Todd Williams
Phil Hiatt
Todd Pratt
Kevin Young
Mike Lansing
Cody McKay
Kent Mercker
Adam Piatt
Miguel Tejada
Jason Christiansen
Mike Stanton
Stephen Randolph
Jerry Hairston, Jr.
Paul Lo Duca
Adam Riggs
Bart Miadich
Fernando Vina
Kevin Brown
Eric Gagné
Mike Bell
Matt Herges
Gary Bennett, Jr.
Jim Parque
Brendan Donnelly
Chad Allen
Jeff Williams
Howie Clark
Nook Logan
Rick Ankiel
David Bell
Paul Byrd
Jose Canseco
Jay Gibbons
Troy Glaus
Jason Grimsley
Jose Guillen
Jerry Hairston, Jr.
Darren Holmes
Gary Matthews, Jr.
John Rocker
Scott Schoeneweis
Ismael Valdez
Matt Williams
Steve Woodard
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
David Segui
Tim Laker
Jason Grimsley
David Justice
Glenallen Hill
Kent Mercker
Ron Villone
Steve Woodard
John Rocker
Paul Byrd
David Bell
Jim Parque
Mike Lansing
Am I missing anyone?...Not exactly the cream of the crop.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm just saying this as, I'm pretty sure, it says Tim Laker got his last shipment in 1999, which is pre-Indians.
At any rate, I don't think it's really useful to divide guys up by club. It's interesting but not useful. A team, or it's fans, would be insane to try to claim "We're the clean team in MLB! Look at how dirty team X is!"
This is about the individuals. Not the clubs.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 2:38 PM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
How pointless.
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
This whole exercise is bullshit. Who cares about a list, especially in the absence of testing to back it up (checks? give me a break)?
Selig's response should be, if nothing else, entertaining.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 13, 2007 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
People only suspected steroid abuse from guys like McGwire, Canseco and Bonds. Guys that hit massive amounts of homers. Not guys like Ken Caminetti, Andy Pettite or Tim Laker.
Did you look at Steve Woodard and say, "Yep, there's a juicer"?
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
To say people only suspected McGwire and Sosa is really underselling it, to my mind. Seeing guys like Clemens and Gagne do the stuff they did on the mound certainly raised questions in my eyes. And Ken Caminiti was one of the originals to be suspected.
Steve Woodard, you win that one. I don't think many looked at him convinced he was juicing. But there are 2 dozen Woodard's that hit .328 for the month of June out of nowhere and drew some skepticism. That is the fruit of the steroids era.
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 13, 2007 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
It wasn't until Canseco's book and then stories like Ken Caminetti where people began to see the truth.
Don't you recall in the late 90's when the HR's began to jump up, who was the first suspect?
The ball.
For years, people were analyzing the balls. Cutting them open .. investigating past baseballs .. trying to figure out why so many different people were hitting homeruns.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I hear you on the casual public part, too, and yet I'd still argue that in no way does this report/list tell anyone anything that they hadn't already had reason enough to believe. Again, it provides, largely, hearsay and circumstantial evidence, upon which no disciplinary decisions will be based.
Take, for example, the 2002 labor negotiations in which mandatory steroid testing was (at long last) implemented for big leaguers. That was 5 years ago! Clearly, at that time, there was some degree of recognition by baseball, and a big deal was made out of it in the mainstream media, that steroids were creating an image problem. We needed 5 years and a weak-ass list of 80 players to corroborate that?
I'd submit to you that those '02 negotiations were baseball's first, albeit implicit and not clearly stated, admission that there was a problem with substance abuse in the league. I totally hear what you guys are saying, I just am still stuck on trying to figure out what benefit this exercise bears.
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 13, 2007 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Before they can clean things up, they have to acknowledge there is a problem and more importantly, pressure the players and teams to take the necessary steps to clean it up.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I think what it shows .. is that there is GREAT abuse among players that have been in the league for a few years and are looking to prolong their careers.
Maybe that's where the MLB needs to refocus their testing policy. Not only on the minor leaguers coming up ... but also the guys on the backside of their careers still holding on.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I think it's a shame that this remains in the public eye, b/c baseball, as you say, should be focused on taking its testing policies even further, not on outing people who may or may not have used in the past. This is just deferring attention and resources, in my mind, from finding ways to test for HGH and negotiating w/ the union as to how that test may be administered (as an example).
You are 100% right in saying that MLB needs to refocus the testing, and that focus should have nothing to do with who bought banned substances in 1998.
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 13, 2007 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
When the Boston Red Sox were considering acquiring Gagné, a Red Sox official
made specific inquiries about Gagné's possible use of steroids. In a November 1, 2006 email to
a Red Sox scout, general manager Theo Epstein asked, "Have you done any digging on Gagne?
I know the Dodgers think he was a steroid guy. Maybe so. What do you hear on his
medical?" The scout, Mark Delpiano, responded,Some digging on Gagne and steroids IS the issue. Has had a
checkered medical past throughout career including minor leagues.
Lacks the poise and commitment to stay healthy, maintain body
and re invent self. What made him a tenacious closer was the max
effort plus stuff . . . Mentality without the plus weapons and
without steroid help probably creates a large risk in bounce back
durability and ability to throw average while allowing the changeup
to play as it once did . . . Personally, durability (or lack of) will
follow Gagne . . .
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Boston fans have even more to lament in the loss of talent in that trade. Epstein and Co knew what they could be getting. That scout really deserves a promotion.
I almost feel sorry for Red Sox Nation.
Oh, yeah, I don't feel sorry for them at all.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by JulioBernazard on Dec 14, 2007 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I think the big story from this report is not who did PEDs, but really how uncooperative the players and the player's union has been in the course of investigation. I understand why they (the Union) would do so, although I'm not certain that it is in the best interest of the players to do so. This leads to the big flaw in the report; that a lot of the information is based on links to a handful of guys (and the testimony of even fewer). David Segui seems like a pretty central figure.
The other key information from the list to me is how many really marginal players are mentioned here. This, I think, makes sense. Although there are some exceptional players (Clemens, Bonds) who are mentioned, the guys with real strong incentive to use are the borderline guys who need everything to hang on.
by dave on Dec 13, 2007 3:02 PM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
No, I don't wish it on those guys, but the fact that the United States Government can't nail down any of these current guys indicates just how bad the situation is. I'm not motivated to say that a particular player must be on it, but c'mon people. Some of them are. Probably many of them are. And a year long report conducted by the highest body in the US, with all the resources in the world, can't turn up one outside of those already outed by the Media (Bonds)?
This, to me, makes the report less effective than it could be. It shows me these players can still hide from literally anyone and that's troubling.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Point still taken.
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 13, 2007 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 3:12 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Isn't it worrisome that the report doesn't name a single player that makes money for MLB year to year and was not already under intense scrutiny? I think it's pretty concerning that an organization investigates itself, the media drums up all this "Baseball changes forever today" nonsense, and then, lo and behold, baseball does not change forever; we get a list of 80 names or whatever that no one really cares about or is surprised by.
Is it unlikely that Mitchell, a guy who loves baseball, got a sniff of Ortiz, Pujols, Sizemore, any of those guys and maybe didn't run it down as hard as he could have?
It's becoming my opinion, as I write this, that they really shouldn't have chosen a guy who is so involved in baseball, both as a fan and administrator. Picking some old guy who grew up reading the essays of Ring Lardener and George Will in the New Yorker, listening to the Brookyln Dodgers on the radio, all that bullshit, seems like a monumentally dumb decision. Sure you can argue that it takes someone who really loves it to clean it up but that's, frankly, silly.
You don't want someone who loves it. You want someone who doesn't know anything about it, is super straight laced, works incredibly hard, and cares only about results.
Instead, I've learned that Marvin Bernard was juicin'. Great.
And, as a tack on, isn't the list of players, nearly all 5-10 years out of the limelight, a great metaphor for baseball and steroids? 5-10 years behind the curve?
I guessin 2017 we can all finally find out that one of the 2007 All-Stars was on PEDs. But, hey, I'll be way more interested in the Tribe trying to trade for a pitcher who was an All-Star in 2016.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 4:01 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
The style of the commission was along the lines of the internal investigations performed by large firms all the time. It typically happens when there is suspicion of either (1) securities violations (i.e. publicly made misrepresentations as to a company's value or profitability that artifically affect stock price) or (2) corporate governance violations (e.g. a board member's or corporate officer's violation of the duty of loyalty to the company). In such an event, the board appoints a subcommittee of "disinterested directors" (those without financial interest in or fiduciary ties to the disputed matter) who then hire a lawfirm to conduct an internal investigation into the matter.
Whereas securities laws and the state bar code of professional conduct may act, in the business context, to keep the investigation from being a snow job, you are right that there are no real checks here on the thoroughness and accuracy of the report aside from the personal integrity of Senator Mitchell and his firm.
It is not clear to me what the objectives of commissioning this report were, nor what result the client, Selig, expects.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Also! Pedroia is a douche and a cheater according the Brick Report.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Luis (Tribe Fan in London) on Dec 14, 2007 4:10 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
No Pujols, no A Rod (glad to hear it), no real Indians to speak of. Juan Gon's in there, and a couple of guys we had in passing (Justice and Matt Williams), and Tim Laker. Plus Paul Byrd, but there's nothing about him we didn't already know.
But this list is about as comprehensive as a John Kruk - Steve Phillips debate over who deserves the Cy Young, so... yeah. Kinda a waste of time, but for the Pettite and Clemens stuff.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Royals: Byrd, Benito Santiago, Hal Morris, Rondell White, Chuck Knobloch, Jason Grimsley, Greg Zaun, Phil Hiatt, Kevin Young
by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 3:53 PM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Would people be happier if it was just a full-on witch hunt that dredged up every hated rival, a-hole, or suspected user? As far as players listed, there are a few limited sources to go on and I would agree that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
The purpose of listing players is to provide full disclosure of what was found during the investigation and show documented evidence that all kinds of players (be it Cy Young winners or bench warmers) were involved in this.
Mitchell made it very clear during his press conference that he did not want fans and the press to focus on the players listed; the purpose of the report is to provide recommendations on how to implement an effective drug plan. I've heard little to no commentary on the actual drug plan being proposed by either the media or the fans.
Mitchell also strongly stated that he is against the Commissioner pursuing past PED users if there were no enforceable rules/consequences at the time of the infraction (unless the infraction is judged so severe that something should be done). Technically, no employer can punish their employees for breaking a rule if that rule had yet to exist; the same goes for baseball.
I think taking Mitchell's recommendation of a "fresh start" would be in baseball's best interests and would be the most productive way to react to the evidence (like names/users) presented today. I have not had a chance to read the entire report yet, but I liked what I heard during the press conference about the new drug policy and how strict it will be.
Just my opinion on the situation as it stands. I'll get off the soapbox now.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by mkwng on Dec 13, 2007 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
My biggest beef, though, is that in spite of Mitchell's admonitions and directives, the purpose and (limited) value of this report is completely and utterly obscured by the list of individual players.
I'm with you, I DON'T want every rock overturned and leaf turned up to be inspected. I would much rather have heard, "we did an exhaustive search, we turned up rampant abuse among all levels of baseball stars, and we're moving forward to fix it." Clearly, that's a starry-eyed view of things, and, ESPN, in their infinite wisdom, would have managed to find a way to leak a shoddy list, but I would much rather have left players who will not be disciplined out of the discussion and focused on the remedy.
by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 13, 2007 6:04 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
See this CNN link.
As more and more internet/illicet suppliers go down, even more names will come out. Too bad most of them will be after the fact.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
If you choose to care about the effect of PEDs on baseball, then the last 20 years is (or already has been) retroactively ruined. If you choose not to care for whatever reason, continue to enjoy. I fall into the latter category.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
But, it doesn't diminish the significance of it's recommendations and how it will aide them into implementation.
-- --
"the last 20 years is retroactively ruined"
Now that's an interesting point, because the report shows that substance abuse was so pervasive .. so widespread .. that almost everyone WAS on a level playing field during this era. The pitchers .. the batters .. young and old all were users and all teams benefitted from their output.
But baseball has ALWAYS had conditions which led to statistically skewed era's. From the banning of black players, to WWII, to the "dead ball era" to the pitcher dominated 60's. Baseball has always had skewed stats and records because of these conditions.
But there is no doubt that this era has ruined baseball was with it's legacy, its history and the significance of cherished records. Those are forever ruined by this era and cannot be turned back.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
The pitching record from the dead ball era are far less likely to ever be challenged than the new HR records. Does that mean they are tainted because of the era they came from?
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by ken from alexandria on Dec 14, 2007 11:15 AM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Freaking Gange, he pretty much has robbed a bank at this point. He's stolen himslef quite a living - allegedly, of course.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
They can never take that walk-off Grand Slam away from you, Bill.

Chris Magruder Sighting!
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
:(
I'm still stuck in the first stage of grieving.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
But the findings of this report hit front pages across the nation, and those Americans who would rather attend a ballet than a ball game now recognize the sorry state of the sport.
Can one read the Mitchell report without feeling absolute contempt for Selig and Fehr? Remember the commish beaming from the box seats as Sosa and McGwire flexed their muscles and embraced each other in user brotherhood.
The game is beautiful. The organizations that dominate the direction of the major leagues are not.
For baseball to merit recognition as our national pastime, it must stand for an American value: equality of opportunity. The shame of the all-white decades was that baseball denied equal opportunity to black men. The shame of the steroid era is that baseball denied equal opportunity to those suckers who fell for the anti-drug preachings of cynical Selig, Fehr, et al.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
by JulioBernazard on Dec 14, 2007 1:01 PM EST up reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That is just a thought. Also! I used a ton of quotation marks for that paragraph.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
There is still a long way to go, and I wish there was a better leader in place to take the game to a better place.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I dunno. Politics?
by ken from alexandria on Dec 14, 2007 2:04 PM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
http://letsgotribe.com/comments/2007/12/13/84916/533/65#65
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 14, 2007 2:40 PM EST reply actions
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Baerga, Thome, Vizquel, Belle, Ramirez, Lofton, Alomar, Sorrento, Franco, Fryman, Diaz.
Hershiser, Nagy, Ogea, Assenmacher, Plunk, Shuey, Mesa, Colon, Wright, Burba.
Blake, Hafner, Martinez, Peralta, Sizemore, Sabathia, Westbrook, Lee.
That's 29 guys, every one of those whom had (or is having) a more substantial career on the Indians than Justice, Byrd, or anyone else named. Add to that a few other significant products of our farm system:
Casey, Giles, Sexson, Broussard, Branyan, MacDonald, Gerut, Crisp, Phillips, Bard.
Don't get me wrong, I was a big Justice fan, and I like Byrd. But if you had to rank the top 20 or 25 most significant Indians of the steroids era, pretty clearly neither Justice nor Byrd would make the list. And other than those two, nobody else named was even a starter for the Indians for more than one season.
If anything, the Indians come out looking like one of the cleaner organizations. That may not actually be the case, but that's how this report makes it look.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I have to think it's just a random sampling of literally hundreds of players that could've been named.
Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Which ones? I have no idea. But based on the Canseco % (70 - and he's been fairly accurate so far), even more probably were involved.
Until another online pharmacy is busted, or some other "dentists" are discovered, we may never know. But I won't be shocked if all of them are named someday. That is how jaded I am to these types of stories.

by 



















