Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Off Tackle Empire interviews Rich Rodriguez

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  |  Comment 304 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm personally rooting for one name and one name only:

David Ortiz

by NickFantana on Dec 13, 2007 9:08 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Haha! I actually said the same thing this morning.

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.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 9:17 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Only one way to solve that quandary.  THROW ORTIZ UNDER THE BUS!

by NickFantana on Dec 13, 2007 9:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Lawz yes.
Will children still wake up early to eagerly check the sports page to see who is leading the league in holds?

by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
How many Red Sox players do we expect?  I'm guessing not many given Mitchell's ties to the team.

by dvd1204 on Dec 13, 2007 10:16 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
The Red Sox beat us fair and square, when is the ridiculous hatred for them going to stop.  Just sad that some people hate on them because they were a better team.  Grow up people!
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 1:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
No one's talking about the World Series here, E5, just lamenting the fact that this "report" has little legitimacy due in part to, among many other things, Mitchell's presence on the board of the Red Sox.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Thats why Trot Nixon is on the list?
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Big deal. And besides, I'm not saying he won't name any Red Sox players, I'm just saying that his position is dubious at best.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
The Indians certainly are not coming out smelling like a rose on this one.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
No one will. And for the most part, the teams don't have much to do with it.

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.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:39 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Maybe you should read it instead of saying that.  Mitchell did get a fair amount of REAL evidence on this.  Also plenty of Red Sox players on this list and to say that he shielded them in any way is unfair and bias.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I've read probably as much as you have by this point... I still see nothing earth shattering, and nothing there to convince that this report was nothing more than a dog and pony show, and a colossal waste of time.

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?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Where is Trot Nixon's name on the list?  I've looked and I don't see it, so can you please direct me to where it is located?
Will children still wake up early to eagerly check the sports page to see who is leading the league in holds?

by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
that MLBTR dude says:

"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?

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 9:46 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Jason Stark reporting that Clemens is on the list, both having taken PEDs before and during his time with the Yankees.

by Ryan on Dec 13, 2007 10:03 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Surprised? No he is one of the biggest cheaters of all time.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 1:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Percentage of Boone brothers listed... 50%?
You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 10:17 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
CROSSES FINGERS

Pedroia. Dustin P.E.D.roia.

by gte619n on Dec 13, 2007 10:22 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Grow up.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 1:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Humor.  Not a performance enhancing drug.

by APV on Dec 13, 2007 2:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Humor: It's often lost on the ultra-serious.
Will children still wake up early to eagerly check the sports page to see who is leading the league in holds?

by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I think this is gonna be huge. Even if they can't prove andy of the players on the list did PEDs, a lot of guys previously looked up to are going to have tarnished images for the rest of their carreer come 2:00.

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.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 10:33 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Betancourt will likely be on there, in my opinion.

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.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 10:39 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I expect some of the guys from the 90s teams; Thome, Belle (maybe).

Matt Williams already has said he took them.

Walt

by curly1229 on Dec 13, 2007 10:39 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Yeah, the '90's teams were probably full of roiders. Belle, Thome, Mesa, even Baerga wouldn't surprise me.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 10:49 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I've resigned myself to expecting Pronk to be on the list.  Jhonny, too.  But Grady???  Say it can't be!  It can never be!!!

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.  

by Spidey on Dec 13, 2007 11:04 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
wasn't Alex Rios tied to some doctor or company at some point?  Where the heck did I see/hear that?  Maybe I dreamt it, I don't know - anyone else remember that?

by Brick. on Dec 13, 2007 10:38 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
my shock about clemens on a scale of 1-10.  2. And that's only becuase I figured he'd find a way to luck out of getting named.

by Brick. on Dec 13, 2007 10:46 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I am soooo hoping that the names start with Clemens and Schilling. Sooooooo HOPING!!!!!!

by talonk on Dec 13, 2007 10:46 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Thanks for starting this thread.  I've been eager to start following it.  60-80 current and former players will be named?  That doesn't sound like a lot.

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.

by Spidey on Dec 13, 2007 10:59 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
i've said it once, I'll say it again; Johnny Damon.

just watch.

by aclockworkowens on Dec 13, 2007 11:04 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
In regards to Albert Belle, Jose Canseco suggested he was one of the few big sluggers not juicing.

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
What'd we think about Frank Thomas?

by gte619n on Dec 13, 2007 11:08 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
The man has always seemed a natural to me.  I bet he's clean.

by aclockworkowens on Dec 13, 2007 11:09 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
For the record, about Grady. And no, I don't have a link.

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.

Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 11:11 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Cliff Lee!
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 11:12 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Unnamed source gave me the following former or current Indians:

Albert Belle
Matt Lawton
Paul Byrd
Guillermo Mota
Betancourt
Juan Gonzalez
Wil Cordero
Brady Anderson

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 11:12 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Forgot Jason Grimsley and did David Bell ever play for the Tribe?

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 11:16 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
This guy! No way!
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 11:16 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I can't believe I have no recollection of him playing for us.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:30 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
One of the biggest stool pigeons was a Mets personnel. So, I would not be shocked to see names like Alomar and Lawton on there.

The Lawton one would make a lot of sense.

by Toxicadam on Dec 13, 2007 11:19 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Most of the names will be from players who played in the '90s, right? Many of the current Indians weren't major leaguers before peds were tested for.

by FranklinScott on Dec 13, 2007 11:18 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
and now a leak of the whole list:

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.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 11:20 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm so happy Pudge is on that list. I hate him so much.

Pujols ... really?

Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 11:25 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
how solid is this?
You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 11:26 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Honestly not sure. I was forwarded half the list from one person and then the entire list from a completely unrelated source and they coincided.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 11:30 AM EST up reply actions  

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.

Bolded for WOW factor, if true.

And surprise, surprise, no current important Red Sox on the list, other than Varitek.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:29 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Nomar I expected. Gagne was actually surprising for me

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 11:33 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Honestly, I had Garciaparra pegged as a sleeper.

But Pujols is pretty surprising.  That's not good for the odds of a "pure" threat to Bond's career HR mark.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 11:33 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Any person suprised about Albert Pujols wasn't paying attention.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 1:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Why should he?  There's no reason to think this "real list" includes even 20% of the PED users of the past decade.

by Jay on Dec 14, 2007 3:59 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
So what's your evidence Pujols is one of the missing names?

by Voltaire on Dec 14, 2007 4:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
And we can ping-pong this back and forth. Where's the evidence that he hasn't?

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.

by talonk on Dec 14, 2007 5:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I agree that overall, use has been totally rampant.  That said, younger players (including most of our roster) are far less likely to have been significant PED users than older players.  For one thing, older players are far more likely to need it, or to be in a situation (like trouble recovering from injuries) to resort to trying it.

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.

by Jay on Dec 14, 2007 7:38 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Any person suprised about Albert Pujols wasn't paying attention.

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.

by nickjs21 on Dec 14, 2007 8:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Excellent post.

If you demand proof that something DOESN'T exist, you will, of course, never get it. It's not a tenable strategy to use.

by Voltaire on Dec 14, 2007 9:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
When did anyone demand proof, other than your demanding it of me?

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.

by Jay on Dec 15, 2007 12:30 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Just to clarify, one of the reasons I think it's a reasonable supposition is my belief that PED use was (and possibly is) quite widespread and well over 50% of all players, if the question is "did you ever take anything at least once."  So as far as I'm concerned, the standard for reasonable supposition is pretty low.

by Jay on Dec 15, 2007 12:31 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Nope.

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.

by Jay on Dec 15, 2007 12:27 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Where's Ortiz?  I don't see him.

by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 11:30 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That's why I think this list is BS. No way that guy hasn't been juicing.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:42 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
CNBC is listing a number of the names right now that are on this list. Basically the same thing

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 11:43 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
If the Internets say it and the TV corroborates, then it must be true!
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:45 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
So blogs and the internet are ruining the real media, according to Screamin' A. Smith, but CNBC is going to publish the list complete with misspellings and duplications?  And not even mention that the list has not been confirmed?

That's beyond poor.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 12:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Just another sad commentary on the sensationalist mainstream media.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 12:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
CNBC spelled the names that it had read correctly on air. It only mentioned about 10 highlighting the big names.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 12:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Hear me out.

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.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 12:26 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Wow, that is poor journalism if they published a faulty list.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
No Greg Vaughn, Larry Walker, Jeff Kent (?)...

by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 11:46 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm honestly really surprised about no Pronk, either.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 12:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Wait for the real list, I'd suggest.

by Voltaire on Dec 13, 2007 12:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Didn't you know? Red Sox don't juice!

by crazymoloh on Dec 13, 2007 12:56 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I think you're right about this. I would apoligize for posting a fake list, but it made for interesting speculation.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 1:00 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I agree that it did make for some fun times.

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.

by Voltaire on Dec 13, 2007 1:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Right. The fact that this list was published on wnbc.com and reported on air by CNBC is rather discomforting.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 1:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Even the MLBTraderumors guy is unwilling to pass along this list.  Apparently its sourcing is very dubious.

by APV on Dec 13, 2007 11:35 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Yea, I would take it with a grain of salt for now. I was  basically forwarded two emails with this list.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 11:38 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
So does Kile get suspended, or no?
You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 11:27 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That's seriously F'ed up.
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 11:28 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Biggest Surprise: Neifi Perez? What? REALLY?

by gte619n on Dec 13, 2007 11:29 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Glaus and Juan Gonzalez did so many steriods they got listed twice?

by wooglin on Dec 13, 2007 11:34 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Pujols is the biggest surprise for me. I thought he would've been tested in the minors? Did he come up just before they started testing?

by gte619n on Dec 13, 2007 11:34 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Because he doesn't use, come off it because you are embarrassing yourself.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I disagree,, I think you are embarrassing yourself because you can't take a joke, and he's your man crush apparently.

by hans on Dec 14, 2007 2:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Hehehehehe
Will children still wake up early to eagerly check the sports page to see who is leading the league in holds?

by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
And how did Betancourt's name get butchered so badly?
You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 11:35 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Yeah, and the names aren't in correct alphebetical order, though the list is made to look like it is. Looks to me like some kid from the internets made it.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:47 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Adding, why are Jose and Ozzie listed as a brother tandem, but Bret & Aaron and Jason & Jeremy get individual treatment?

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.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 11:53 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Caminiti & Kile.  Take notice athletes.

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
Is it just me, or is there something inherently sordid about all of this? Like we're all so happy to see certain players on the list.

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.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:44 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Well, in my initial post, an MLB source says that there is hard physical evidence in some case and those cases will result in suspensions.

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.

by Toxicadam on Dec 13, 2007 12:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I am a little shocked Paxton Crawford was on there.  Say it ain't so.

I'm not surprised by anyone on that list.  

by Brick. on Dec 13, 2007 11:47 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Not ever CHRISTOPHER TROT NIXON?!
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 11:48 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
the growth of grit can be accelerated by some PED's, so i was always skeptical about him. he just had too much.

by Brick. on Dec 13, 2007 11:50 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
All his connective tissue injuries certainly fit.  Trot was gritty enough to shoot himself up in a dirty bathroom stall.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
David Segui spends half a year with the Indians and he's the front-page picture on CNN's story about the Mitchell report... in full Indians gear.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/13/steroid.report/index.html

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 12:05 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Yeah, that's pretty lame.

by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 12:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Yeah. God forbid the media sullies the good name of Baltimore. I mean, no one like Cleveland, right? Their river's always on fire or some s%$#.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 12:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
c'mon take it out on Montreal... that place doesn't even exist anymore!

by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 12:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Seriously. Or Seattle. They have the money to revive their city after it's been dragged through the mud.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Where is Placido Polanco?  That melon didn't come out the womb looking like that...

by Bernie19Kosar on Dec 13, 2007 12:08 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Newschannel 4's Jonathan Dienst has obtained names of baseball players expected to be on George Mitchell's list of players linked to performance enhancing drugs in major league baseball. Baseball officials are refuting several names on the list.

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.

by Toxicadam on Dec 13, 2007 12:16 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I agree the misspellings from the other list make it a bit suspicious. I think it is pathetic if CNBC reported these names and just took it directly from an incorrect internet list.

by Roger Dorn on Dec 13, 2007 12:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Yeah, even if the names are 100% accurate, it is shoddy and irresponsible journalism to publish that. Completely reprehensible.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 12:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Many more names, so little time.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm not believing anything is Mitchell's list until he reveals it himself.

by Voltaire on Dec 13, 2007 12:24 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I just want to remind everyone that there are natural sluggers in every generation. We had too many of them, sure, but some guys were clean.

by Voltaire on Dec 13, 2007 12:31 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm feeling pretty conflicted this morning.  Full disclosure, I plan on working as a public defender when I graduate in from school in May.  

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.

by CU Adam on Dec 13, 2007 12:40 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
It's not rambling at all; a good balance, actually.

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.

by Voltaire on Dec 13, 2007 12:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
It does seem quite a bit like a show trial; a cross-section of the cohort of users.  

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
ESPN is reporting both Clemens and Pettitte on the list.

Sorry if that's not news.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 1:07 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Number one reason I think that leaked list is BS: Neifi Perez got suspended for amphetamines, not steroids, and this list is ONLY naming steroid users, so.. why's he there?

by zempf on Dec 13, 2007 1:09 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That, the misspellings, the duplications, the lack of a reputable source...

by Voltaire on Dec 13, 2007 1:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That too. I imagine a bunch of teenage boys sitting around somewhere going "Holy shit, I can't believe they're publishing that list everywhere."

by zempf on Dec 13, 2007 1:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Former American League MVP Miguel Tejada is mentioned in the Mitchell Report, due to be released by 2 p.m. on Thursday afternoon, SI.com has learned.

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

by Toxicadam on Dec 13, 2007 1:13 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I wonder if the Astros can back out of their trade now?

by Toxicadam on Dec 13, 2007 1:14 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Maybe that's why they gave up only crap prospects.

by crazymoloh on Dec 13, 2007 1:16 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
On what grounds exactly?

by wooglin on Dec 13, 2007 1:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Well, if a player's value is measured by his previous performance .. and that performance was aided by proven use of performance-enhancing drugs ... wouldn't that make his value inflated?

by Toxicadam on Dec 13, 2007 1:28 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Well that may well be true, but that doesn't mean the O's are culpable. Unless perhaps they had knowledge they withheld to get the deal done there are no grounds to reverse the trade. Besides, Tejada's possible link to steroid use was public knowledge. If this was news to Houston then their lack of due diligence is to blame, not the O's.

by wooglin on Dec 13, 2007 1:40 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
O's, 'Stros and every other team surely had this list prior to today. I'm assumng they also had a good feel for which players would draw suspensions from MLB. Even a casual fan would have figured that Tejada would make the list.

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.

by Rochester on Dec 13, 2007 1:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Story's updated to add Brian Roberts and David Justice to that list now, too.

by zempf on Dec 13, 2007 1:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
You know one fan base that's going to be delighted today? - The Giants'

by crazymoloh on Dec 13, 2007 1:18 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
With respect to the (real) list: So what?  Unless there's concrete evidence on these guys that can lead to suspensions and actual punitive action against them, what difference does it make?  Roger Clemens is already done preparing his statement to the press, which reads: I've never tested positive for anything and have been tested ### times in my career. /end of statement

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.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 13, 2007 1:26 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I agree to a large extent.  Part of what makes it feel so sketchy to me.

by CU Adam on Dec 13, 2007 1:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Full disclosure: I'm getting juiced up for the release of this report.

by APV on Dec 13, 2007 1:31 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'll be full of rage if Sizemore is on the list.

by CU Adam on Dec 13, 2007 1:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Fine time for my girlfriend to want to go shopping...ah well. I can read it later. It's not like a playoff game or anything.

by Voltaire on Dec 13, 2007 1:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Well, it is clear that Sen. Mitchell was unbiased in regards to reporting on Red Sox players.

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.

by steincat on Dec 13, 2007 1:33 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I retract this statement - turns out Garces is not named in the report and his abilities were purely natural and due to his genetic heft.

I apologize to all Rich Garces fans out there - be assured that I am as relieved as you are.

by steincat on Dec 13, 2007 3:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I had a Rich Garces t-shirt jersey that just said "El Guapo" on the back. It's the only piece of Red Sox memorabilia I've ever owned and it was awesome.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 3:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
HAHAHAHA!

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.

by CU Adam on Dec 13, 2007 1:47 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm in a little suspense here... there's a starting pitcher with a last name begining in "B" who pitches in a city beginning with "B" whom I'd like to see get burned.

Is that wrong?  Am I being a jerk?

by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 1:52 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
What the heck has Bedard done to you?

i keed, i keed... i'd like to see Beckett on there as well.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 1:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I kinda wish this was like a draft. We could go from most obvious (Bret Boone, Brady Anderson) to the MVPs etc that are surprising (Pujols).
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 1:57 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
One player buried deep in the report is shortstop Duane Kuiper, who used the stuff just once -- Monday, August 29, 1977, a home game against Chicago -- under pressure from teammates, family, and friends.

The result is Cleveland sports history.

by ploni on Dec 13, 2007 1:58 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Along the same lines.  How about Jason Tyner?

by CBusSteve on Dec 13, 2007 2:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
George Mitchell gave the commencement address my junior year of college.  It was the worst commencement speech I have ever heard.  In its entirety it lasted about 5 minutes and culminated with a plumbing metaphor.  All of which is to say my expectations for this are low.

by APV on Dec 13, 2007 2:02 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
what are you talking about? that sounds like a great speech... better than the 30+ min snoozer I had to endure.

by tyler083 on Dec 13, 2007 2:06 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Was just about to post that... reading through it now.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
thanks for the link.

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.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 2:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Before or after he pitched in that White Sox game I saw him in?
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 2:10 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Page 95, or 143 of the PDF discusses the Cleveland Indians and Canadian border agents discovering Juan Gonzalez's steroids.

by CU Adam on Dec 13, 2007 2:11 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Looking through some of the names, a lot of these guys have passed through Cleveland.  But then again, the two groups of players who have most often been implicated with steroids are players coming back from injuries and minor leaguers on the cusp.  Both are types of players the Indians have targeted over the years as potential bargains....just thinking out loud....

by APV on Dec 13, 2007 2:14 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I know, I "control f'd" it.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Ha, I did the same thing. Then I Ctrl-F'd "Cleveland" & was pretty happy that Byrd was the only person mentioned.

by zempf on Dec 13, 2007 2:27 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Jack Cust!

That negates one of Borowski's blown saves.

PUT UP THE ASTERISK!

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 2:14 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
This is too fun.
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 2:17 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Kevin Brown, Jim Parque, Adam Piatt.

This is boring.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 2:17 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Kevin Brown isn't boring, maybe you are forgetting something.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Boring is a subjective word, indicating opinion, maybe you are forgetting something.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 2:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Anybody else see Glenallen Hill's cheque? Fancy!

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 2:17 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
i like the personal note from LoDuca.

and Fernando Vina?  Must have really felt the pain from that run-in with Joey.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Dec 13, 2007 2:20 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
ESPN has the report for download on their website...just started looking it over...interesting paragraph:

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.

by tobytobytoby on Dec 13, 2007 2:21 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Juan Gonzalez as stated just above your post.

by Ohiokie on Dec 13, 2007 2:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Mark Carreon!
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:22 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Wait, that's it? That report totally sucked.
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 2:23 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Seriously.  What was the biggest name we didn't already know?  Kevin Brown?

by matt k on Dec 13, 2007 2:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Byrd on page 293. Looks like Mitchell has nothing to add.

by FranklinScott on Dec 13, 2007 2:24 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Reading that report was a waste of time.  I did find this part interesting:

According to the notes of an internal discussion among Los Angeles Dodgers
officials in October 2003 that were referred to above, it was reportedly said of Lo Duca during
the meetings:

'Steroids aren't being used anymore on him. Big part of this.
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
Royalsreview must be going out of his mind today with all the national innocence-destruction.

by Jackdaw on Dec 13, 2007 2:26 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
He is going to come here and rip on the former Indians and they are a majority of the players by teams on this list.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That dude is awesome.
I swear, next year is it.

by fwembt on Dec 13, 2007 2:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm glad I'm not the only one here who thinks so.  I e-mailed him not long ago saying I was from LGT and thought his Betancourt railing was hilarious.  His response was "whoa, someone from LGT finds me amusing???!"
Will children still wake up early to eagerly check the sports page to see who is leading the league in holds?

by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:48 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
People, we have to find a way to keep this alive:

Paul Lo Duca writing:

I haven't been able to call you back because my phone is TOAST!

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 2:27 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
TOAST hmm... could be a code... Totally On Anabolic STeroids

by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 2:29 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Has anyone found Varitek?  I really, really wanted that one.

by CU Adam on Dec 13, 2007 2:29 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Really, that is just sad.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Hey, for a change of pace, try having an indignant tone for your next response.  Just a suggestion.

Oh, and, by the way.....F the Red Sox

by NickFantana on Dec 13, 2007 2:33 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I think he is Dustin Pedroia.
I swear, next year is it.

by fwembt on Dec 13, 2007 2:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
It's funny how cheap this stuff is. I like to imagine guys making millions of dollars a year writing checks for $180.00 for something that they consider absolutely critical to their success.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 2:32 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I can't believe how many of these guys wrote PERSONAL CHECKS for the stuff. Come on, at least Tim Laker paid by money order or cash.

by zempf on Dec 13, 2007 2:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Where did all the checks come from? Banks keep them for this long?

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 2:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I had no idea anyone held on to money orders for so long.
Will children still wake up early to eagerly check the sports page to see who is leading the league in holds?

by smtp on Dec 13, 2007 3:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That they used personal checks indicates how PEDs were viewed at the time.
Justice said that the Commissioner's Office and the major league clubs did nothing during his career to discourage players from using steroids. He said that during his career he was never in a meeting where the players were told "you can't take steroids" and that"in my fourteen years there was never a mention of steroids" in any presentation given by any club, the Commissioner's Office, or the Players Association. Justice said that he had never been warned of the side effects or consequences of steroid use and had never been told that steroids were a banned substance.

by FranklinScott on Dec 13, 2007 2:37 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
On page 383 of the pdf, anybody see Grimsley's checks? They are "graphic checks" with tulips or something on them.

Yeah, I don't think I'm learning the less Senator Mitchell intended.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 2:35 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Some kind of foreign language feed interrupting Mitchell on ESPN.

Bahahahaha.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 2:36 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Some kind of foreign language feed interrupting Mitchell on ESPN.

Bahahahaha.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 2:36 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Here is THE LIST, compiled from that PDF:

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

by Toxicadam on Dec 13, 2007 2:37 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
You missed Andy Pettitte, FYI.  Let us never forget, Andy Pettitte is a cheater.

by NickFantana on Dec 13, 2007 2:46 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Former Indians...

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.

by APV on Dec 13, 2007 2:49 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That's a lot of Indians, though, even if most of them only played for us for a bit.

by CU Adam on Dec 13, 2007 2:51 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Probably most clubs have that many or more guys on this list connected to them, if we're going to count every spring training invite and 40-man fodder.  The Indians aren't greatly represented in this group at all, in quantity or stature.

by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Aside from Gonzalez, I don't think any of the guys mentioned were users when they were actually with the Indians.

by zempf on Dec 13, 2007 3:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
While I'm too lazy to do this for all of them, it's worth noting that some of those players didn't receive or use steroids, according to the report, while on the Indians.

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.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 2:52 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Agreed.  I do find it interesting that with the exception of Justice and possibly Byrd, almost all these guys were reclamation projects of sorts.

by APV on Dec 13, 2007 2:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Mark Carreon.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Thank you for taking the time to post the actual list of names.  The list posted earlier that included Pujols, among others, is not from the actual Mitchell report and is false as far as I can tell.

by Pronk33 on Dec 13, 2007 3:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
No Brady Anderson after all.  I always thought he was clean...

by matt k on Dec 13, 2007 2:37 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
ha ha...it's sad, but that made me laugh out loud

by APV on Dec 13, 2007 2:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
McGwire and Sosa aren't on it either.

by homelytourist on Dec 13, 2007 2:44 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
And Luis Gonzalez...
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
OK, this was not at all exciting. What a waste of time and money. Just goes to show you that fire alarm oversight is totally ineffective.
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 2:38 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Yep. About all this report did was waste... time, money, trees.

How pointless.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:41 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
What? Are you serious.  This list is only the tip of the Iceberg.  Go bury your head in the sand again.
Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist

by E5 on Dec 13, 2007 2:42 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
The old E5 is back ... obnoxious for other point than being obnoxious.

by CU Adam on Dec 13, 2007 2:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Yeah, but is anyone going to show us the rest of the iceberg?

by crazymoloh on Dec 13, 2007 2:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

by Jackdaw on Dec 13, 2007 2:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I can't believe Pudge isn't on this list. I thought he was already "outed" in some capacity.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 2:44 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Does this mean Laker gets fired from his Mahoning Valley manager gig?

by ploni on Dec 13, 2007 2:51 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Travis Fryman has already been announced for that job.

by palcal on Dec 13, 2007 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm going to say it once again now that the REAL list is out...so what?  I didn't see the press conference and have only had a chance to read 278 of the 409 pages of the report, but from what everyone seems to be saying here this list did absolutely nothing for anyone.

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.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 13, 2007 2:53 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
The point is that it was widespread.  To prove that point, they needed a lot of names, not every name.

by palcal on Dec 13, 2007 2:55 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Was there really any doubt that it was widespread?

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 13, 2007 3:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Of course there was. Do you remember the people scoffing at Jose Canseco when he came out with his book? Most called him an attention whore and someone looking to sell books.

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"?

by Toxicadam on Dec 13, 2007 3:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Come on, Adam, that's pretty revisionist, isn't it?  You're telling me that when Brett Boone hit 600 homers one year you didn't think he was doing something?  And if Brett Boone was doing it, wasn't that indicative of potentially larger issues?

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
It's not so much about what the "cognoscenti" think, it more about the general public.

by palcal on Dec 13, 2007 3:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
As palcal said, I'm referring to the casual public. People (like Congress) who only have a passing interest in baseball.

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.

by Toxicadam on Dec 13, 2007 3:24 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
You're right about the ball.  Wasn't that crazy in the mid-late 90s all the talk about the "live ball era"?  

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
I think this is the first admission from MLB.
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.

by palcal on Dec 13, 2007 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Will this report give cover for teams to sign Barry Bonds?

by palcal on Dec 13, 2007 2:54 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I wouldn't call it a "waste". It still keeps the issue in the public eye and that list is pretty impressive. Impressive enough to put pressure on Selig and others to go even FURTHER in their testing and reporting of incidents.

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.

by Toxicadam on Dec 13, 2007 2:54 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Respectfully, I just don't see that list as being impressive whatsoever.  To come up with 70 or 80 names in an investigation that is supposed to have covered a decade or so of baseball behavior is pretty small-time.  What's more, is there anyone who's paid attention to baseball in the last several years who didn't think there was rampant drug abuse amongst it's players?  And Mitchell only came up with that list?

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
Some interesting stuff in there showing how common the knowledge of certain players' steroid usage was:

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 . . .

by zempf on Dec 13, 2007 2:56 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
And they STILL traded for him!!!!

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.

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on Dec 13, 2007 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I think Adam gets it exactly right above.  The Mitchell report explicitly recommends NOT punishing players for past transgressions.  The real purpose of the report will be to put pressure upon the Union (especially) and MLB to put together a real drug testing policy.  

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
Ultimately, the reason I don't find it tittilating, interesting, or useful, is that it lacks any current star players.

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.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 3:03 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
In fairness, Mitchell is a FORMER Senator, and did not undertake this investigation with the authority or support of the government.  He did, however, have tons of baseball resources and, presumable, the assets of a major law firm at his disposal.

Point still taken.

by DontCallMeJoey on Dec 13, 2007 3:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Good point but, as you indicated, I think the sentiment still stands.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 3:08 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Very good points.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 3:12 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
As I distill my brain a little further and think about the fact that this is actually a report commissioned wholly by baseball and not by the government...

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.

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 3:32 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Everything you've written about this is spot on, Andrew. I couldn't be in greater agreement.
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 3:58 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Interesting parallel: Early 20th century gambling scandals. Who did they bring in? Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who had absolutely no affiliation with the game.
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 4:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm under the impression that it was commissioned by Selig, and not by MLB.  The report was produced by DLA Piper, an international law firm and DC lobbying force, for whom Mitchell is a partner.

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.  

by emil minty on Dec 13, 2007 4:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
You want someone from the private sector, they expect results.

by hans on Dec 14, 2007 2:32 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Miguel Tejada I would consider a star...

by Voltaire on Dec 14, 2007 3:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
And there was already a ton of speculation surrounding him and the mysterious B-12 shots.

by afh4 on Dec 14, 2007 3:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Tim Laker is scheduled to be a roving minor league catching instructor for the Indians in 2008.  As noted above, Fryman is Mahoning manager.

by palcal on Dec 13, 2007 3:04 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
YAWN.

Also!  Pedroia is a douche and a cheater according the Brick Report.

by Brick. on Dec 13, 2007 3:25 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
The Brick report sounds like something I would like to read. A detailed account of Pedroia being a douche bag.

by hans on Dec 14, 2007 2:34 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
tonight "why roger clemens is a cheating cheat cheat cheaterson" by NickFantana

by Brick. on Dec 14, 2007 10:51 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
ESPN takes one on the chin.  Not one, but two of their analysts make the list.  Nice.

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.

by maledicta on Dec 13, 2007 3:40 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
David Justice works for ESPN right? Who's the other? Fernando Vina?

by afh4 on Dec 13, 2007 3:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Frank Thomas was the other player who spoke to Mitchell, which strikes me as weird.  Obviously we don't know what he said, but even crossing the line is a step no one but he and Giambi were willing to take (and Giambi was more than a little coerced).  

by maledicta on Dec 13, 2007 3:42 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
As if to say "I deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because I had a great career without ever using steroids."
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 13, 2007 3:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Doesn't Thomas have a reputation as a no-nonsense, somewhat distant clubhouse guy/teammate?

by APV on Dec 13, 2007 3:50 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That's my impression, but there's lot of other guys that could be said about.  And if he won't talk to his teammates, I can't imagine he'd be willing to talk to George Mitchell.  My guess is this was a plea deal of some sort - 'I'll talk to you if you leave my name out of your report.'  I don't have any evidence to back that up, but that's what happens when the report is based almost entirely on hearsay.

by maledicta on Dec 13, 2007 3:53 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Actually, Thomas is pretty well known as a SUPER vocal anti-steroid guy. I imagine it's more like "I'm going to talk because I know stuff and I hate all those cheating roiding bastards."

by zempf on Dec 13, 2007 4:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
You can play the game w/ every club:

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
OK, I'm bored now. Did we get Haren yet?
Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 13, 2007 3:58 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
It's not necessary to call out individuals, but I feel like a lot of people fail to see the purpose of this report.  I don't think it's pointless or disappointing.  

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.

by Pronk33 on Dec 13, 2007 3:59 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
You've said it better than I could.  Thanks.

by mkwng on Dec 13, 2007 4:07 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Well said, Pronk, and I see a lot of where you're coming from.

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
While I was bummed that Schilling didn't show up (I think he's very hypocritical - not because he's on the Red Sox E5, so pipe down), my guess this is just the first of many reports that will surface over the coming years.

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.

by talonk on Dec 13, 2007 5:22 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
OK, I've read the report.  One thing is clear - Mitchell barely uncovered a single name. What Mitchell did was re-list the BALCO players, the Florida pharmacy players, the Grimsley connection players and the Radomski names.  All of the names were already known to law enforcement, but certain names (especially the Radomski names) were withheld, despite several newspapers' unsuccessful lawsuit for disclosure.  All it does is highlight the fact that multitudes of players on all teams were on the stuff.  Due to his lack of subpoena power, this investigation hit brick wall after brick wall.  Because of the lack of cooperation, I view the report and its recommendations as toothless (and a whitewash of Selig's role.)  It's only redeeming value is that perhaps its existence will spur the public to "move on".  

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.    

by Fredward on Dec 13, 2007 6:01 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
That's a very insightful way to look at this report and does diminish it signficantly (as far as "the list" is concerned).

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.

by Toxicadam on Dec 13, 2007 9:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Sure there are "tainted" HR records now, but as you said every era has its quirks.

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?

 

by KevinV on Dec 14, 2007 8:41 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
People don't "care" about dead-ball era pitchers the way they do about Maris, Ruth, Aaron.  But in a sense, there's a reason it's called the dead-ball era - so it can be separated out as a basis for comparison.  Now that the last 20 years or so is being called the Steriod Era (I would argue this era will never end), it lends itself to separation from the fabric of baseball - and that is the true shame.  This loss of historical context is sad, as it was an advantage that baseball had really over every other sport.  It doesn't mean we can't enjoy the intracies of the game, the competition or marvel at the players, hell, that why I'm still a fan, but it's not the same.

by Fredward on Dec 14, 2007 4:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
So, . . . how exactly does this help us get Danny Haren?  I'm just askin'
ken from alexandria

by ken from alexandria on Dec 14, 2007 11:15 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
so are the brewers and astros kicking themselves about picking up gagne and tejada just before this came out?  obviously the royals had to know about guillen.

Freaking Gange, he pretty much has robbed a bank at this point.  He's stolen himslef quite a living - allegedly, of course.

by Brick. on Dec 14, 2007 11:27 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm just glad the report didn't implicate Bill Selby.

They can never take that walk-off Grand Slam away from you, Bill.

Chris Magruder Sighting!

by Toxicadam on Dec 14, 2007 11:28 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
True story.  Joel Skinner gave Selby the stop sign as he rounded third on his homerun trot.  Thankfully, Bill ran through the sign.

by Brick. on Dec 14, 2007 11:32 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
Too soon bricker, too soon ....

:(

I'm still stuck in the first stage of grieving.

by Toxicadam on Dec 14, 2007 12:34 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
LGT posters are much more than casual fans, so it is not a shortcoming of the Mitchell report that we were neither wowed nor surprised by the list of names. If Mitchell and his investigators had had some other "strength and fitness coach" by the balls, say in Chicago or Seattle, many more names would have made the list.

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.

by Rochester on Dec 14, 2007 12:41 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'd say there's more than a little "Wow" factor to the naming of Clemens, the greatest pitcher of his generation.

by JulioBernazard on Dec 14, 2007 1:01 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I'm not sure about that. Last offseason roughly half of the people on LGT seemed to have some reasonable belief that Clemens was on something. I think "wow" is greatly diminished when it is forseeable to members of the general public. Andy Pettitte had a lot more "wow" for me because nothing about him screamed "user."

That is just a thought. Also! I used a ton of quotation marks for that paragraph.

I swear, next year is it.

by fwembt on Dec 14, 2007 7:54 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I totally agree. I mean in what other job can you allow this problem, not only to start, but take hold and get as deep as it has, but also congratulate yourself for "solving" a problem you yourself had allowed to occur in the first place.

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.

by cclemens31 on Dec 14, 2007 1:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
"I mean in what other job can you . . . congratulate yourself for 'solving' a problem you yourself had allowed to occur in the first place."

I dunno.  Politics?

ken from alexandria

by ken from alexandria on Dec 14, 2007 2:04 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
If there is anything that we learned, it is this. Grit is inherent, not enhanced.

http://letsgotribe.com/comments/2007/12/13/84916/533/65#65

Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 14, 2007 2:40 PM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
I've been giving it some thought, and the fact is that the Indians come out of this report reasonably unscathed.  Here's a list of Indians that didn't get named:

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.

by Jay on Dec 15, 2007 12:58 AM EST reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
As someone else said, if they'd gotten their hands on a trainer that had worked for the Indians, or the Padres, or the Rangers, or whoever, the lists would be totally different right?

I have to think it's just a random sampling of literally hundreds of players that could've been named.

by afh4 on Dec 15, 2007 1:01 AM EST up reply actions  

Re: Mitchell Report Thread
My best guess is that at least 5-10 of those guys actually had ties to steroids, HGH ,etc. at some point.

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 talonk on Dec 15, 2007 1:08 AM EST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Constantly updated Indians news, lots of in-depth analysis, live in-game discussions — and more fanatical and thoughtful Indians fans than every other web site combined.
Start posting about the Indians »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Royconrad_fullthrottle_small
25 for 25: Indians
Photo_319_small
Graduating from Prospectdom
Colevatar_small
Thank You, Indians Fans
964_small
2011 Tribe Patches
Profile_small
Draft position and the Hall of Fame
Snyder_small
Revisiting 2010 Pecota Projections
Draft_lens6670022module54040272photo_1251768414louissockalexisicon4b_small
Fun with Sabermetrics! Or, WARrior in Woolworths
Colevatar_small
Question for Indians fans
Pryor_small
LGT Fantasy Football
Sbn_ds_small
August 6th, Twins vs Indians - Simulation

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Featured Poll

Poll
Is the SBN Cleveland "fan confidence poll" totally stupid?
Yes
104 votes
No
21 votes
Stupid, but not totally stupid
94 votes

219 votes | Poll has closed

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recent FanShots

Came across this completely randomly - pretty cool to see like this.
Always condescend ...
Lofton HOF Poll & Discussion
Official September Callups
"I have to be an example because most of (the younger players) have never...
Corey Kluber to Columbus
Could Colby Rasmus be available in the offseason?
Manny to CWS
Feller Diagnosed with Leukemia
Indians closer Chris Perez: "This kid is going to become one of the best...

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SBNation.com Recent Stories

ATLANTA - APRIL 22:  Omar Infante #4 of the Atlanta Braves celebrates after scoring against the Philiadelphia Phillies at Turner Field on April 22, 2010 in Atlanta, Georgia.  (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

Albert Pujols, Joey Votto, And The Triple Crown Villains Who Plot Their Ruin

Washington Nationals' Nyjer Morgan, center, is led off the field after a brawl during the sixth inning of a baseball game against the Florida Marlins, Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2010, in Miami. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee) +4 updates

Nats, Marlins Brawl After Nyjer Morgan Charges Mound

Photo

Aroldis Chapman Touches 104, Earns First Win As Reds Rally Past Brewers

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

427px-nap_lajoie_1913_small Ryan

Dosequisman_small Jay

Editors

3444ant_black_small APV

47b8dd28b3127cceb64839d9746800000026102bauwjrq3za_small afh4