Thoughts On Mitchell Report
One of the biggest days in baseball history has come and gone, and I think a lot of people are disappointed with the results. While some were expecting more of the big name players, some were expecting that they were would be some tentative plan for the future. At least I was. I was also expecting Commissioner Bud Selig to have at least read through the Report before making it public. There is a lot more to it than the average fan thinks, even though some just care about the names on the list.As for the players, I was not surprised to hear some of the names. However, I was surprised that Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte would be mentioned, when all the evidence they had was their training saying he recalled it. And, Clemens supposed use was well before drug testing began. I was surprised to hear Eric Gagne on the list, but the other names, like Gary Matthews, Paul Byrd, Rick Ankiel, Troy Glaus, and Jason Giambi, have all been mentioned before. And of those names mentioned above, they will likely not be disciplined because their reported use was before drug testing began in 2003.
As for teams, a lot of players on the list came from the 2000 World Series Champion Yankees. Nothing can be done now, but one could argue they had an unfair advantage. Also, I wonder how teams will treat a player on their team if he was named. Or the players. Does this end a career for a player like Jerry Hairston Jr., someone who has never been an All-Star? Finally, will the fans treat any one player different? Again, I think the better the player is, the less repercussions there will be, but we will see.
"Many players are named. Their reputations have been adversely affected, probably forever, even if it turns out down the road that they should not have been," Donald Fehr said. What Don Fehr said is probably the biggest effect the report will have. How does it change the reputation of Roger Clemens? How does it change the reputation of clean pitchers, like Greg Maddux, who sort of came up behind these pitchers. Better yet, how does it change the face of Mike Mussina, a teammate of both Clemens and Pettitte who has started to decline but has always been pretty consistent. Time will tell how these players are accepted by fans as we try to move away from the Steroid Era, but questions will always surround the players mentioned in the report.
Leave me a comment on what you think about this whole issue...
Quote: CNN.com
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Do you think the only steroid distributors in all of Major League Baseball exist in New York clubhouses? Mitchell got a few guys from New York because that's all he could scrounge up.
There are, without a doubt, steroid dealers and players with connections on every single team at one time or another. If the report was even REMOTELY done well he could have found more. But he settled for the shock value of New York, and what the nation thinks of NY sports in general.
If he actually did his job, we would all be shocked and appalled at our favorite clubs and the juicing stars they've produced and prospered from, not just the Yankees and Mets.
by Anonymous on Dec 14, 2007 12:33 AM EST reply actions
As far as the 2000 Yankees: Most of the names came from one source. Who's to say that the Mets didn't just have other suppliers?
That is what makes this debacle so messy. You can't discount any accomplishments based on the sole fact that someone used enhancing substances because perhaps the pitcher throwing the pitch or the batter hitting the ball was also on something.
I agree with Mitchell--we should look at solutions to move on from this era. Hopefully, the MLBPA sees how much harm this is doing for the clean players and stands up for them for a change! Just seems to me that they keep trying to protect the cheaters as oppose to the Mussinas or Madduxes.
by Belmin on Dec 14, 2007 12:43 AM EST reply actions
by yankeefan1987 on Dec 14, 2007 3:26 AM EST reply actions
by God on Dec 14, 2007 8:37 AM EST reply actions
I wasn't, even though Clemens has vehemently denied it and I think Pettitte most likely isn't involved. Mitchell is a member of the Board of Directors of the Red Sox. As such I'm surprised he left out Jeter, A-Rod, and Bernie Williams. Or, for that matter, Bucky Dent. Not to mention Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, and Mantle.
" Do you think the only steroid distributors in all of Major League Baseball exist in New York clubhouses? Mitchell got a few guys from New York because that's all he could scrounge up."
No, he got New York guys because that is all he was looking for. If he talked to a Boston clubbie, he might have gotten Ortiz's name. (The guy fits the classic profile: normal size guy, decent player, gets hurt, goes back to the minors, comes back a big hulking guy with big-time homerun power.) He wasn't about to allow himself to find that, being a director of the Red Sox.
I hope a couple of players sue teh pants off Mitchell.
by Tim on Dec 14, 2007 9:51 AM EST reply actions
by KevinGillman on Dec 14, 2007 1:22 PM EST reply actions
totally an unfair advantage.
what a joke.
by Anonymous on Dec 14, 2007 2:27 PM EST reply actions
2) EVERY ONE of these guys, including Roger, had the opportunity to talk to Mitchell and help in the effort to rid the game of steroids. Nearly all chose to cover their own rear-end by refusing to participate. Please spare me the crocodile tears, boys.
by Save the Kids on Dec 14, 2007 5:13 PM EST reply actions
by Yankeefan1987 on Dec 14, 2007 8:18 PM EST reply actions
by Bucky, NY on Dec 15, 2007 12:37 PM EST reply actions
But then all you really talk about is... the names on the list.
I thought the report was interesting, and much needed. Will it solve the problem? Of course not. But it's a good overview of the issues, and a look at how steroids get to players.
by Anonymous on Dec 16, 2007 10:33 PM EST reply actions

by 












