Many of these names were not surprises, nor were they new. Sen. George Mitchell's investigation truly uncovered many fewer than the dozens claimed.
Further, in coercing only two trainers (one each from the two New York clubs) to flip, it creates a one-sided view that makes it seem as if but a few places were hotbeds of corruption and cheating. Boston, of course, is not one of these.
Not one current Red Sox player. Few recent ex-Sox. Yet, a plethora of Yankees, Orioles, Blue Jays (or, at least, Glaus) and Angels. The biggest rivals of said Red Sox. As NoMaas says:
Any player who cheated in an effort to improve his performance should own up to his actions. However, this report suffers from a lack of credibility in its "sources" and clearly displays a major conflict of interest.
Look, I don't think there's a conspiracy. But Mitchell as the centerpiece creates the perception of one. And, quite frankly, the report would be different if ANY other team had had its clubhouse guys rat on players. The Yanks and Mets, and a few others, are catching heat all 30 teams deserve.
Further, Deadspin is shocked at the flimsy results of two years (flimsy in that no grand jury would ever give the go-ahead to try these "cases"):
We can say with 100 percent certainty that we are no closer to the truth about steroids in Major League Baseball over the last 20 years than we were this morning.
Are there lessons to draw? Certainly. Testing needs to become independent, if only to prevent these conflicts of interest (Mitchell) and complicity (as Mitchell pointed out, every group possible falling over themselves to bury the controversy for decades).
If this embarrasses enough people, perhaps it will dissuade a few. Perhaps it will make a push for more testing, bigger penalties, etc.
These would be good things. Let's not forget: the Mitchell Report had to happen. If not, baseball would just be hiding from the truth, covering up crimes yet again.
This report, though, does carry the danger of destroying the reputations of many based on some of the least-trustworthy people ever: clubhouse lackeys. Disgruntled ones, at that.
It's like the Duke lacrosse case. Who do you trust: Criminal, spoiled, arrogant frat-boy lacrosse players, strippers or a foreign cab driver? It was like a who's who of disreputable sources. Well, a similar lot is what the Mitchell Report had to draw upon.
Maybe the best thing that can come from the Mitchell Report is that there never needs to be one like it again.
As for Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, there's no post-2002 evidence, making much of it pointless. And the "evidence" is, again, flimsy. Not that they're innocent; I don't think they are. And while they certainly should be penalized in popularity, a blanket "No Hall of Fame" for this bunch is unwise. It makes no distinction between hearsay and a positive test, an admission and a he-said-he-said. Lastly, it makes no consideration for baseball's complete willingness to, by turning a blind eye in its rules and enforcement, silently endorse such practices.
Labels: Baseball
I agree with you James. When I first read the names I was in shock but I think that was due more to quantity than substance. Then after settling down, reading and listening to some analysis of the report, I came to conclusions similar to yours. A lot of these names are based off of what he said/she said. I know there are phone records to back up that there were communications between the players and trainers but those phone records can't prove what was said during those conversations.
Also, wasn't the point of this whole investigation to examine the damage/prevalence of steroids in baseball? How much of that was done when most of these players played for East Coast teams and contributed mariginally at best? We aren't any further in the dialog in the conversation about steroids. Sure we have names now but so what? How do knowing these names help the ongoing efforts to keep the game clean?
Both of you are absolutely correct in your assesment and this is what I was expecting when I wrote my comment yesterday. I really don't have anything else to add other than if you put our three comments together and mix them with all of Buster Olney's writings on the topic, I think you have a good conclusion of The Mitchell Report's findings. Ultimately, i don't think it was a positive step.