Mitchell Report Comes Out Thursday

It’s out and it’s quite a list of players on it. It gets pretty salacious around page 145 when a lot of the names come out and what they were specifically using.

I’m torn about the whole thing as a baseball fan. In one sense, I agree with Mitchell’s very specific recommendation of NOT taking disciplinary action against players for past actions since that will solve nothing and improve nothing. However, seeing this pretty big list of star players is pretty damning stuff, including all sort of checks and receipts for their purchases.

So I’m not ready to call witch hunt… but this is just a pretty sad and ugly day.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
mercury wrote:
Well, good call on Clemens as it was leaked earlier today that he is indeed on the list. The Yankees are supposed to be “hit hard” by this thing. That makes sense since the guy who ratted out Clemens was a former trainer for him and the rest of the Yankees.

And Mitchell is heavily involved in the Red Sox. If there aren’t at least a few Red Sox named in this witchhunt then we will know how dirty it is.

[/quote]

There are several Red Sox on the list…

Search on the report for Ripken comes up empty…Creatine returns 8 instances…that stuff is EVIL !

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
mercury wrote:
Well, good call on Clemens as it was leaked earlier today that he is indeed on the list. The Yankees are supposed to be “hit hard” by this thing. That makes sense since the guy who ratted out Clemens was a former trainer for him and the rest of the Yankees.

And Mitchell is heavily involved in the Red Sox. If there aren’t at least a few Red Sox named in this witchhunt then we will know how dirty it is.

There are several Red Sox on the list…[/quote]

I feel slightly better about it.

TJN713,

Damn your avatar is HOT! Girl got back, needs bigger rack.

To match the theme of this silly thread could you stick a needle in her butt instead of slapping it, please.

[quote]TJN713 wrote:
You guys decry this report as a witchunt and then proceed to make lists of names that are, for the most part, absolutely unsubstantiated accusations? Can you be more hypocritical?

The Mitchell Report is 400 pages long. I guarantee you for legal reasons not one name listed in it is a product of supposition. There is corroborating evidence connected to every name in that report.[/quote]

I call it a witch hunt, and I challenge you to find one post on this entire site where I make any list as you suggest.

The names listed in the Mitchell Report will certainly feel the effects of being made public. Whether it is a trip to Cooperstown, or free agent contract negotiations.

You have no idea how accurate the information is. You have to understand that the names came from informants that were being strong-armed by federal agents.

Mitchell calls for no punishment, but the talking heads will be orgasming for months to come over how evil these guys are. If there is no HGH use corroborated since 2005 - there is no crime. But they will be found guilty by idiots that know nothing about steroids, or baseball.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
TJN713 wrote:
You guys decry this report as a witchunt and then proceed to make lists of names that are, for the most part, absolutely unsubstantiated accusations? Can you be more hypocritical?

The Mitchell Report is 400 pages long. I guarantee you for legal reasons not one name listed in it is a product of supposition. There is corroborating evidence connected to every name in that report.

I call it a witch hunt, and I challenge you to find one post on this entire site where I make any list as you suggest.

The names listed in the Mitchell Report will certainly feel the effects of being made public. Whether it is a trip to Cooperstown, or free agent contract negotiations.

You have no idea how accurate the information is. You have to understand that the names came from informants that were being strong-armed by federal agents.

Mitchell calls for no punishment, but the talking heads will be orgasming for months to come over how evil these guys are. If there is no HGH use corroborated since 2005 - there is no crime. But they will be found guilty by idiots that know nothing about steroids, or baseball.

[/quote]

RJ you make some fair points. I think the issue is that the Mitchell Report (unless he decided to keep investigating for years and years and years) was never going to be as complete as it probably needed to be. It’s funny too since ESPN’s legal analyst was just on saying that his problem with the report was that while Mitchell says they need much stronger testing control and protocols, Mitchell also broke a cardinal rule of those programs… confidentiality.

From what it looks like, the Yankees get hit the hardest on the report with Clemens, Petitte, Justice and Knoblauch all figuring prominently. Now I know people are looking for a Red Sox-Mitchell connection in all of this, but I think it has more to do with the fact that the Mets clubhouse guy was the biggest source in all of this and was very connected to a lot of the Yankees. The strongest cases and the most amount of evidence in all of the reports are against Clemens and Pettite without a doubt.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
TJN713 wrote:
You guys decry this report as a witchunt and then proceed to make lists of names that are, for the most part, absolutely unsubstantiated accusations? Can you be more hypocritical?

The Mitchell Report is 400 pages long. I guarantee you for legal reasons not one name listed in it is a product of supposition. There is corroborating evidence connected to every name in that report.

I call it a witch hunt, and I challenge you to find one post on this entire site where I make any list as you suggest.

The names listed in the Mitchell Report will certainly feel the effects of being made public. Whether it is a trip to Cooperstown, or free agent contract negotiations.

You have no idea how accurate the information is. You have to understand that the names came from informants that were being strong-armed by federal agents.

Mitchell calls for no punishment, but the talking heads will be orgasming for months to come over how evil these guys are. If there is no HGH use corroborated since 2005 - there is no crime. But they will be found guilty by idiots that know nothing about steroids, or baseball.

[/quote]

The term “witch hunt” usually is made in reference to a situation where the targets of the hunt did nothing wrong, but chose to take a position unpopular with that of the prevailing mainstream. They are targeted for their (legal) beliefs. See the Communist Witch Hunts of the 40s and 50s for reference. Here you have a situation where the “accused” apparently did exactly what they are being “accused” of doing. Were their actions illegal at the time? Yes. Did their employers care at the time? Obviously not. But to name names now, in a report more designed to clear up the sport’s public perception, in my eyes does not qualify as a witch hunt.

You can doubt the veracity of the evidence all you want, but the stuff cited in the exhibits to the Mitchell Report (you have looked at it by now, correct?) are more than sufficient enough to be entered into evidence in a Court of law.

Informant’s testimony, when corroborated, is often enough to convict. Why is it any less valuable in this situation? You have seen the canceled checks, money orders, delivery receipts, etc. attached to the Report, haven’t you? The paper trail rarely lies. In this instance, it confirms the testimony of the various sources.

I personally can give a rat’s ass as to who used or didn’t use. I still buy my Padres season tickets every year. But any attempts to discredit the Mitchell Report will not fly. That report has no doubt been vetted 8 ways till Sunday, and every last allegation in there is backed by substantial evidence. Plus, you do realize that some of the names in the Report actually admitted their use to the investigative team?

I may be wrong but isnt all the evidence on clemens circumstantial to one man. Theres no paper trail on him, nor is anyone admitting to selling him stuff for personnal use.

Whats done is done. Time to move forward.

[quote]ericbyrnesjr wrote:
Azzurri wrote:
RF: Jack Cust

ouch.[/quote]

Ha, he was one of the few people I got right.

[quote]TJN713 wrote:

The term “witch hunt” usually is made in reference to a situation where the targets of the hunt did nothing wrong, but chose to take a position unpopular with that of the prevailing mainstream. They are targeted for their (legal) beliefs. See the Communist Witch Hunts of the 40s and 50s for reference. Here you have a situation where the “accused” apparently did exactly what they are being “accused” of doing. Were their actions illegal at the time? Yes. Did their employers care at the time? Obviously not. But to name names now, in a report more designed to clear up the sport’s public perception, in my eyes does not qualify as a witch hunt.[/quote]

Apparently? You think you can use the word “apparently” in reference to a federal crime and have it stick? What in fucks name ever happened to due process? You have the testimony of someone under the thumb of the feds. You have no hard evidence, at least NOTHING that can stand up in a court of law.

Drop your fucking condescension at the door, asshole. I am reading it, but I am also listening to the lawyers on ESPN rip your contention a new orifice. Most of the evidence came from a fucking book - which is here say at best.

Not in all instances. You are talking about a very few cases. Most of the names are thrown in with only third person evidence al la Tejada.

[quote]I personally can give a rat’s ass as to who used or didn’t use. I still buy my Padres season tickets every year. But any attempts to discredit the Mitchell Report will not fly. That report has no doubt been vetted 8 ways till Sunday, and every last allegation in there is backed by substantial evidence. Plus, you do realize that some of the names in the Report actually admitted their use to the investigative team?
[/quote]

I am so glad you take at face value what the report says. I especially like the way you swallow the ownerships gloss over.

I feel for those that were named without proper proof. I how they sue the shit out of baseball. Selig should be tried as a co-conspirator. He is a whore who turned a deaf ear to steroid use while it helped pull MLB out of the shitter. Lest you think I am full of shit - baseball was a $1.3 billion business in 1998. In 2006, it turned $6 billion and change.

At the least - owners and MLB should take the lion’s share of the blame. As it stands - and contrary to your idiotic position - there is not enough proof to convict anyone anywhere but in the court of public opinion.

[quote]Kuz wrote:

RJ you make some fair points. I think the issue is that the Mitchell Report (unless he decided to keep investigating for years and years and years) was never going to be as complete as it probably needed to be. It’s funny too since ESPN’s legal analyst was just on saying that his problem with the report was that while Mitchell says they need much stronger testing control and protocols, Mitchell also broke a cardinal rule of those programs… confidentiality.[/quote]

Why was the commission needed in the first place? Selig is a worthless POS hiding behind Mitchell to say the things that should have been said back in the 90’s.

Simple common sense should tell you that Selig was riding the wave of popularity spawned from Sosa-McGuire in 1998. That summer saved the game. It only turned “serious” in 2002 ofter a book, and Bonds’ assault on McGuire’s record.

Something could have been done. Should have been done. But Selig was a stoneless wimp. And baseball profited even more.

Only after BALCO went down, and Conti’s lab named names, did it become "serious.

Now the players are being rounded up and noosed up on here say.

And you have to remember that HGH was not even a banned substance until 2002.

I think naming names is an attempt to market the Report and generate more buzz than it deserves. Either that, or a means to deflect the spotlight from the owners and Bud Selig.

No one cares about the recommendations - only the names that are named. Due Process was gagged and gang raped by George Mitchell.

[quote]

I think naming names is an attempt to market the Report and generate more buzz than it deserves. Either that, or a means to deflect the spotlight from the owners and Bud Selig. [/quote]

I agree with that although I believe naming names will deter other established major leaguers from using. In terms of younger/minor league guys, the risk is still probably worth the reward.

[quote]Azzurri wrote:

I think naming names is an attempt to market the Report and generate more buzz than it deserves. Either that, or a means to deflect the spotlight from the owners and Bud Selig.

I agree with that although I believe naming names will deter other established major leaguers from using. In terms of younger/minor league guys, the risk is still probably worth the reward. [/quote]

I don’t think it will do anything but piss off the MLBPA, and in this one case I agree 100% with them. I have spent my entire adult life despising Donald Fehr, but naming names without due process, and in direct violation of maintaining privacy is abhorant. If MLB wants to attack the steroid problem, they would have done so already.

HGH is still undetectable. It will be used until there is a way to get caught.

And as long as there are undetectable substances, ownership will continue to turn a blind eye if it will put butts in the seat.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
TJN713 wrote:

The term “witch hunt” usually is made in reference to a situation where the targets of the hunt did nothing wrong, but chose to take a position unpopular with that of the prevailing mainstream. They are targeted for their (legal) beliefs. See the Communist Witch Hunts of the 40s and 50s for reference. Here you have a situation where the “accused” apparently did exactly what they are being “accused” of doing. Were their actions illegal at the time? Yes. Did their employers care at the time? Obviously not. But to name names now, in a report more designed to clear up the sport’s public perception, in my eyes does not qualify as a witch hunt.

Apparently? You think you can use the word “apparently” in reference to a federal crime and have it stick? What in fucks name ever happened to due process? You have the testimony of someone under the thumb of the feds. You have no hard evidence, at least NOTHING that can stand up in a court of law.

You can doubt the veracity of the evidence all you want, but the stuff cited in the exhibits to the Mitchell Report (you have looked at it by now, correct?) are more than sufficient enough to be entered into evidence in a Court of law.

Drop your fucking condescension at the door, asshole. I am reading it, but I am also listening to the lawyers on ESPN rip your contention a new orifice. Most of the evidence came from a fucking book - which is here say at best.

Informant’s testimony, when corroborated, is often enough to convict. Why is it any less valuable in this situation? You have seen the canceled checks, money orders, delivery receipts, etc. attached to the Report, haven’t you? The paper trail rarely lies. In this instance, it confirms the testimony of the various sources.

Not in all instances. You are talking about a very few cases. Most of the names are thrown in with only third person evidence al la Tejada.

I personally can give a rat’s ass as to who used or didn’t use. I still buy my Padres season tickets every year. But any attempts to discredit the Mitchell Report will not fly. That report has no doubt been vetted 8 ways till Sunday, and every last allegation in there is backed by substantial evidence. Plus, you do realize that some of the names in the Report actually admitted their use to the investigative team?

I am so glad you take at face value what the report says. I especially like the way you swallow the ownerships gloss over.

I feel for those that were named without proper proof. I how they sue the shit out of baseball. Selig should be tried as a co-conspirator. He is a whore who turned a deaf ear to steroid use while it helped pull MLB out of the shitter. Lest you think I am full of shit - baseball was a $1.3 billion business in 1998. In 2006, it turned $6 billion and change.

At the least - owners and MLB should take the lion’s share of the blame. As it stands - and contrary to your idiotic position - there is not enough proof to convict anyone anywhere but in the court of public opinion.

[/quote]

Angry? Check.

Out of proportion? Check.

Unnecessarily personal? Check.

Under-informed? Check.

Typical response from you.

Hey. How about you identify all the players who were named without proper proof? You obviously have much better information about all this than the investigators and the Feds. And using ESPN hired talking heads to back up your points pretty much cements your lack of credibility.

Why so angry? It’s just the internet.

[quote]TJN713 wrote:
Angry? Check.

Out of proportion? Check.

Unnecessarily personal? Check.

Under-informed? Check.

Typical response from you.

Hey. How about you identify all the players who were named without proper proof? You obviously have much better information about all this than the investigators and the Feds. And using ESPN hired talking heads to back up your points pretty much cements your lack of credibility.

Why so angry? It’s just the internet.
[/quote]

You read the report, or so you say. Why do I need to list what you have read?

I would like to know to what extent I am under informed.

Angry? Damn right. When MLB tramples on the constitution to cover its ass, I get pissed. It’s called Due Process. You might want to look it up.

Where did I make it personal? Because I called you out for your condescending tone? That may work around you house, but not with me.

What is out of proportion?

I am so sick of you guys getting on here, and whining because you don;t like my position, or my tone.

If you don’t like my position, argue. You haven’t done anything even close.

If you don’t like my tone - don’t fucking engage me. I could give a shit.

Now - either argue, or run along. You and Mick28 would have a lot of fun together.

[quote]Azzurri wrote:

I think naming names is an attempt to market the Report and generate more buzz than it deserves. Either that, or a means to deflect the spotlight from the owners and Bud Selig.

I agree with that although I believe naming names will deter other established major leaguers from using. In terms of younger/minor league guys, the risk is still probably worth the reward. [/quote]

naming names is bullshit. if a player has tested positive and is in violation yes name him. otherwise you’re trampling some pretty basic rights we’re all entitled to and for what …to expose a baseball player ? that’s worth the premise of due process to you ?

[quote]swivel wrote:
naming names is bullshit. if a player has tested positive and is in violation yes name him. otherwise you’re trampling some pretty basic rights we’re all entitled to and for what …to expose a baseball player ? that’s worth the premise of due process to you ?
[/quote]

This is my my argument with the report as well.

No hard proof on Clemens at all. Nothing.

[quote]Kuz wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
mercury wrote:
Well, good call on Clemens as it was leaked earlier today that he is indeed on the list. The Yankees are supposed to be “hit hard” by this thing. That makes sense since the guy who ratted out Clemens was a former trainer for him and the rest of the Yankees.

And Mitchell is heavily involved in the Red Sox. If there aren’t at least a few Red Sox named in this witchhunt then we will know how dirty it is.

There are several Red Sox on the list…[/quote]

All former Red Sox