Mitchell Report - Your Thoughts

The Mitchell report

is a publicity stunt on the part of MLB. It's a way for Bud to point fingers at everyone except the person in his mirror for the people who took PED's during his reign. For years, baseball, the media, and the fans were complicit in the players' use of PED's and now, whether it's out of some sense of sanctimony or institutional preservation, we've turned these heroes into demons.

The truth is they're neither heroes nor demons. They're baseball players, many of whom did what they could to remain in the game or excel at the sport they loved. We all looked the other way, with a wink and a nod, while they took their PED's and hit homers b/c, let's face it, "chicks dig the long ball." Now we feign righteous indignation at their behavior out of some sense of moral superiority.

The Mitchell report is Bud's attempt at his own personal absolution as well as a statement to Congress and the American people saying, "look, we do care about PED's in baseball." They never cared before; in fact, they encouraged it. But now the secret's out and they have to pretend to care so to deflect attention from their own culpability.

I couldn't possibly care less whose name is mentioned in the report. It was permissible in baseball and baseball, its fans, and the media encouraged it b/c its use made for better stories, longer homers and more asses in the seats. To condemn these people for giving the fans, mlb, and the media what they wanted at the time is the height of hypocrisy.

by chuckb on Dec 11, 2007 11:14 PM EST reply actions

100% agree

In the future the baseball fans will know very well what happened. There is no need for any (*).

by nybirdfan on Dec 11, 2007 11:39 PM EST up reply actions

Well said

by cardsgirl95 on Dec 12, 2007 5:41 AM EST up reply actions

giving the fans what they want?

steroids is certainly not what i wanted. i wanted to see a home run record...a real one. if i knew in 1998 that mac was juicing i wouldnt have gone to any of the games. i had no idea that mlb didnt test.

i dont care who is named in the report because i blame all of the players. they are all guilty in some way. i'd bet there are going to be a lot of people who used drugs who arent named in any reports. what would you find if you turned the spotlight on roger clemens or frank thomas? even the clean guys arent blameless. so called men of character like cal ripken stood by and watched other people cheat without saying a word. the stain of the steroid era covers all the players. you vote the best players of that era into the hall, and remember what happened when you want to compare those players to other eras.

by dmb60614 on Dec 12, 2007 9:51 AM EST up reply actions

How do you know Ripken didn't cheat?

the man played 2600 something consecutive games. we don't know he didn't cheat!

by chuckb on Dec 12, 2007 10:13 AM EST up reply actions

exactly

all the players are suspects whether they are named or not.

by dmb60614 on Dec 12, 2007 10:29 AM EST up reply actions

This is the only time

I will comment on the Mitchell Report...
If anyone, Selig included, thinks that this will bring change and/or closure, then they're either fooling themselves or just naive.

"It's always about the money. Anyone who says it's not is lying."- Gene Simmons

by cardsrul on Dec 11, 2007 11:26 PM EST reply actions

I think its a bit premature

to make any of those comments. Let's see what the thing says, who it names, and who it blames, if anyone. Anything else is conjecture.

The hot stove is burning...

by cardzfan24 on Dec 11, 2007 11:31 PM EST reply actions

Why does

"who it names" matter? It doesn't. Is there anything said in my post above that isn't true? Did baseball encourage steroids by:

not making them against baseball rules;
running commercials and telling everyone who would listen that baseball was awesome b/c lots of people hit lots of homers;
do absolutely nothing, despite evidence that it was occurring, until Congress through their little fit over it and threatened to take over baseball's drug control policy and take away their anti-trust exemption?

At that point, Bud decided to care. This Mitchell report is a witch-hunt, regardless of who it names. Whether it's 10 names or 200, it's either a failed or successful witch-hunt intended to demonize the players. Unless Bud Selig is named as a primary conspirator in this saga, it's toilet paper!

by chuckb on Dec 12, 2007 8:05 AM EST up reply actions

Witch hunt

I disagree completely.

I do feel baseball has some responsability for the problem, but people are individuals and responsible for thier own actions.

Did baseball encourage child abuse by not specifically making it against the rules? Why does baseball have to make rules against something already against the law? If it's illegal, people shouldn't need to be told not to do it.

In regards to it not doing any good, I disagree. There is no greater discouragement to bad behavior than public embarassment and the risk of getting caught.

Seeing player's names get drug through the mud, player's getting lessor contracts due to PED linkage and the fan's reactions will discourage many future users (I hope).

by RedbirdRay on Dec 12, 2007 8:52 AM EST up reply actions

did baseball run commercials

saying "chicks dig child-beaters?" did they encourage people to go to ballparks so that they could watch people wail on their kids for 3 hours?

the bottom line is that mlb had no policy, for most of this time, against using PED's. the hall of fame has, for years, allowed in people who have used PED's or cheated in other ways. We treat these people (Aaron, DiMaggio, Mantle, etc.) as baseball royalty b/c baseball did nothing. Selig only decided to care when there was a public backlash.

Should the criminal justice system have dealt w/ them 10-15 years ago? Maybe. But it's hypocritical to go back in time and punish people, in a baseball sense, for doing something that was not against the rules of baseball.

BTW, do you think Bud really cares about this stuff or does he just care about his own public reputation or that of major-league baseball?

by chuckb on Dec 12, 2007 9:17 AM EST up reply actions

Home Runs are bad?

So, what do we do now? Ignore the home runs? The are bad now? We shouldn't advertise for them?

I don't know for sure if Selig knew about how wide-stem the PED problem was. I certainly think he cares now. I really don't care how he feels about it. I care how I feel about it and how the future will care about it.

The world has changed a lot in 15 years, 30 years, the course of the game. I don't think players should get a free pass now because some old guys used stimulants. What do you propose we do? Allow anything that was ok in 1960 to keep the statistical evaluation tools level? There are a lot of other areas the game has changed also: number of games, hieght of the mound, size of stadiums, playing surface. We know it's wrong and harmful now. We have a lot more information to evaluate the substances they took and the long-term effects on the body.

I don't feel old players should be held accountable for things that weren't illegal, like supplements that are now banned. If they were using something illegal, they knew better...regardless of baseball's specific rules.

Do you really think commercials are responsible for the mindset of players? Free agency maybe. I don't buy that because baseball ran some commercials about home runs that it was promoting sterroid abuse.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 12, 2007 9:36 AM EST up reply actions

So why should they now?

Your quote -- "I don't feel old players should be held accountable for things that weren't illegal, like supplements that are now banned." Amphetamines have been illegal in society, though legal in baseball, for a long time. Why should those who used steroids be held accountable but those who used amphetamines not?

by chuckb on Dec 12, 2007 10:17 AM EST up reply actions

Um, HC,

I'm sure it had to get some sort of MLB approval, but shouldn't you point out that the "chicks dig the long ball" ad of which you are making such a big deal -- hanging an awful lot of points on it, in fact -- was a Nike ad?

I'm with Redbird Ray: the notion that we have infantilized ballplayers to such a degree that we absolve them of actions that are illegal because there isn't a sport policy against them is just kind of silly.

by jfs on Dec 12, 2007 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

The ad in question

You can watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ltD21rYWVw

by jfs on Dec 12, 2007 9:43 AM EST up reply actions

yeah

if you want to split hairs over semantics it was a nike commercial, however, MLB had to not only approve it but they also received money for the licensing (it was shot at Bush and everybody was in MLB uniform) the point he was making was baseball as an entity KNEW there were steroids in baseball but not only didn't care but encouraged it and used it to put asses in the seats. It's ungodly naive to believe anything else and hide under "well technically..."

"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"

by rocKStark5 on Dec 12, 2007 9:48 AM EST up reply actions

No one is absolving the players completely

What is said is that baseball can't punish the players for doing something that did not violate any baseball policy. If the US, a state, or some other sovereign that did prohibit the drugs in question wants to punish them, that is of course reasonable.

by Zack Morris on Dec 12, 2007 10:27 AM EST up reply actions

+1

It is 100% bullshit to chastise baseball alone for steroids. From a per capita stance and a dangerously abuse stance Pro Wrestling (who have many people DIE of steroid abuse) and mostly Pro Body Building (who started this shit in the first place and the the father of Body Building Joe Weider admitted to steriods in body building) should be public enemy number...everybody in body building not only takes steroids but abuses them and baseball is the national target??

THERE ARE FAR MORE PRESSING MATTERS IN THE US!! Dedicating any tax revenue to finding out who took steroids to hit a home run is a god damn disgrace to the soldiers dying in Iraq, the homeless, the crime rates, and all the people that are living paycheck to paycheck that are funding this publicity stunt which hunt. It's stomach turning.

You get 1/3 of your paycheck raped from you and this is how you want it spent??? Making Mark Mcqwire cry? Arresting Barry Bonds?? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"

by rocKStark5 on Dec 12, 2007 9:42 AM EST up reply actions

Easy there, Morton Downey

I thought the Mitchell deal was funded by MLB, not taxpayers.

by 26thMan on Dec 12, 2007 1:03 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, really

not to mention that choice of metaphor for paying taxes...

by Valatan on Dec 12, 2007 4:01 PM EST up reply actions

One thing is for sure

since Mitchell is on the Red Sox's board, I don't expect to see any current Red Sox players named.

But it will be a big story for about a month or two and then when the season starts it will become old news. Maybe a few of the big named players not playing on the East Coast will be "shunned/knocked around" by the media ala Rick Ankiel last September but that will be about it.

by KYCards on Dec 11, 2007 11:35 PM EST reply actions

Shocking?

What if Manny, Poppy and Youklis are named first to make old Mitch look good!. I seriously doubt any BRS being named also, but some guys wont be playing early in the upcoming season. Who?? I can bet on one.

Trade for Sean Rodriguez! (But please dont call him S-Rod!)

by cardschinmusic on Dec 12, 2007 6:55 AM EST up reply actions

I don't know about that

but it is an extreme conflict of interest for him to undertake this investigation while remaining on the Bosox board. He should have turned down the assignment or resigned from the board. Mitchell used to be seen as a person of impeccable integrity and his involvement here tarnishes that, in my view.

BTW, very little was made of the Ankiel thing. It died out in a couple of days.

by chuckb on Dec 12, 2007 7:56 AM EST up reply actions

speaking of

Mitchell being on the Red Sox's board it brings a whole new element to whose names have been "leaked" so far. the most obvious stunt was realizing the paul byrd stuff during the series where the red sox were playing the indians. mitchell must have got his tack lessons from scott boras.

anybody who thinks selig/mitchell are going to use this info for anything other than their own ends is fooling themselves. mitchell has about as much credibility as nick saban.

by FutureMan on Dec 12, 2007 12:44 AM EST reply actions

Sabernomics

Sabernomics recently did another piece on HGH. I didn't fully read this one since I have read all of his other HGH stories but for the most part he argues that HGH does nothing for your body to help you get better as a baseball player.

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-base ball/

by StLHugo on Dec 12, 2007 7:42 AM EST reply actions

Is this new?

Will Carroll at BP's done research on this and I've known it for some time. I think I've even read something at sabernomics about it. The "HGH scare" is a red herring. It sounds horrible -- players are going to hit homers left and right like beer-league softball -- but it has NO, NONE, NO effect on a player's strength and, therefore, ability to hit homers.

Player who don't realize this have probably taken it, intending to cheat, but it's done them no good whatsoever. Think that'll be part of the honest and forthright Mitchell investigation? I don't.

by chuckb on Dec 12, 2007 7:59 AM EST up reply actions

Not exactly new

This particular link is new, it appeared like 2 days ago. But he has been saying this for years it seems and I read all about it right after the Ankiel story broke, and I think he linked to that BP article you were mentioning. So while the topic isn't new this particular post is.

by StLHugo on Dec 12, 2007 8:17 AM EST up reply actions

that's what I was asking, thanks

I was just wondering if the article you sourced was a new one or an old one. I should take a few minutes to read it. Thanks again.

by chuckb on Dec 12, 2007 9:11 AM EST up reply actions

Simply untrue

There have been many more studies that prove it does. It helps you get recover quicker, add mass and get stronger.

The "studies" done by those who claim it doesn't have no scientific backing or controls.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 12, 2007 8:43 AM EST up reply actions

What?

I guess you didn't read the link then. There are NO truely scientific studies that prove it helps in anyway.

Maybe you are thinking of Steroids which do help but HGH doesn't help your body at all. Even the faster recovery hasn't been shown at all.

by StLHugo on Dec 12, 2007 8:46 AM EST up reply actions

Yes, I did read it

It didn't say much either way, if you ask me.

First of all, it was only a 4 week trial (of only 30 people with half taking a placebo). How does that prove anything really? It says physically active people but explains none of the control measures for performance. 15 people took it for 4 weeks and didn't show enough to say it helps.

Additionally, it (like almost all the other trials) points to decreased fat and increased muscle mass. It tries to disclaim the effect by saying the muscles consumed no more oxygen and the participants had no greater max on strength measures. So? How exactly does that correlate to better recovery times, quickness and other things HGH is reported to do for you?

If you bench press 4x a week but recover normally, you tear down your muscles and probably lose strength overall. If you bench press 4x a week but recover quickly due to pharm assist, you probably gain muscle mass and strength.

Hell, just feeling good everyday instead of tired has to count for a few extra hits over the course of a year.

To totally discount or claim HGH does nothing for the human body seems like trying to make believe the problem doesn't exist.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 12, 2007 9:08 AM EST up reply actions

Ank

Here is his post Ankiel breakdown:
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/09/ankiel-and-hgh/

And his first post on HGH:
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/i-dont-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball-and-neit her-should-you
This links to the following story:
http://www.slate.com/id/2162473/nav/tap1/
"What's the difference between steroids and HGH? For starters, we know that a baseball player can beef up on steroids and improve his athletic performance. But most clinical studies suggest that HGH won't help an athlete at all. The other key difference is that while steroids cause a bevy of nasty side effects--testicular shrinkage, an increased risk of stroke--taking HGH doesn't seem to be that bad for you."

I have read others but this is the first I got introduced to the whole HGH issue.

by StLHugo on Dec 12, 2007 9:24 AM EST up reply actions

This is an interview

w/ Andy Andres, a professor of natural science at Tufts University done by baseball prospectus.

The most relevant part is this statement: "Conventional wisdom says that everyone is on HGH now because there's no test to detect it, but what they don't realize is that there's a night and day difference between HGH and anabolic-androgenic steroids. Studies have shown that HGH supplementation will increase muscle mass; but there is little, if any, evidence of strength gains in these studies. In other words, when HGH supplementation has been studied in normal males, there are reports of small gains in muscle mass, but there seems to be no evidence from a randomized, double-blind study that you gain strength from HGH alone. If there is any effect of HGH, it is likely to be a small effect, especially compared to how anabolic steroids improve strength and baseball performance."

The bottom line -- steroids help people get stronger; HGH does not -- conventional "wisdom" notwithstanding. You look bigger but aren't stronger. Just b/c it seems like it should work, and "journalists" supposedly in the know repeat it often, doesn't make it so. Listen to the doctors who are actually in the know. HGH does not make one stronger. It is not, though it is classified as such, a PED as it doesn't enhance any performance.

I don't care if they ban HGH or not. People taking HGH is not the reason they're hitting more homers or throwing harder fastballs or whatever. Ban it for all I care but don't then turn around and tell me how great you are (you = professional sports organizations) b/c you're combatting the PED use. It's the entire hypocrisy that makes me want to vomit.

by chuckb on Dec 12, 2007 9:30 AM EST up reply actions

Maximum strength

Every defense you guys are trying to point to is aimed at maximum strength.

HGH is not a placebo. It does not enter your body and do nothing. It does have effects on your muscle mass. It does have effects on your body fat percentage. It does aid recovery time. All of which are beneficial to athletes and atheletic performance.

Because of these things, you can get stronger. Maybe just taking HGH doesn't stimulate muscle growth like an anabolic does, but it allows your muscles to heal and recover quicker post-workouts. That is huge.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 12, 2007 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

Muscle mass, yes

strength -- no. Read what the professor of natural science wrote. If you don't agree with it, argue with him.

by chuckb on Dec 12, 2007 10:18 AM EST up reply actions

How?

How do I argue with some quote that cites no evidence or study?

Jose Canseco said they do. If you don't like it, go argue with him.

by RedbirdRay on Dec 12, 2007 10:32 AM EST up reply actions

How do you argue your point without evidence?

You critique the above random, controlled study due to sample size, yet you cite no research to back up your anecdote that HGH increases strength and decreases recovery time.

The point is that all signs point to HGH being significantly less effective than anabolic steroids when it comes to increasing strength and power. Not to mention the positive effects of anabolic steroids on vision.

When there is good research available that supports/refutes YOUR claims, let me know.

by silent_bob on Dec 12, 2007 1:33 PM EST up reply actions

Hmm

Well if neither has any specific evidence or cites any specific study, then I'm probably going to go with the scientist, who presumably has read a bit of literature on the subject, over Jose Canseco, who has spent the last 20 years pumping his body full of so many different substances that you could probably start a pharmacy with his various bodily fluids.

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 12, 2007 1:48 PM EST up reply actions

I believe he said

HGH "alone" does not build muscle mass. What RedBirdRay is saying is that HGH coupled with a 4 or 5 day lifting program could easily help a player build strength quicker than a player not using HGH. Anyone who has ever been on a 4 day a week lifting program knows how burnt out you feel by the last workout, so anything that would help you recover quicker and get more out of the third and fourth workouts is definitely going to help gains because you'll be able to go after more weight or longer sets.

HGH is not anabolic steroids and should not be compared to it. We will not see giant, musclebound roid freaks who take only HGH, but to say that taking HGH is no better than taking a placebo is dramatically underestimating it's effects. There's a reason it's a controlled substance people!

"The Cardinals have won a World Series in THEIR new stadium!" --my Uncle Jim to a heckling Cubs fan

by fourstick on Dec 13, 2007 10:06 AM EST up reply actions

HGH is not a controlled substance

Anabolic steroids are. HGH isn't.

http://www.steroid.com/growthhormonelaws.php

Legislation was introduced (H.R. 5564 in 2002 and H.R. 207 in 2003) that would have made HGH a class III controlled substance; if either of those bills had passed, then what you have said would be correct (this happened with anabolic steroids in 1990). However, it has not happened with HGH. Neither of those bills passed, and they have not been reintroduced. Therefore it is legal to possess HGH; it's just not legal to distribute it, in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Some states HAVE made it a controlled substance- the link above discusses those- but it's currently only a few states.

Again, even if they WERE a scheduled controlled substance, it is only illegal to possess with the intent to distribute. It is NOT illegal to use HGH personally, or to possess it with the intent to use them yourself.

Christmas lights are an extremely efficient method for converting Christmas Spirit into heat. -anon

by SleepyCA on Dec 13, 2007 3:56 PM EST up reply actions

The point

is that adding muscle mass is not the same thing as adding muscle strength

by Ray Lankford on Dec 12, 2007 11:14 AM EST up reply actions

Doesn't HGH help you cope with the stress

of taking steroids, though? I always thought that the reasons for taking it weren't so much to make you stronger, but rather to add to your frame so that the increased strength from steroids won't cause you to tear your tendons apart.

by Valatan on Dec 12, 2007 3:23 PM EST up reply actions

....same here...

That was my understanding originally on HGH, a compliment to the anabolic to help repair additional wear and tear on body parts unable to keep up with the added strength AND mass. Putting on the muscle mass alone is stressful based on the extra work the body has to do to heft it. Trainers can help offset that by monitoring gains and taking steps to keep it in check, but the added weight to move around is an issue.

Quick sudden bursts of activity from a resting position is so common to baseball, eg: swinging and missing, legging it out to first, diving hard on a groundball etc., The higher torque has to create problems?

Trade for Sean Rodriguez! (But please dont call him S-Rod!)

by cardschinmusic on Dec 13, 2007 3:14 AM EST up reply actions

Do you want to know the terrifying truth...

or do you want to see me sock a few dingers?

I will be brief.

by Alxfritz on Dec 12, 2007 8:07 AM EST reply actions

Dingers!

by arch support on Dec 12, 2007 9:21 AM EST up reply actions

The Mitchell Report:

Subheading 1: <small>marketing... research... terminated...</small>

by Valatan on Dec 12, 2007 3:25 PM EST up reply actions

my understanding was

That hgh is used, rightly or wrongly, to help the body cope with extreme and sudden gains in muscle mass, to cope with the effects of steroids or what have you.

by geronimopena on Dec 12, 2007 8:22 AM EST reply actions

Yes and No

That is one theory of why players may have started taking HGH or one possible benefit to it. The other side is that players may take it to heal from surgeries. The biggest issue with it is that a healthy adult should not NEED extra HGH to heal and might actually hurt themselves by adding more to their system then the body makes normally. Children can sometimes need HGH if they aren't growing fast enough (my friend used it). The effects on a healthy adult though are negligible in healing power and haven't been proven to do anything beneficial.

I think you are right though that lots of players/people think that HGH will help a body deal with added stress, such as that brought on by Steroids. So targeting HGH users might give you a good list of Steroid users but in other cases it could turn up perpetually injured players, Ankiel for one. We don't know for sure why Rick took HGH but I would be pretty confident that it was for recovery not steroids based on the facts we know.

by StLHugo on Dec 12, 2007 8:44 AM EST up reply actions

Some believe that HGH

will allow the soft tissues (ligaments, tendons, etc.) to grow along with the muscle mass. In theory this would reduce the likelihood of steroid-related injuries like patellar tendinitis.

Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...

by giveml on Dec 12, 2007 11:27 AM EST up reply actions

If America cared

If America cared about PED's we would probably of not seen Shawn Merriman on TV commercials.

by DimitroffVodka on Dec 12, 2007 9:35 AM EST reply actions

America only cares

about baseball players who use PED's. Football players are ok.

by chuckb on Dec 12, 2007 10:19 AM EST up reply actions

It's the numbers

People care about PED's in baseball because the sport has such a history. That history is enshrined in its numbers.

Football, as a professional and statistically tracked sport, has only been prevalent for, what, fifty years?

Give football another seventy years and as big an emphasis on stats and people would care.

It's not the fans fault that the most interesting things in football are the hits and cheerleaders.

Besides, it's more of a media issue than anything else anyway.

by arch support on Dec 12, 2007 11:41 AM EST up reply actions

ESPN's Howard Bryant

wrote a fascinating story about how Mitchell went about his "investigation"...

If player names are named, MLB better be damn sure they can prove steroid use; if they can't, they'll be open to libel and slander suits from those who are named.

If everybody but team owners are "named" in the report, it's a total crock... NOBODY (including the press and public) wanted to know about steroid use at the time! The home-run hitters get the bulk of the blame for "juicing"... what about the pitchers of the "Steroid Era"?

I still don't understand the indignation directed at baseball, compared to the lack of cries against NFL players who fail their league's PED tests! A four-game suspension, and that's it???

While I'd rather watch "clean" games, there are always going to be those who try to cheat to gain an advantage. Baseball is addressing the issue (however poorly)... the Mitchell Report is likely to be a grandstanding ploy to appease a grandstanding Congress.

"In this game, don't nobody know nuthin' about nuthin'." -- attributed to Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra

by The Ol Goaler on Dec 12, 2007 11:37 AM EST reply actions

Yes!!

That turned out to be a good piece from ESPN!

Trade for Sean Rodriguez! (But please dont call him S-Rod!)

by cardschinmusic on Dec 13, 2007 3:15 AM EST up reply actions

MLB vs. NFL

What I don't get is why all this wrath is directed at baseball, and yet the NFL, WWE, and bodybuilding are just kind of ignored. I would wager that more little kids in this country know who Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and Hulk Hogan are than, say, Miguel Tejada or Miguel Cabrera. No matter what Selig says, the NFL is the most popular league in America, and a lot of kids know who pro wrestlers are (I know, I'm a teacher for god's sake!), even if they don't watch that waste of space crap. If we're going to get all huffy and puffy about protecting America's children, then why don't people focus on the NFL at all, and why do people only focus on wrassling when some guy gets 'roid rage and shoots up his own family?

Another beef I have is that steroid use in the NFL makes people bigger and stronger in a sport where the goal is to hit someone very very hard. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that its more dangerous to 'roid up and go hit someone than to 'roid up and hit a baseball.

Third, its pretty widely speculated that about 1/2 of the Panthers Super Bowl team from a few years ago was taking stuff and getting it from one pharmacy. You want to talk about competitive balance, well how about one whole goddamn team taking PEDs and making the Super Bowl! Where is the outcry over this? How come John Fox and Julius Peppers aren't getting hauled in before Congress? Why aren't Ted Kennedy and John McCain railing on Steve Smith and HeHateMe? Its just all a big fucking joke so some people can make it look like they did something to stop this whole shitshow.

This whole PED situation is such a joke now that I just don't even know what to think anymore. I think the only fair thing to do might be to just shut down every professional sports league in the US, because it's painfully obvious that the problem is very, very widespread. I mean, the 2nd biggest name nailed in the new PED-testing program was Matt Fucking Lawton...Who gives a shit about him?

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 12, 2007 12:51 PM EST reply actions

I hope like hell

that there are names. I am frothing in anticipation.

by 26thMan on Dec 12, 2007 1:09 PM EST reply actions

Ethical Question...

... if the problem with steroids/HGH/amphetamines/whatever use is that it cheapens the game, cheats the fans who thought they were watching a clean game, and distorts sacred records, then here's a question for you:

if a player knew of teammates taking illegal supplements and didn't tell anybody, is he any less ethically responsible for tarnishing the image of the game and the product on the field than the guy actually taking the substance? that is, if the concern over steroids/HGH is that it somehow cheated fans out of something, then anyone who knew anything about this and didn't expose it is just as guilty as the people who took it. by remaining silent, they were perpetrating the lie. therefore, even the non-juicers are culpable if they knew something was up. and i find it hard to believe that very many people, from players to coaches to strength trainers to ballboys, didn't know that something was up with many players. and, apparently, no players talked to Mitchell. nobody was willing to come clean.

so, everyone is guilty! great! that's settled. now let's be done with this. i say we should let athletes take whatever the hell they want. their bodies belong to them, not us, no matter how much we sometimes think it's the opposite. these people are adults. they should be able to weigh the potential risks against the potential rewards and make their own determination. all this nanny-state hysteric paternalism is downright appalling to me.

maybe it is unethical for MLB to lie about steroid use. but it seems even more unethical for us to remove individual choice from adults so that we can feel better about ourselves.

by kindred on Dec 12, 2007 3:30 PM EST reply actions

Upon seeing how professional wrestlers are treated

I"m leery of a system under which owners profit greatly from amusing paying fans with their cadre of mutants that they've trained from a young age to destroy their bodies. It would quickly become an unwritten team policy that players take steroids. If baseball turns into kids destroying themselves for my amusement, I'm done. There's plenty of hypocracy to go around here, but just allowing anything isn't a solution.

by Valatan on Dec 12, 2007 3:45 PM EST up reply actions

to a large degree...

... sports is about players wrecking their bodies for our amusement. i don't know if there is a retired professional athlete alive without a busted knee or back. these guys all have multiple surgeries during their careers, and often have many more after their playing days are done. football players have lifespans well below the average life expectancy for Americans. their careers often destroy their bodies and their families. these guys get concussions and sometimes suffer conditions from them that last their whole lives (see: Mike Matheny and just about every professional boxer in history).

let's be honest here. we are paying these guys to be our monkeys, and we're only concerned for their health and well-being insofar as it pertains to their performance on the field*. the recent retired NFL players scandal is another demonstration of that. when we hear that Pujols has plantar fascitis, none of us are concerned about the fact that he will have to live the next 50 years of his life in an increasingly hobbled state, or that he will incur a lot of pain and suffering through surgeries and rehab. all we care about is how it will affect his performance.

but these guys take the deal. it is a choice that they make, and they know the risks of injury. they know that, in all likelihood, their bodies will be shot by the time their careers are done. they are willing to make that trade. and every time we watch a game or buy some merch, we are implicitly buying into that system.

i hate to sound callous, but that's the truth.

now, perhaps steriods is too extreme for some people. i guess i can understand that. but i think it's worth mentioning that we are talking about a difference in degrees of physical abuse, and nothing more. and i think that the decision on where to draw the line should lie with the player, not with anyone else.

*excepting the extraordinary injuries, like JuanEnc's.

by kindred on Dec 12, 2007 4:11 PM EST up reply actions

Good point

Not saying I necessarily agree with you, but it's something I hadn't considered to that degree before.

by arch support on Dec 12, 2007 5:53 PM EST up reply actions

quality of life? Could be worse

Then there's the long range effect of the steriods on internal organs and the impact on use by developing bodies. Yeah, I believe kids will use if its ok with the pros.

Theres no doubting the beating they take. Love and money.

Those two negatives on the future quality of life are enuff for me to say we dont need them to go that far. I dont need a "super" jock to enjoy watching sports.

Watching some old video of pre WWII Johnny Pesky at SS was plenty o' thrills the other morning. The old school was amphetamines and alcohol, Ill bet Mick and others would do that differently if given the chance.

I agree with all who say the HR and the quick recovery game to game are the impetus re: use in MLB.

Trade for Sean Rodriguez! (But please dont call him S-Rod!)

by cardschinmusic on Dec 13, 2007 3:35 AM EST up reply actions

Does the Mitchell Report come out

on Friday. I may not even bother to post and just put up a big picture of syringes. . .

by azruavatar on Dec 12, 2007 4:11 PM EST reply actions

Thursday

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7553170

"NEW YORK (AP) - George Mitchell is ready to reveal all.

Thursday afternoon, he'll announce the results of his 20-month investigation into drug use in baseball.

But baseball commissioner Bud Selig does not plan to walk the few blocks to witness it. Instead, he'll hold his own news conference at 4:30 p.m., 2 1/2 hours after Mitchell."

So Az you get to have the honor of the "day after" blog post where you get to react to all the Cards on the list.

by StLHugo on Dec 12, 2007 4:41 PM EST up reply actions

lovely

by azruavatar on Dec 12, 2007 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

Any Bets?

This guy is on the payroll of Bud Selig and the Boston Red Sox. Do you think there will be any Red Sox or Brewers in his report...my guess, nobody of consequence. Even if Canseco and Palmeiro were shooting each other up on TV commercials during American Idle, they wouldn't be hit. Now some schmuck who nobody has heard of may get hit.

Look out, teams like the Pirates, Royals, Devil Rays...you're teams will probably be smacked since you haven't made the playoffs or have power within the league.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Dec 12, 2007 6:20 PM EST up reply actions

When the mitchell report comes out

"I may not even bother to post and just put up a big picture of syringes. . ."

you will be held to this.

by Crentist on Dec 12, 2007 5:26 PM EST up reply actions

nothing will change

SSDD. money to be made off the fans.

when does RB Fallstrom get inducted to the hall of fame?

by hongniao on Dec 12, 2007 4:11 PM EST reply actions

The real problem is lack of completeness

The "success" of the report is entirely dependent on everyone "talking". If only a partial, but large, number of people talked, then certain players may get named, but others who did the same or even worse may get indirectly "cleared" because their associates did not talk. Ultimately, the whole era will still be under a cloud of suspicion no matter what the report says.

by bailorg on Dec 12, 2007 5:41 PM EST reply actions

i don't think...

... any players talked.

by kindred on Dec 12, 2007 5:58 PM EST up reply actions

I was thinking more of

Team hired trainers, individual trainers, doctors, etc.

by bailorg on Dec 12, 2007 8:48 PM EST up reply actions

Mets Clubhouse Guy

Evidently some guy in the Mets' clubhouse was a big distributor of PED's to players all over the league. He spilled the beans on a bunch of players and led to the NY-Florida PED distribution ring being busted. (where Ankiel, Glaus, Guillen, and Gibbons all got their stuff)

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Dec 12, 2007 6:24 PM EST reply actions

Nobody likes a snitch

"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Dec 12, 2007 11:00 PM EST up reply actions

what will this help

honestly we knwo of who used roids in the 90s and 2000s they have a policy in place that seems to be off to the right start, so what will this do other than put a bigger cloud over the game?

Hope Aps not on the list..i could live with any other card..mcgiwre i have come to terms with kinda..

I can't believe i gave up a homerun to that punchinjudy hitter-major league 2

by punchinjudy on Dec 13, 2007 12:16 AM EST reply actions

...Albert and SR

If anyone had an excuse (tho there is none) while battling injuries, Rolen might have, but I dont want to think the big cat playing defense at third had anything to do with anything other than EHC, training and refexes, which is #1 why I've been a Rolen fan all along. He's still Robinsons and Schmidts favorite third baseman.

A proud guy that plays the game the way it should be, even when he should'nt. Like Dean and the toe injury, cant let anything rob chances to be out there if you have any control at all.

That doesnt make it right to play injured if it hurts the team or your recovery.

Trade for Sean Rodriguez! (But please dont call him S-Rod!)

by cardschinmusic on Dec 13, 2007 3:49 AM EST up reply actions

Clemens

ESPN reporting that Roger Clemens' personal trainer (and a trainer for the Yankees) had purchased steroids and will be named in the Mitchell Report. No word on Albert yet from my scanning of early reports.

It's not a surprise to me, but I'm guessing it will be contested vigorously.

by enoscountry on Dec 13, 2007 9:58 AM EST reply actions

There's a list floating around on the internet

Of the names in the report that is almost assuredly false. It doesn't jive with the known fact that no current Mets are on the list, and it's lacking in players from the late 80's/early 90's that will probably make up a good majority of the list.

So of course, they're treating it like gospel over at the PD board. (OMG PUJ0LS n0000!!1) Because nobody can slap together a list of baseball players and put it on the internet.

"A great catch is like watching girls go by; the last one you see is always the prettiest." - Bob Gibson

by stl tyler on Dec 13, 2007 11:38 AM EST up reply actions

Albert Pujols is included on an email....

This is a list of names being circulated around the internet...

Keep in mind that this list might be just as legit as the email I get saying that I have 6MM waiting in a bank account in Nigeria.

"Here is the list I heard, from a fairly reliable source:

"Brady Anderson, Manny Alexander, Rick Ankiel, Jeff Bagwell, Bar ry Bonds, Aaron Boone, Rafaeil Bettancourt, Bret Boone, Milton B radley, David Bell, Dante Bichette, Albert Belle, Paul Byrd, Wil Cordero, Ken Caminiti, Mike Cameron, Ramon Castro, Jose and Ozz ie Canseco, Roger Clemens, Paxton Crawford, Wilson Delgado, Lenn y Dykstra, Johnny Damon, Carl Everett, Kyle Farnsoworth, Ryan Fr anklin, Troy Glaus, Rich Garces, Jason Grimsley, Troy Glaus, Jua n Gonzalez, Eric Gagne, Nomar Garciaparra, Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, jackkindregan (9:54:45 AM) : Jose Guillen, Jay Gibbons, Juan Gon zalez, Clay Hensley, Jerry Hairston, Felix Heredia, Jr., Darren Holmes, Wally Joyner, Darryl Kile, Matt Lawton, Raul Mondesi, Ma rk McGwire, Guillermo Mota, Robert Machado, Damian Moss, Abraham Nunez, Trot Nixon, Jose Offe rman, Andy Pettitte, Mark Prior, Neifi Perez, Rafael Palmiero, A lbert 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, IJason Varitek, Ismael Valdez, Matt Williams and Kerry Wood.
Couple of big names, including Clemens and Pujols. "

Let's build for '09...

by Born in 82 on Dec 13, 2007 11:36 AM EST reply actions