Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
...The Mitchell Report. Ta-da!
Update: Maury Brown does a tidy job of breaking down the names.
Which report are you reading? There are a bunch of former Red Sox players throughout.
I love a pony show!
Bring on the dancing poodles!
Which Yankees were named?
7 Which Sox were named?
What it ends up being is a mostly circumstantial, dimly lit path linking a few networks of players. The names are mostly those already suspected or known and the report is going to fizzle into the ether once pitchers and catchers report in February. The importance of the whole research and its place in baseball history is suspect and the hype that has accompanied any discussion of it for all these weeks and months is like everything else in the 24-hour news cycle: sketchy, fleeting trivia.
The last name is not surprising, given that he came from a steroid-fueled college culture that was Duke baseball. I didn't get to the university until the aftermath, where the coach was fired and one kid reportedly committed suicide due to the pressure to take testosterone.
10 Names spread out, separated by informant by the most part.
f- that nonsense.. i think im cool with that.
But the Dodgers were well ahead of both with 54 mentions, while the Giants got 55.
What a complete bore this report was....wow...Tejada, Clemens, Bonds, Petitte were name. This guy sure went "deep cover" to figure this all out.
Gammons defending Mitchell who defended Selig. Another big WHATEVER.
I think the report needs to separate out players who used HGH, specifically for an injury, specifically for a limited amount of time. I assume the HGH was doctor prescribed and specifically for healing of any injury.
If so, if was not 'used' as a PED, but as a medicine.
i dont see that anywhere in the report.
Mitchell barely called out Selig. I wish Marvin Miller was still the head of MLBPA. He would take huge chunks out of Mitchell and Selig. This whole thing is so sickening. It is all scapegoating the players.
19 HGH is not a "Performance Enhancing Drug." It does not increase muscle mass... As a supplement, it may increase fat burning, it may increase the growth of bone and other tissues, and it may help the immune system. It has about the same side effects as massive injections of vitamin B12.
The primary difference is that HGH is a controlled substance and possession/illicit use can result in jail time and significant fines.
I personally don't think Pettitte is stained much by this report. We know HGH wasn't on MLB's banned list until 2005. I am not sure if it was illegal to possess. If not, I really don't see what Pettitte did wrong?
"Obviously, the players who illegally used performance enhancing substances are responsible for their actions. But they did not act in a vacuum. Everyone involved in baseball over the past two decades Commissioners, club officials, the Players Association, and players shares to some extent in the responsibility for the steroids era. There was a collective failure to recognize the problem as it emerged and to deal with it early on. As a result, an environment developed in which illegal use became widespread."
...remember all of those articles written about giambi's great eyesight way back when? i am genuinely curious to know if he still has that going for him.
Now, Yankee-hating fools will hurl insults and syringes at him before games and between innings.
Fucking stinks, but what can you do?
Hopefully, he and the Yanks (hello Hank) won't overreact too much to the smear. Could make it worse.
Best they can do is calmly present his case to a national media outlet, and then stifle themselves.
Just what the Yanks need -- another overblown distraction. Fuck.
"Clemens, Miguel Tejada and Pettitte were named in the report, an All-Star roster linked to steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs that put a question mark -- if not an asterisk -- next to some of baseball's biggest moments."
Yeah, that's a crappy, sensationalist sentence. Someone was getting far too creative there. That article has been expanding since the press conference started and that line was in there from the beginning. My guess is that someone wrote that before they actually got their hands on the report and then just checked to make sure those names were actually in there. Big media at its best.
That's why I said that the existence of the report is more interesting than the content. It is less a piece of paper with information than a symbolic cleansing of the public palate. It's a facilitator of purgation that allows us to move on. That is the only importance of the document.
Were owners and the commish turning a blind eye because revenues were up? Sure. But the balance of power in baseball is clearly on the side of the MLBPA.
Yes? No? Isn't this a MAJOR MAJOR issue?
Aren't there many people, including the press, that see HGH and Steroids as the 'same thing'?
It's a little like lumping Pot and shooting Heroine together?
What I've read - thank you sabernomics.com - doesn't say anything about hGH improving eyesight (http://tinyurl.com/2utp39). In fact, it seems that claim is in an unsubstantiated line from Game of Shadows - http://tinyurl.com/3bp9ch.
"The trainer reportedly also provided information about pitcher Andy Pettitte"
reportedly!! So, they hadn't even read the report yet either.
Let's just put all the names in a big, boiling pot and stir!
The report isn't all that interesting or surprising. It's just a connect the dots from a few people who did cooperate. But that was critical to show how a few people could have such a large impact on the rest of the league. And there were a lot more than a couple of trainers out there supplying this stuff.
But I'm inclined to agree with Mitchell that we should stop worrying about who did what and do whatever's reasonable to stop this moving forward.
1) HGH was not on MLB's banned list until 2005; steroid have been since the 1980s (even though no testing was done).
2) HGH, by best searches, was not considered a controlled subtance until 2004, while steroid have been illegal since 1990.
Based on those two facts, what was wrong with taking HGH before 2004/2005?
37 The balance of power in MLB lies with the owners, not the MLBPA.
Best option at this point is to take the lumps and start preparing for the season.
And yeah - I'm counting my blessings there was no mention of Bernie, Jeter, Mo, or Posada.
(Of course this is a baseball-wide problem -- I'm just taking the Yanks as the example most familiar all of us, not to single them out).
Also: I haven't thought about him in years, but in retrospect Glenallen Hill might as well have carried an enormous neon sign reading "STEROIDS" to the plate with him. I once saw him flick his wrists about six inches and send a ball into the black seats...
Ignoring the ties between HGH and steroids (as in, the former nearly requires the latter to be effective), a lot of the recent HGH names came from an anti-aging clinic in Florida. So, why were highly-paid athletes going to see this guy instead of an expert in elbow or knee injuries?
i saw another article or two as well when i read that way back when that seemed to follow that line... i'll poke around and see if i can find it.
Actually, the funniest allegation of all is that about one pound of marijuana was delivered straight to the Marlins clubhouse in a "padlocked duffel bag" in 1998. I guess they needed something to get over the pain of the Fire Sale...
But when steroid use skyrocketed, I'd say the union was running the show. I suppose you can argue that the owners were letting the union get away with it because they were happy with the eye-popping numbers, but those same numbers drove up the pricetag for marginal players like Brady Anderson and Brett Boone.
It's certainly an arguable point, though we're probably given too much credit to both sides.
This is ridiculous. Almost all the guys named were from the trainer in NYC. Yeah, like trainers in Boston and Miami and Chicago and L.A. are totally clean.
It's no wonder the '01 Yanks look like a bunch of criminals. Only their trainer spoke up.
Years ago, some asshat on ESPN claimed that if you put Tejada in Jeter's place in 1996, you'd have the same result.
Who's laughing now biatch
But if a trainer is giving Ryan 8 advil, he should be concerned about its effect on his kidneys. (I think.) Regardless, a doctor should be consulted if you're going beyond recommended dosages because a trainer wouldn't necessarily know about the long-term impact of some of these drugs.
53 I don't know. But I suspect that even if it wasn't illegal, it was still only available via a prescription from a doctor... I don't think it was something you could buy at GNC (unlike creatine and andro, at the time).
I'd think a trainer shouldn't be injecting athletes with most of this stuff without doctor supervision.
In my research on HGH it seems that the biggest way it could be of assistance to an athlete is in muscle recovery. This could be especially helpful to a pitcher, who does the exact same thing with his arm 100+ times in a row.
From a legal perspective, I'd guess that the players have no recourse for slander, but from a purely ethical standpoint, with the knowledge that what is printed in the mass media becomes truth via repetition, it would be better to avoid names without hard, damning evidence. The discussion here about Pettitte illustrates that better than anything.
Score another one for the corporate government media complex.
There was a great episode where an old Jewish man was suing a cryogenics firm who was using data gathered by the Nazi's during WWII. It seems Hitler was dunking Jews into vats of ice water to 'study' the effects.
His case was based on the fact that this was an extreme form of torture, and collected by a wholly immoral group, and that data collected in such a reprehensible manner should not be used in trying to create 'positive' science.
The Jew who started the case was a survivor who had this done to him many times. Many others died of heart failure and other organ damage. When he 'testified in court' to his experience, I was quite moved.
(To finish the story on the show...)
Anyway... the case was lost, and the judge ruled that this 'data' was allowed to be used for further scientific research. The Firm was crestfallen, but very surprised when their client wasn't. When they asked why he wasn't disappointed in the outcome, he said "I never expected to win". Then why go through thsi emotional trial? "So they will never forget" he said.
Anyway, my point is, regardless of the motivations of the report, and all the other issues that can legitimately be challenged, I still think it's important to examine the issues raised and discuss them. Just saying the report is a 'crock' should not allow us to dismiss what was said.
Certainly the players can't.
Any if Andy, or anyone else did HGH for medicinal purposes, and did NOT do steroids, I hope they come out and make that very clear to the public. I can't say I've read a lot, but I have seen little if any real proof that HGH has any benefits other then repairing/rebuilding tissue. If prescribed by a doctor, how can this be seen as 'wrong'?
An antibiotic helps heal infections faster. Is this a PED
As an aside, I read that Bonds said the HGH improved his eyesight, but that it had been damaged by the steroids, and it 'improved' back to it pre-damaged condition. Does that seem right to you?
In a way, it's unfortunate that the report named names, because it was so narrow. It causes the knee-jerk reaction of, "Look, these are the steroid abusers!"
But that's not what it says. It was merely connecting the dots to show how these things spread, using testimony from a few insiders.
Pettitte (and others) will be smeared by this regardless of the legal issues. Big Mac is NOT in the HOF even though he retired long before 2004.
When Congress bootstrapped anabolic steroids into the Controlled Substances Act by passing the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990, steroids were already covered under 21 USC § 333(e), a part of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. That law, passed in 1988, made it a felony to distribute steroids (without criminalizing their personal use). When the Control Act effectively took steroids out of that section, Congress filled the void by sticking hGH in there. So, while hGH is not scheduled, 21 USC § 333(e) prohibits the distribution or possession with intent to distribute hGH for any use in humans other than for recognized medical reasons and pursuant to a valid prescription. Violations may be punishable by imprisonment of up to 5 years (10 years if to a person under 18 years).
"Mitchell had testimony from a couple of New York sources, who not surprisingly had names of many New York players. Did Mitchell make an equal effort to gain testimony from Boston steroid sources? Or sources in any other city for that matter? If Mitchell had more Red Sox players' names, would he have been less likely to include any names in his report? These are fair questions given Mitchell's position with the Red Sox, and Mitchell's responses to the questions would have little credibility because he is inherently compromised, even if only in subconscious ways. The fact that he didn't recognize this and decided to accept the job demonstrates, if anything, a complete ignorance to the conflict of interest, making his judgment all the more suspect."
Pot and Heroine are both controlled substances.
Are you telling me that if someone said 'you shot lots of Heroine' that it would be no more damming then if someone said 'you smoked lots of Pot'?
This isn't just from a Yankees standpoint. Mitchell works for the Red Sox. It's at the very least reasonable to question whether he fully investigated the Sox, as hard as he went after other teams. Read Bryant's article.
Also, can someone contact Ken about the latest moron troll?
1) He had a conflict of interest.
2) In the average baseball fan's eye, as evidenced by our favorite bandwagon fan, the New York area teams will be judged as less moral simply because a New Yorker was investigated.
Both are just more reasons why this thing was stupid.
As others have noted, Mitchell's conflict of interest wouldn't have lasted one minute in any court. Being hired by the commish and being paid, but "on leave" from one of the teams, even if there is all semblance of being fair and balanced, is simply far far far too questionable to stand up in any legal situation.
That being said, I doubt Mitchell really shielded any Sox players, I simply think he had 0 real power and didn't dig all that deep. He used two sources basically, and one of those sources doesn't actually have any evidence to back up his claims. Both of those sources happen to come from NY. A large majority of the names listed happen to come from teams in direct competition with Mitchell's employer. None of the players implicate his employer at all.
Even with all of that, I still think Mitchell was on the straight and narrow, which just underscores how much of a shame this "report" is. He couldn't force anybody to talk, he used two sources and circumstantial evidence, a large # of the names listed were ALREADY named previously, and almost none of the players could actually be punished due to the flimsy evidence.
Wikipedia's entry on his book states, "Barthes refers to the tendency of socially constructed notions, narratives, and assumptions to become "naturalized" in the process, that is, taken unquestioningly as given within a particular culture."
I would argue that this is what's happening to Clemens and Pettitte here. Particularly Pettitte. Bonds is a man with direct legal links to this issue. Giambi is also an admitted user, as is (apparently) Sheff. There are others. Pettitte has been linked by this report to performance enhancing drugs with only the most circumstantial evidence, if you can even call it evidence, yet he is lumped in with the legally damned.
His name is all over the headlines today. Mass-mediated communication channels have now fueled the mythologization of Pettitte as a PED monster, and he will never be able to extricate himself from it. It's over. That's why the names should have been redacted for public use.
If GSIII was still lucid, he'd be calling for Selig's resignation. I wonder what Hank's response will be.
"Roberts and Larry Bigbie were both rookies in 2001. According to Bigbie, both
he and Roberts lived in Segui's house in the Baltimore area during the latter part of that season.
When Bigbie and Segui used steroids in the house, Roberts did not participate.
According to Bigbie, however, in 2004 Roberts admitted to him that he had
injected himself once or twice with steroids in 2003. Until this admission, Bigbie had never
suspected Roberts of using steroids."
Thats f-n EVIDENCE ?!? This coming from a senator.
I don't care how you sugar coat it, there aren't any red sox named, and i just don't think its possible that none of them had anything to do with it. The drugs unfortunately seem to follow LoDuca and Clemens everywhere, and Clemens played there too. And like someone said earlier, there is simply no way they are the only trainers that had PEDs. This report is an embarrassment.
Yes, these players broke some rules -- just like hundreds of players not named in the report.
I would not be at all surprised if Piazza was a user as well.
Sure, they're reasonable... if the report was an investigation of each team and not of the steroid issue in general.
He wasn't investigating the Yankees or the Red Sox or the Mets. He was investigating steroids. The only people who cooperated were those who were busted and forced to do so as part of a plea agreement. One of them was a trainer with ties to the Yankees. That's how you get from point A to B.
And maybe I'm naive, but I doubt Senator Mitchell would risk his reputation --- one that's been earned with some pretty great work throughout the world --- to protect the Red Sox.
But it's only incomplete if you assume it was created solely to name names. It was actually created to give an idea of the scope of the problem, and I think it would be truly incomplete if that was limited to "many players" instead of actual names.
Anyway, blame the media for lazily saying that the report says "[Player X] used HGH." The actual report says no such thing about any players. It has quotes, it shows connections, but it never states anything. It presents the evidence and lets the reader decide.
i dont think he passed over any evidence or hid any red sox names, but im sure with the amount of data that the yankees trainer was provided there wasnt much need to really do any deep dives into other teams. maybe it was his subpoena power, maybe it was a deadline, maybe it was pure lack of interest, but this certainly seems like a report that is based mostly if not entirely around NY.
(btw the yankee trainer taught my friend at st. johns, and had the reputation of being a notorious name dropper and a scumbag)
1) I hope people realize that most of these names are from one source and there could be many more Radomski type guys around baseball supplying different people.
2) I found it strange that there were basically no Mets named considering the guy worked for them. This tells me that he was potentially protecting those who he is close to while satisfying the investigation with the other names.
The purpose of this report was to name names so Selig could grandstand (see, I care, I took down Roger Clemens). Any consulting company could have offered recommendations about how to proceed in the future. Instead, this report was designed to rehash the past, place blame on the players and relieve Selig's conscience. I am sorry, but in any other industry, if widespread corruption was reported, the CEO would be forced to resign. Selig should step down if he really wants the game to move on.
But again, this talk of individual teams and players isn't particularly relevant because it wasn't an investigation of the teams in MLB or the players. It was a report designed to determine the scope and size of the steroid issue, but more importantly to create a plan for moving forward.
See 118 . This was a witch hunt.
I also agree with those who say that the report shouldn't have named names. Since there will be no further investigation - "time to turn the page" - this group of players will bear all the blame. Everyone else will get a pass, when in fact no one has been exonerated. Our troll friend seems to feel that Clemens's sin is Piazza's redemption, and that's the way it's going to play in the history books - but there's absolutely no reason to believe that Mike Piazza did or didn't use PEDs. Pettitte and Knoblauch were named, but that doesn't mean that Jeter and Bernie didn't juice.
If you put asterisks (or some such) by the names of those players, it legitimizes the achievements of all the others at their expense. That's not right.
Where did I even imply such a thing?
I suspect similar numbers of players on each team were doing it, maybe more for some and less for others. I find it particularly interesting how many players --- both admitted, named, and rumored --- have ties to the A's.
And Mitchell had no subpoena power; this wasn't a legal issue.
But he wasn't.
Look, if Andy Pettitte's name wasn't in the report, I doubt anyone here would be questioning Mitchell's credibility. But isn't it equally as interesting that it includes an e-mail from Theo Epstein asking about Eric Gagne and past steroid use?
That to me is a pretty nasty example of ownership/management not caring about the issue, since the Sox traded for him anyway.
Conflict of interest is a very common principle. More noble men than Mitchell have recused themselves from cases in which the appearance of a conflict existed (even less direct than Mitchell's). Also, I think we can assume that there are other noble people like Mitchell who don't have conflicts. Why Selig shoe-horned Mitchell into this investigation is beyond me.
Voice your opinion and discuss it all here with your fellow listeners during SportsNation on ESPN Radio! John and Orestes will be following the discussion and the best comments may be read on air.
Listen live (4-6:30 ET)
138 people (especially many people on this site) have been questioning mitchell's credibility long before this report came out. sure it doesn't help our opinion of the report that not only is andy's name in the report but the "evidence" against him is flimsy and he is included for supposedly doing something that wasn't even banned at the time.
my issue, as well as many others judging by the comments, is the report relied only a few sources and thus led to only a specific group of players named hence the list is not close to comprehensive muchless exhaustive, so as a result, no names should have been included because we now have a list of "cheats" who are presumed guilty and everyone else will be presumed innocent.
I don't think there was any real impropriety, but Mitchell was a poor choice to lead the investigation. As Zack pointed out, at the very least he should have taken a leave from the Sox. Better would have been to recuse himself; better still would be for Selig not to screw it up in the first place, but that's asking a lot.
This report cannot form the basis for discipling players; there will be open and internecine war with the MLPA if they attempt to use it for that purpose. Selig cannot be serious about that.
(though he makes good points that selig (and fehr) should resign and that this document would not hold up in a court of law)
i wonder if this report will take some of the ridiculous focus off barry bonds?
143 I read Bryant's article, and I'd agree with him if this was a report produced for, say, Congress instead of Major League Baseball. And I'd still contend that the conflict isn't particularly relevant because, as I keep saying, it wasn't about nailing players or teams. It was about discussing the issue itself. It would be totally different if the stated goal was, "Root out steroid problems with the Yankees."
And I agree 100% --- and said so earlier --- that it shouldn't have named names because he received so little cooperation. At the same time, no one would have been satisfied with a report with the names redacted or with generalities like, "Many players in the league were taking steroids. But let's not talk about the past and move forward."
As for why Mitchell, it's probably because he has credibility in Washington. This was created, in part, to keep Congress from meddling in this issue.
BTW, this might have been lost in the last thread, but according to this link (http://tinyurl.com/2nahqw ), possession of hGH with intent to distribute has been against federal law since at least February 27, 1991.
117 I was thinking that because the Mets players were in the same clubhouse as Radomski, they probably used cash, not checks - and of course, cash leaves no paper trail.
107 I can't wait for Fehr, either.
153 I hate our government right now.
For at least the 3rd time, I don't think he attacked the Yankees.
If Mitchell was affiliated with the Yankees, do you think the report would be the same (based on which informants were used)?
If someone totally outside of MLB did this report, and they wanted to make it seem fair and balanced, do you think the ONLY informants used would BOTH be from NY?
"..was a report designed to determine the scope and size of the steroid issue"
Really... so with a few thousand players who played over the last dozen years, how many players do you thinks used? 80? What percentage of players used? 5%? 25%? Now that this report is out, please tell me the scope of this problem.
And on another subject...is there any chance the Yanks will sign any of the four players they nontendered last night to minor league deals?
So now do the "take away Bonds' records away" Yankee fans understand why the records cannot change? Who is willing to give up the pennants and World Series because of Clemens and Pettitte? Raise your hand. No? no? alright. Point made.
By putting someone like Mitchell who has had a direct relationship with the front offices of the game in charge, his credibility took another dive. I don't trust Selig further than I can throw him, and can't think of any scenario where a reasonable, logical person would have installed anyone other than someone with no ties to baseball as chief investigator in this case.
In any case, I think the conspiracy theories are silly. These are the guys who were copping pleas, and there wasn't any other source of info.
Steroids are a problem. Things should be done. I'm fine with that. But not in this manner.
Perchance... are you a Sox fan?
The report can't do that because it lacks credible evidence. There is no Palmeiro, but it doesn't matter because it also doesn't have a lot of other players that got caught. There are tons of minor leaguers for example that aren't named that we know about. The inclusion and omission of names demonstrates on its own that you can't take this seriously as a definitive, damning legal document, although that's what it will become in public opinion. That's my argument for redaction.
168 You are exactly right, and that is why I hate our government right now.
Epstein: "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?"
Scout: "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."
Yet the Sox still traded for him.
That, in a nutshell, is what was wrong with management and ownership during the "steroids era."
I disagree. These folk are very prototypical of the informed Americans that voted for GW.. twice. Welcome to America.
Also, you can watch the conference on espn.com
BOSTON -- The Boston Red Sox did not tender a contract to reliever Brendan Donnelly on Wednesday, hours before he was named Thursday in the Mitchell report about the illegal use of performance-enhancing substances in baseball.
Canseco: No hablo ingles
The other main source (for Clemens and Pettite, among others) is Brian McNamee: "Brian McNamee said that he was a direct eyewitness and participant in alleged illegal use by three players who he served as a personal trainer... His personal lawyer participated in each interview. Federal law enforcement officials and members of my staff participated with me in all of the interviews."
Mitchell also makes clear that the idea that before 2002 steroids or HGH were 'okay' in baseball is simply a myth, an error. The game always had it as a violation to use illegal drugs, or misuse prescription drugs (ie, get them with illicit prescriptions) for sport benefit. (I hadn't realized this part, myself.) Mitchell goes on at quite specific length on this point. Here's a quote:
"There is a widespread misconception that the use of steroids and other performance enhancing substances, such as human growth hormone, was not prohibited in Major League Baseball before the inclusion of the joint drug program in the 2002 Basic Agreement. In
fact, as early as 1991 baseball's drug policy expressly prohibited the use of "all illegal drugs and
controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual
does not have a prescription."
The report is also depressing on the apparent degree to which there was active subversion of drug testing by giving players way-ahead warnings of when they'd be tested again after a random positive, and the union appears (to my fast read) complicit in this.
I think it is a red herring to focus on allegations of Red Sox bias, or anti-Yankee or any such elements. The Radomski-focus, for me, just underscores how much wider the issue must have been, or must still be as he will not have been the only conduit: BALCO was very much off-limits, for example..
"Castiglione: How about the credibility of the list?
Canseco: I believe they're going to leave off lots of players. That's what I believe."
From that awesome article linked above.
BTW, RLYW has a much better thread going on the "conflict of interest" matter.
Having said this, Bonds is indicted for perjury, not steroid use. The focus on that will be unaffected, I'll guess.
Pettitte is going to be the one that stings a lot of people, I think (it does me). As best I can tell, his reported involvement is with HGH, and during a period when he was recovering from an elbow injury. Here's part of the passage, so everyone can stop guessing about what's said:
"From April 21 to June 14, 2002, Pettitte was on the disabled list with elbow tendonitis. McNamee said that Pettitte called him while Pettitte was rehabilitating his elbow in Tampa, where the Yankees have a facility, and asked again about human growth hormone. Pettitte stated that he wanted to speed his recovery and help his team.
McNamee traveled to Tampa at Pettitte's request and spent about ten days assisting Pettitte with his rehabilitation. McNamee recalled that he injected Pettitte with human growth hormone that McNamee obtained from Radomski on two to four occasions. Pettitte paid
McNamee for the trip and his expenses; there was no separate payment for the human growth hormone.
According to McNamee, around the time in 2003 that the BALCO searches became public, Pettitte asked what he should say if a reporter asked Pettitte whether he ever used performance enhancing substances. McNamee told him he was free to say what he wanted, but
that he should not go out of his way to bring it up. McNamee also asked Pettitte not to mention his name. McNamee never discussed these substances with Pettitte again. After the 2001 season, Pettitte, like Clemens, continued to use McNamee's services and to serve as a source of income after McNamee was dismissed by the Yankees. In a 2006 article, Pettitte "acknowledged an ongoing relationship" with McNamee. Pettitte was quoted as having said that he still talked to McNamee about once a week. "Mac has trained me professionally for a long time, and I'll continue to use Mac," Pettitte said."
Clemens? You mean Clemens' handlers. I doubt clemens can spell jeopardy.
I missed Fehr's conference; if anyone could provide a short re-cap, I'd really appreciate it.
As an on-topic point, while I certainly thing that what Pettitte did was not as bad as, say, Clemens or Bonds, that is the fan in me talking. Sure, HGH may not be a "performance-enhancing drug" as many of us might think of the term, but defending his HGH use as necessary or, to be frank, even conscionable behavior by a professional athlete is a bit of a slippery slope in my mind.
On June 8, 2007, in the 45th Round of the 2007 Major League Baseball Draft, the New York Yankees selected Venditte with the 1345th pick of the draft. Venditte was surprised by the pick because he had told all major league scouts that he intended to return to Creighton for his senior year. The Yankees called him during the 30th round of the draft asking him how much it would take to sign him, but Venditte refused to set a price. Ultimately, the Yankees were unable to sign Venditte before the August 15, 2007 signing deadline. Venditte said that he was not quite ready to turn professional and wants to build velocity with his left arm and add another pitch with his right arm.
Venditte played 2007 summer ball for the Wisconsin Woodchucks in the Northwoods League. As the Woodchuck's closer, he had a 4-1 record, 9 saves, a 1.76 ERA, and a .154 opponents' batting average.
In looking at the report it seems that no player named was with the Sawx at a time when they are accused of using PEDs or hGH in the report. I'd be interested to learn two things: First, is that observation correct and Second, how many other ML teams can make that claim about the content of the report?
Simply as an observation, it appears that if the Radomsky section were redacted there would be nothing of any real substance in the report. Had the Albany DA not broken their case there would have been nothing of real substance for Mitchell to report. It appears then that MLB paid him $60 million to take depositions from those two clowns. Damn, now that's the kind of sugar Papa likes and I sure would like to get in on it. Hell, I'll do twice the number of depositions at half the hourly rate and get a report out with a transcript attached a lot faster than Mitchell did.
I guess I've been saying this since the report broke but I find it almost unbelievable that these people could be so obtuse as to employ only two guys from New York as their direct witnesses in naming names. I'm sure Mitchell is a good and honorable man but the appearance and perception of bias created by this choice is devastating to the utility of the product. Maybe I'm missing it but this just looks like a failure to exercise good judgment at best and something entirely reprehensible at worst. For the life of me I cannot see whose cause this helps.
And Barry Bonds must be a pretty awesome ballplayer.
I suppose you could make a case that there should have been no Mitchell Commission called, or that it should have been delayed (till when?) or that Congress should have been the ones acting (ouch!), using subpoenas to compel testimony (with endless 'my counsel advises me not to answer that').
My sense, very early (obviously) is that the report will force the union onside with testing and control in a way it seems NOT to have been (do you have any thoughts on that part of the report?). That the report will serve as a tipping point for perception and MIGHT play a role in reducing chemical abuse. Not holdiong my breath, but I did see several quotes in there about jobs being taken away from 'clean' players ... and that's long been part of what I most disliked in the steroid culture.
203 If hgh doesn't help, the players paying thousands for an illegal product are doubly stupid, of course: risking real side effects for zero positive effects. But it doesn't remove the intent to have a positive effect, does it? Are you saying you are not bothered if someone tries to cheat and fails? No ethical issue at all?
207 If Andy could have gotten a prescription (does hgh help injury recovery time?) why didn't he? I have the same question about Paul (Flamethrower) Byrd and his health 'explanation' ... and his obliging dentist prescriber.
Bud is the guiltiest party here, with Fehr running a close second. Yet it is Andy and others who will get the collective scorn of public opinion.
No charges, no proof, no case. Just damned soldiers while the generals walk away. Disgusting.
After checking the vote, make sure to look at the map of what states voted what. It also tells you where the vast majority of ESPN fans come from.
Given a margin for error, it's about 50 / 50. For me (a New Yorker), neither Bonds nor Clemens gets my vote. Both cheated.
210 I do not believe there is a Red Sox bias. I believe there is an APPEARANCE of a Red Sox bias which leads precisely to the point you make. I'm not falling for it I'm calling them on it as are many others. If I remember correctly we agreed this was a probable outcome when this thing was announced 20 moths ago.
kudos to you my friend for thinking rationally rather than like some provincial heretic.
210 And the more it sounds like sour grapes.
218 I gave up on the local rags a long time ago. They're only good for comics and sudoku, and I can find those online...
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.