Thanks for the change of pace, Bruce.

Great show. Loved Wrangler Jane. I'm pretty sure she was my first TV crush.

http://tinyurl.com/2c4uq3

Thanks Bruce for this oasis. I still have a crush on Wrangler Jane so keep your psychological paws off Slice.

Mmmm, Wrangler Jane.

Rats-I wanted to be the first to mention Wrangler Jane. (Not in front of the men!)

That the name of the tribe was taken from an old joke (The where in the / heck are we? = hakawi tribe) is also kinda cool. Of course heck is in the G rated version of the joke.

Rain delays used to be something of a treat on channel 11. Twilight Zone, maybe Honeymooners, Odd Couple (a little later), and sometimes even F Troop. Beat the crap out of any Yankeeography.

"Where Indian fights are colorful sights
And nobody takes a lickin',
Where paleface and redskin
Both turn chicken."

Or: IT IS BALLOOOOOOON!

4 Mark, Mark, Mark. No "in," or it ruins the punchline:

Who are you?
We're the Hakawi (= Where the heck are we?)

I remember watching the reruns back on "Nick at Night" in the 80s. I don't remember Wrangler Jane, but at the time I was a little young to have a TV crush. The theme song - remember when TV shows had theme songs? - runs through my head from time to time, but I'm afraid to sing it out loud. Some of the language really was a bit much.

I miss the Little Rascals. Oh WPIX of my youth, where are you?

5 IT IS BALLOOOOOOON! I thought I was the only one who laughs at that one. I'm laughing right now.

Clip from the pilot, courtesy of youtube :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugi6MwCyWqI

Not a single word here on ARods phone conference.

Here's something I just learned about F-Troop courtesy of IMDB. Did you know that Wrangler Jane (actually actress Melody Patterson) was only 17 when they first began filming the show? I had no idea. I would have guessed early 20s, something like that.

That's why in the first season's episodes, you never see Wilton Parmenter make the "first move" on Jane, or return a kiss. Since Patterson was underage, the F-Troop people didn't want any kind of "scandal" associated with the show.

Also, it's hard to believe that only 42 episodes were filmed. Much like The Munsters, F-Troop was given the axe too soon.

I always thought that the Indians were smarter than the Troop. Am I not to read Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, or see West Side Story? For that matter, what about baseball banning Blacks for all those years.

And, as much as I liked the POV of the artice, I don't want to leave the subject of juice. I am having as much trouble with the subject as I have ever had with any of the problems of baseball. I am questioning my comittment to the game, just as reliving though the piece on F Troop the genocide of native americans by our government. Who knew about this and didn't tell me about it? How many of the pundits hid their knowlege to keep their sources open?. How many people in management, the union, the clubhouse, allowed it to go on? Can I still trust any of them/

Thanks for the reminder to check out the database. Frank De Kova was in the Mechanic. Damn. That was a long time ago.

And speaking about only 42 episodes, how many Honeymooners were there?

14 Everyone knew about it.
Bear in mind that this issue is being blown way out of proportion. We live in a country where the 2 worst drugs, alcohol and tabacco, are legal and consumed in mass quantities. So to show how righteous we all are, all other drugs and those that do them are criminals and the scum of the earth.

After all, the way we humans deal with our own inadequacies is to focus on other people's inadequacies.

Steroids are HGH should be banned. Not for moral reasons but for 'fairness' in playing the game. We don't know what the real effect of these drugs are. The only service MLB could do provide that would have real value would be to compile a study on the real effects on both performance and health, so players and fans can make there own decisions on how the game has been effected.

What if it turned out that Steroids and especially HGH had little effect on enhancing a players career, especially considering their negative effects?

Sensationalism and proselytizing sells newspapers, insights blog activity and diverts attention from the real issue. The real issue here is that the people IN CHARGE, the people whose job it is NOT to play the game, but to manage MLB, chose to look the other way for fear of upsetting the financial applecart.

Selig and Fehr, public enemies #1 and #2, as well as the owners and trainers, knew what what going on. But business as usual is far more important then ethical issues.

And just like with Abu Ghraib, the people at the top who are responsible for what goes on 'beneigth' them, it is instead the 'soldiers' who get the public scorn, while the generals maintain their position.

Listen to Bud. He STILL denies culpability. Listen to Fehr. He says MAYBE he should have acted differently. HA!

Is it news that human beings sometimes do drugs? Make poor decisions? Struggle to compete and make a living? Did we really learn anything new from this report? Are we proud of the recommendations that, aside from being common sense, were debated and rejected years ago by Selig and Fehr.

So now we have a list of 'cheaters' and 'bad people'. So what that baseball has always had a culture of alcohol, 'greenies' and womanizing. We now have some new guys we can say 'on my gosh' about, and divert our attention from discussing any of the real issues that MLB should be addressing.

Is there anyone here who doesn't believe that Selig and Fehr could have dealt with this issue 15 years ago and put it to bed?

Andy Pettitte took a shit this morning that had more moral and ethical fiber then 100 Seligs and Fehrs. This report, and the reasons for it, are pure propaganda. Please don't buy into it. Don't let your attention be diverted.

First Selig and Fehr, and now (Director of the Red Sox) Mitchell for playing along with this game. They are the ones who deserve our scorn.

14 I had no idea there were so many problems on F-Troop. It must have been that wacky Larry Storch, he always seemed to be a troubled guy to me.

http://www.f-troop.net/
I had forgotton that the infamous 'Medicine Man Roaring Chicken', was played by Edward Everett Horton, who aside from being a very famous actor, was also the unforgettable voice of the 'Fractured Fairy Tales' of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show.
(Is there a reason that show is not on everyday?)

It looks like the Yankees are talking to the Twins about Santana again. First, I was in favor of getting Johan, then I convinced myself it would be better to keep Hughes. Now, my head wants to explode. I wish the Yankees would decided on a course of action and act. All of this back and forth is maddening, and lessens my confidence that the team has a concrete plan.

But did Ken Barry use hgh? OYF that was a primo rant. I disagree with so much - we covered come of our areas of differing on the other thread. I have no idea, for example, why assailing Selig + Fehr + ownership also requires exonerating grown men doing things known to be cheating. I am entirely comfortable, and would expect many people to be, with holding individuals responsible for their actions while noting the toxic culture -- as I've done from my first posts on this. Want Selig and Fehr to resign? Sure. Happy to sign a petition. Then what? And Mitchell doesn't remotely exculpate the villains you identify, indeed he puts it squarely to all of them to act, going forward, and suggests NOT issuing punishments going backwards.

One does not have to make Andy Pettitte (a career-long favorite of mine) a hero in this to make points about the game's management. In fact, I'd say it trivializes the players, it makes them idiot children, if we just point to and blame the 'bosses'. (I am aware there is a real argument that when you get to impoverished young teens seeking a way out of that poverty, that the steroid culture needs to be altered. I'd say Mitchell is all over that, myself.)

None of this suggests (I've said this before, too) that we can expect drug testing to be successful, or that cheaters won't go ahead and cheat. I do feel a need to ask you, since you're sticking with Pettitte: why couldn't he have talked to a doctor about medicine to speed recovery? Sought a formal dispensation for the use of a prescribed treatment? This is what Byrd says he did - and he's being refuted flat-out. (And using a disqualified dentist for massive shipments kind of doesn't help his case.)

Incidentally, on hgh, my morning reading suggests it does NOT boost performance to any known degree, it MAY speed healing, and so may well qualify as a legitimate prescription medicine route.

17 William, I'd say it would be silly in December to have a 'fixed' position on something like Santana. The market changes, we respond to it. It IS winter. And snowing a ton here. Haren's gone, Bedard is unlikely to stay in the AL East, Santana's value and desirability are affected by these things. I prefer Hank to keep quiet, myself, and let Cash, who is NOT talking much, take his time, evaluate, respond in due course. Hank's quote today becomes silly: he sets a firm deadline then says it wasn't firm.

As to Nathan ... I can't imagine it happening. He's worth 12-13 million, surely, if Gagne's 10 and Mo is 15 (and Nathan could easily get 4-5 years, you know). Not coming to set-up here.

Given what the D-Backs gave up to get Haren, I wonder if landing Santana is feasible.

18 My dear 'Broke up 2 No-Hitters in the 9th inning' era....
1) Just tell me, aside from individual player names, what did you learn from that report that you didn't already know?
2) What recommendations were made that hadn't been thought of already?
3) Do you disagree with "Selig and Fehr could have dealt with this issue 15 years ago and put it to bed"

"assailing Selig + Fehr + ownership also requires exonerating grown men"
The players named will all suffer to some degree. How much suffering have Selig and Fehr really experienced? The guy who is the MOST guilty is now in charge of handing out 'punishments' to those named players. You are OK with that?????

Brian Roberts is on the list because some other player said "Brian told me he did Steroids 2 or 3 times". That is the very definition of hearsay. How much should Brian 'suffer' for that?

"Mitchell doesn't remotely exculpate the villains you identify"
Again, a man of his 'supposed stature' should know that a report that is so limited, which relied 90%+ on 2 informants who were 'criminals', who were both from NY teams, was NOT WORTH RELEASING. He also should have recused himself in the first place. Maybe I don't have as much respect for Mitchell as you do. To me, anyone who represented the Tabacco Industy Lobby is not a saint in my book.

Pettitte took HGH for 7 weeks, in one period of his career, solely for the purpose of healing faster. Bad judgment considering the circumstances? Yes. Criminal? Cheating? Why is getting a cortizone shot (steroid) 'legal' but what Andy did wrong?

I agree about Pettitte and Byrd seeing a Doc. I agree it was bad judgment. But if "Incidentally, on hgh, my morning reading suggests it does NOT boost performance to any known degree, it MAY speed healing, and so may well qualify as a legitimate prescription medicine route.", what is the issue?

SAVE PHIL HUGHES!

FYI William:
http://www.toursdirectory.com/baseball/ParkFactors.asp

I have created a table with FOUR Park Factors. HRs, OBP, SLG and RS. The HR and RS Factors exactly match ESPNs, so I fell my processing is correct.
The 'Diff' column is the difference between my calculated 'OPS' Park Factor and the 'standard' (RS)Park Factor, used in calcing OPS+ and other stats.

I think I see some serious problems with using a RS Park Factor in calcing OPS+.

OYF! I can break up no-hitters, but can't break you? Seems fair 'nuff. I'm going to let this be my last shot on this narrowing issue, because we're at risk of overloading the discussion.

1. Well, you can't argue both that we learned nothing new AND that players have been shockingly identified, right? Well, maybe you can, but logic's a good thing! (Add a smiley, I'm trying to lighten the tone!) My point all along has been (last try, to see if I can get it out better) that the game and fans have long known the culture's toxic, and have ALL (including us, OYF) looked away as long as we could. My argument (and not mine alone) has been that Mitchell by naming names, compelling attention and debate, makes it VERY hard to look away.

2. Leads to #2 ... I'm unsure why suggestions need to be new, they need to be made in a context that MIGHT compel following them. I repeat, a LOT turns on Fehr and co. and my sense is that Bud knows it and will NOT punish backwards (following Mitchell's very specific urging - Mitchell has made it really hard for Bud to punish anyone, you know) - and this will make it very hard for the union to stay off-side.

3. Honestly, based on what we're seeing from the players, and the owners' attitudes, I'm not sure Selig could have done it, and I'm not sure Fehr would have kept his job (as he understood it - wrongly I believe) had he not stonewalled as long as he could. Add the owners, enjoying homers and dollars, and we're back to my point: nothing WAS done, we can assign blame variously, but surely (surely?) you'd accept that if something now IS done, then the Mitchell Report deserves praise not rants.

4. "The players will suffer to some degree" ... the degrees will vary. Roger apparently is losing or may lose a gig speaking to high school students. Barry has been excoriated beyond belief for years, booed every time he came to bat, and with no conviction then, no charges even: any thought that maybe it is GOOD that the net is now cast wider for many casual fans? (Remember this is a fairly sophisticated group. Hell, very sophisticated.)

If what you're saying is that Selig and Fehr should both also 'suffer' or, more specifically, resign or be fired ... as I said before: where do I sign the petition?

As to Pettitte and the issue, OYF that's easy: if he could have sought an exemption, he should have. He might not have gotten it, he went subculture, illicit and ABSENT the exemption it was cheating as set out by the game. Jeepers, cocaine isn't a performance booster but you can be punished for using it in baseball (now!). The issue is actions that break known rules, not whether they MIGHT have been done by complying with the rules. Ask me a hard one!

And I am entirely of the view that Pettitte's 'sin' is minor as measured by the other incidents in the report, and my guess is it'll play out that way. As for Brian Roberts, hearsay is NOT as often assumed that you can't say what someone told you if the someone is the person IN QUESTION. In other words, the evidence would be admitted even in court. I don't LIKE that Roberts is linked this 'easily' but I am aware he, too, was invited to reply (not under oath, not in court) to the allegation. All named players were notified, none of them are surprised by this, you know.

One sentence to summarize: the game MIGHT have been able to solve this (though never perfectly) years ago if everyone cooperated, the Mitchell Report may be what causes cooperation, and it might have needed to name names, make waves, to push people TO that.

22 I believe most jurisdictions are now in line with the Federal Rules that a Statement Against Interest is admissible if, among other things, there is corroboration relating to the reliability of the statement. I don't believe I came across anything in the report that would pass muster as corroborative of the alleged Roberts statement. Based on the document I don't think it's generally admissible at this point.

If Bud is smart enough to take Mitchell's admonition against pursuing punishment against the players named to heart I think your observation concerning the report acting as a catalyst for action may have some merit. If MLB goes after any of these guys there will be a blood letting that may make 1994 look childlike.

From Baseball Musings:
In reading the Clemens section of the Mitchell Report, McNamee gives a pretty clear time line as to when Roger started using steroids. It was after a series at Miami. Clemens pitched in that series on 6/8/1998.

Here are his stats through that series:
6-6, 3.27 ERA, 9.2 K per 9, 4.3 BB per 9, 0.32 HR/9.

From that date through the end of the season:
14-0, 2.29 ERA, 11.1 K per 9, 2.8 BB per 9, 0.48 HR per 9.

Update: McNamee also talks about injecting Clemens in the second half of 2000 and late in 2001. Clemens through 6/30/2000:
4-6, 4.76 ERA, 9.0 K per 9, 4.1 BB per 9, 1.44 HR per 9.

July through the end of the season:
9-2, 3.00 ERA, 7.8 K per 9, 3.4 BB per 9, 0.95 HR per 9.

Let me note, however, that Clemens suffered an injury that knocked him out for the last two games of June, and his two starts before he left the game with an injury were poor.

23 "If MLB goes after any of these guys there will be a blood letting that may make 1994 look childlike."

I think it would be hugely against his interests - and the game's - at this point, would result in (appropriate) union grievances and legal actions and get this hugely tangled in the past.

Selig did say 'case by case' in his first comments, which suggests he's at least looking at actions against named players, and presumably evaluating details of information given to Mitchell. I'd still say he should stay way out of those waters. This is not the same as condoning, it recognizes the situational nature of the 2 sources, that people like Pudge and Sammy were by luck outside the range of information given.

24 That's fascinating, you know. No single player data is enough to make a clear case, but these are dramatic. On the other hand, would we say the reported timeline for Bonds is ... pretty dramatic, too?

Common people, the real scandle is here:
http://www.toursdirectory.com/baseball/ParkFactors.asp
Bogus Park Factors in calcing OPS+?

McNamee said that he acquired human growth hormone from Radomski for Knoblauch in 2001. Beginning during spring training and continuing through the early portion of the season, McNamee injected Knoblauch at least seven to nine times with human growth hormone.
2001: .250 / .339 / .351

Truly Womackian. I guess it doesn't always work. But again, HGH is NOT steroids.

From Baseball Musings:
It appears that the report agrees that HGH doesn't do much, and probably does more harm than good (pages 9 and 10).

A number of studies have shown that use of human growth hormone does not increase muscle strength in healthy subjects or well-trained athletes.31 Athletes who have tried human growth hormone as a training aid have reached the same conclusion. The author of one book targeted at steroid abusers observed that "[t]he most curious aspect of the whole situation is that I've never encountered any athlete using HGH to benefit from it, and all the athletes who admit to having used it will usually agree: it didn't/doesn't work for them.
The primary attraction of human growth hormone for athletes seeking performance enhancing effects appears to be that it is not detectable in any currently available drug test.33 In addition, because human growth hormone stimulates growth in most body tissues, athletes use it to promote tissue repair and to recover from injury.

When talking about 'enhancing performance', it seems nuts to put steroids and HGH in the same category.

And if HGH does NOT improve performance, but simply 'promotes tissue repair to recover from injury'... what's wrong with that? Antibiotics and most medicines do just that. They help you heal faster.

http://tinyurl.com/2gffq3

oops

(save phil hughes)

Still not a single comment on ARod's conference call??? Maybe we need some greenies for this group...

According to AP, Pettitte has admitted to trying HGH. Clearly, I think it was a good idea for Pettitte to come clean. Based on the extent of his use, I don't think the stigma surrounding Pettitte will be too strong.

18 It's one thing to keep your toe in the water and jump back in when the price is lowered, but another to publicly grapple with the long-term strategy of your franchise. This is shaping up as a tug-of-war between Hank and Cashman. I happen to think that either pitcher would be great for the Yankees over the next five years, but I like to feel more confident that everyone in the organization is on the same page.

Joe Sheehan, BP:
…. The commission's failure to do anything of note on its own makes the tone of both the report and George Mitchell's press conference yesterday shameful. Given a bully pulpit with which to change the conversation about performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, Mitchell instead elected to blame the MLBPA and its members for being obstructionist; put little to no blame on upper management of teams or the game itself; proffer unoriginal solutions that, while difficult to argue against, could have been generated by a Google search of Dick Pound quotes; and offered le