It is a sad state of American society in which slanderous hearsay can count as evidence in the court of public opinion. Sure, many fans just wanted a scapegoat, and Roger Clemens is that. But are we really looking to go on the say-so of someone (McNamee) pressured into giving testimony to avoid jail time? Where's Jack McCoy- this would never fly on Law and Order...

At least Radomski's suspects have some (questionable, and in LoDuca's case, hilarious) physical evidence to go along with Radomski's word. Those are the only allegations I will be taking even a little bit seriously.

The worst allegation of all is Eric Gagne's: rumor in the LA front office, and an internal e-mail from Theo Epstein contemplating that rumor. Wow.

Moving my exchange with wsporter over here, because I'm quoting one of the articles Alex steers us to. I think, with respect, that not only is the Red Sox thing a silly tangent, so is the 'he didn't nail management enough', along with, 'he depended too much on two guys'. The last is true, to my mind, but I cannot see how Mitchell could have avoided it, and Alex's articles (mostly Bryant, who is very good) underscore how without the feds, Mitchell had nothing.

But this surely does not mean it needn't have happened, or is meaningless. I like this from Helyar:

"This is a historic event, just as March 17, 2005 was," said John Hoberman, a University of Texas professor who has chronicled the history of sports doping, referring to the congressional hearings on steroids. "Mitchell has just hit everybody involved with a big club."

As Hoberman sees it, commissioner Bud Selig fell into step immediately with Mitchell's findings and recommendations. And while MLBPA chief Donald Fehr did not, the report rachets up the pressure on the union to give further ground on drug matters, just as the congressional hearings did. (The union agreed to stricter drug testing and sanctions in November 2005, as Congress was considering taking action of its own.)"

As I said yesterday, Hoberman being right is a best-case scenario and if it happens, it is because of Mitchell's report.

Another column I read underscores the irony whereby the players' union, designed to protect them, ended up seeing that (NOT unreasonably, by the way) as protecting them from being caught, not protecting their health and the idea of a cleaner game. Fehr and Co. do need to get onside for anything to happen - there will still be undetectable drugs used, but the culture can shift.

horace-clark-era

In the last thread, you wrote in response to me: "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?"

But did Pettitte cheat? Leaving the legal issues aside*, the question becomes, did MLB ban hGH in 2002 when Pettitte is alleged to have used? No, and so I don't think Pettitte's alleged activity can be called cheating. You can't break a rule that doesn't exist, and certainly don't have intent if there is no rule forbidding your action.

Was Pettitte's alleged activity questionable? Yes. Was it unethical? That's a hard question. His alleged use was not a crime (see below), broke no MLB rules, and was - according to the guy who made the allegations - purely to recover faster. If this is all true, had Pettitte bothered to do any research, he would have found out he was wasting his time. And again, if true, he should have known that possession of hGH with intent to distribute (without a prescription) is a crime, which should have sent up huge warning bells - because here was McNamee, with no prescription, distributing hGH to him! So I think if Pettitte did this, he was incredibly stupid, but I'm having a hard time finding it unethical.

Remember when Magglio Ordonez went to Europe to have experimental knee surgery? It was illegal to perform the procedure in the US, because the FDA had not approved it. But Ordonez wanted to come back from his knee issues as fast as possible, so he went overseas.

I'm having an awfully hard time distinguishing between what Ordonez did and what Pettitte allegedly did. Its too fine a line for my tastes, too much gray.

*My read of 21 USC 333 says (and the DOJ seems to agree with this according to that memorandum I linked to yesterday) that its possession of hGH with intent to distribute - which Pettitte is not alleged to have - that is a crime, so I do not think Pettitte committed any crime here.

1 its not just that

american media and journalism has failed as a whole. let me give you a little bit about my morning.

riding the F train to work, i see a guy, looks pretty intelligent (sorry, well dressed and manning the stroller are my only facets for judgement) and the first thing i hear him say is:

"i don't care, they should all be suspended. never allowed to play the game again."

his wife responds "really, you think"

"they're all a bunch of cheaters, and should be punished."

at this point i think to myself "have you read the damn report buddy?" then his wife interrupts my thoughts again..

"what did they do exactly?"

"well, they proved in this report that they took illegal steroids in order to get better at the sport. steroids make you stronger and hit better."

"is there any time where you're allowed?"

"well, yea, if youre injured, sometimes the team doctors will give you steroids to make you heal faster. but only together with cortisone. in fact this guy schilling once took it and pitched a whole world series game."

now here, i have to admit, that the angry man inside smirked a little.

i wanted to get up and say, did you read the damn report buddy? cause all of it is heresay.

i feel for brian roberts, who's only allegation comes a player saying that he said he used them. thats it. no check, no nothing. this fucking report is a joke.

There is a post on the legal blog Balkanization about whether or not Clemens has a case for libel because he's been accused of something with hearsay evidence. The consensus is "no" but it's a pretty smart post about some of the ramifications of this report beyond the sports pages.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/12/roger-clemens-and-new-york-times-v.html

The blog TalkLeft by defense lawyer Jeralyn Merritt questions the propriety of Kirk Radomski's plea arrangement with the government including a provision to testify before the private MLB investigation. That doesn't sound right to me either but I'm no lawyer.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/13/202517/65

George Mitchell could have been a Supreme Court justice and instead is poking around in hampers at Shea Stadium. I think it's a lame report - everybody is responsible so nobody is responsible. People in the regular news press hear Mitchell's name and swoon over his credibility but I think sports fans know this is really the Radomski/McNamee report and is something less than rock solid and comprehensive.

3 supposedly, baseball had a rule well before they banned HGH specifically banning all drugs that were illegal. that includes steroids and HGH.

but your point about magglio is a very interesting one, i think they're very similar.

i cant believe more journalistic work hasn't been done here to show what a crock this report is.

4 Ah yes, the irony that one of the drugs most frequently given to any major leaguer in a bit of pain, allowing him to enhance his performance is cortisone, a steroid.

If Sen. Mitchell and Congress were truly interested in removing PEDs from baseball, and in protecting children from thinking their use is acceptable, then the only reasonable course of action would have been to offer complete amnesty against legal action and suspension in exchange for testimony. Only then would players have come forward and been truthful about the steroid sub-culture, and only then would we have any idea what to do to prevent the use of illegal drugs in the future.

As is, it's what I've been calling it all along. A witch hunt. A red scare. A mockery of intelligent investigation.

4 Its not just a joke, its scary at some parts. From Marchman's column:

"Mitchell's main point is a call for a greater reliance on "non-analytical evidence," by which he means hearsay and circumstantial proof, in determining whether a player is violating drug policy."

If this is true - wow. Talk about a witch hunt! We want to eradicate PED use, so we're going to throw the requirement of hard evidence out the window. "He's a user! Look at how much bigger his head is!" "Let's compare his picture now to his baseball card when he was 21." "Ooohhh - he's clearly bigger - user! User!"

This really is a sad day for baseball, and the country.

6 Yes, baseball had a vague rule that disallowed the use of any substance deemed illegal by the US Government, beginning in 1978 and specifically mentioning steroids in 1992. This would, theoretically, include any use of n over-the-counter medicine against its recommendations, such as Nolan Ryan popping eight Advil before he takes the mound. However, there were no punishments or tests in place until 2002, and as Shaun P has pretty definitively shown, HGH was not illegal until 2004.

6 "i cant believe more journalistic work hasn't been done here to show what a crock this report is."

I can. This whole issue was mishandled from the beginning.

What did this accomplish? Is there a single big name who wasn't already suspected (Rocket and Andy were named by Grimsley)? What exactly does "hit with a big club" mean?

Again, he lucked into an informant, and only got circumstantial evidence to tell us what we already knew.

If baseball really wanted to "look toward the future" or whatever, IMO it would have gotten an independent drug testing agency to make recommendations, not a senator.

An entry on the lighter side, from WW;

"And I want to add that there is a far more serious problem that needs to be addressed. It's time to address the crisis caused by performance enhancing boogers.

I don't need to prove boogers enhance performance. The precedent has already been set. If people don't have to prove that steroids improve the specific skills involved in baseball success, then I don't have to prove that boogers do it. And, even if it is true that steroids do improve it (which might be the case), NOBODY has ever proven that X's stats were inflated above the decrease caused by a competition's use. So, I don't need to do it with boogers." - Lee Sinins

Mitchell and Selig could have made this easier on everybody, and maybe even saved a few bucks had they just sent every member of Red Sox Nation a shipment of Omaha steaks for Christmas.

I was really hoping for Mitchell to uncover culpability on the owners part .... memos /e-mails etc. showing they KNEW of their players using PEDs, but chose to do nothing, as the increasing power numbers was helping put fannies in the seats.

But I also knew that even if he HAD found that (or even looked for that?), Selig would squash him like a bug before it got out.

7 10 ridiculousness. everyones saying clemens this and clemens that. how come no one is freaking out about the fact that theo epstein KNEW gagne was using, and that they KNEW other players were using.

if the whole point of the report was to bring about knowledge and prevention, then why did any players have to be named, especially with the level of 'evidence' that they had.

great article on how stupid the report is (and its great, because he agrees with me):

http://tinyurl.com/2a6nqa

I usually have a lot of respect for ken rosenthal, but i think he hit the nail on the head (except the last paragraph, which nicely returns us to the normal journalistic sensationalism)

11 Actually, they would've studied the effects of PED's in the game. What I have seen so far is that correlation = causation. As we know, baseball isn't a sport designed for cause and effect.

Shaun P,

I think you're making a plausible point BUT I also think it is missing the part I quoted from the report about the misconception about nothing banned before 2002. ( I shared that misconception.) If Mitchell is correct (and there's no real reason to dispute him on this, at least) baseball made it a contravention of the GAME rules (not criminal liability) to use prescription drugs with an intent to boost performance (drugs that require a prescription) without a proper prescription for an approved medical use.

This is why I linked Andy to Paul Byrd who claimed a medical condition as his explanation, but the prescription was from a ludicrous source, and the amounts were enormous, AND Byrd (it is pretty clear) never notified the team or the league. If Pettitte had gone to his doctor and received a prescription for something that would speed elbow healing ... there's no story.

I'm not going to continue on Andy, if we can move on, because I find it depressing. I agree, entirely, that worst case this looks like someone foolishly trying to speed up short term injury recovery and not pursuing an ongoing illicit performance gain. I'm troubled by his ongoing association with the trainer but can resolve this (in my own biased mind!) as straightforward loyalty.

5 I think you're right in that it comes largely down to Radomski/McNamee, for reasons that have been made pretty clear and which circle back in a big way to the union. As I said before, it is understandable that Fehr and Orza would take the stand they did, but my question for you becomes: if Mitchell moves them OFF that stand (as Hoberman thinks, optimistically, it will), was it a time-waster? Is it shabby or hollow? Or does it help shift the culture?

Start has a great take: http://tinyurl.com/3bvvlc

Stark*

The discussion of the report in the Banter tops the rallying behind the game nonsense from the paid pros. The lords, managers, reporters, players, and investigators should all bow their heads in shame. We don't know who used, who didn't use, and if they used, how it affected the game. I, personally, didn't need Senator Mitchell to tell the game what it should do in the course of assassainating the 80 or so present and past players on resoundly weak proof. How independent can his report be when he is not only a part of management, but has been indemnified against suit by one part of the very enterprise he is allegedy investigating? Stroke me no more Bud.

14 There was also the long discussion about how Greg Anderson went to Brian Sabean and discussed the steroid-culture in the Giants locker room. Anderson had just spent a great deal of time explaining the side effects of steroids to an unidentified Giants player. Sabean told Anderson to speak to the Giants locker room about it, but Anderson did not feel it was his place to do so. Sabean took no action whatsoever.

14 Given the way Steve Wilstein (the reporter who saw a bottle of Andro in McGwire's locker) was treated, I wouldn't be surprised.

I'd have done better to de-lurk here in a quieter month! Hard to get work done this morning. I think Epstein/Gagne will get noted widely, it is less than 24 hours at this point. Same for the Giants' clubhouse averted eyes, or asking junior clubhouse guys to 'warn' or talk to players about funny packages.

I do think there's way too much shoot-the-messenger at work so far. I'm sticking to the question I asked wsporter: is the report 'bad' if it shifts the game's culture? Is it possible that shift REQUIRES some splash? Seems to me some people are saying 'we all KNEW this' and others 'it is just hearsay'...

And, liam, I think this needs to be repeated: Radomski's evidence is a pretty solid 'level' ... read the report (sorry to say that!) ... a lot of corroboration. But this is not about criminal prosecution, it is about forcing changes in the game. No?

If Selig needed this report to tell him that steroids were a huge problem and that he needs to do something, he's dumber than I thought. I only thought he was really dumb, not that dumb. Which is why I don't think "discovering the scope of the problem" (which they really failed at doing) or "planning for a better future" were the goals.

23 The only thing that will change is the method of "cheating."

23 I will only agree with you if Bud Selig keeps his mouth shut and doesn't discipline any players for past infractions under a policy which rendered no punishment or testing. If their quotes about cleaning up the game and protecting the children are truthful and not just political grandstanding, then they will move forward and take the more tangible recommendations of the report: true random testing (without the "warnings" from Gene Orza), better screening of packages, closer attention to the minor leagues, etc.

If, however, Selig et al are comfortable simply continuing the witch hunt and burning the players in the report at the stake of public opinion, then this report was entirely useless. I am more interested in a truthful progression forward than I am character defamation.

23 Raf, if so, and it may BE so, what do you suggest?

26 mehmattski, I think this is not only agreeing with me, it is agreeing with Mitchell who explicitly proposes (read it!) that no backwards-looking sanctions be imposed.

My whole point here has been that the report's being slammed in wrongheaded ways (not enough Red Sox, not enough hacking at management, not enough 'real' evidence). I've suggested the naming of names might serve a function in making it very hard for Fehr/Orza and owners and Selig not to do as Mitchell, you, and I are hoping they'll do. Who could resist all three of us?

If your disagreement is: 'They may not!' well, yeah, I know. But that isn't on Mitchell, is it? And, it just occurred to me, dumping all over him as 'meaningless' or 'corrupt' just encourages ignoring, doesn't it? It has always seemed to me that when we blamed owners for ignoring steroids because home runs put fans in the seats ... we're the fans, no?

2 I appreciate your points and the measured way you make your argument. I'll say again that I don't believe for a moment that there is actual impropriety on Mitchell's part. To accuse him of intentionally slanting the report against any individual or organization is unfair and completely misses the point. I do think that the appearance of a conflict of interest weakens the reports utility as a policy or organizational tool. I don't believe that they had finished their investigation given all they had were the two "gentleman" under indictment as corroborating direct witnesses supplying them information and for that reason should not have released it. Based on that I also don't believe players names should have been released.

I felt this was a bad idea when Selig announced they were going to do this unilaterally and based on the results I still do. They have not solved or resolved anything and will, if they are not very careful at this point, polarize their relationship with the MLPA. Thats not much positive bang for $60 million bucks.

27 I have read a great deal of the report, although I admit I have focused mostly on the sections regarding allegations against specific players. It is those sections that I find dubious, and I find their intent entirely to defame the characters of the players named. Mitchell knew what would happen to any player whose name is in there, and all these lists are now circulating damning anyone who appears in bold. This includes the players in the "Alleged Internet Purchases of Performance Enhancing Substances
By Players in Major League Baseball" section, which provides precious little evidence and frequently admits to that.

So I guess my ire is directed mostly at the mainstream media and the government for taking the report differently than it was intended. I still have some doubts as to whether Mitchell's intentions were really as he said (to save the children and all that). The media, for a large part, is missing entire sections of the report, on the recommendations. I am especially interested in what MLB will do about the "non-testing physical evidence" that Mitchell recommends focusing on.

That said, I do think there is not enough in the report that takes management to task for failure to enforce the rules supposedly set forth as early as 1978. If any plan for the future is going to work, its going to need cooperation of players and management, and not vindication of one for the benefit of the other.

28 Courtesy equally appreciated. This is as volatile an issue as the game is going to get, probably even a bit more so than where Santana goes!

As best I recall, Selig was trying to keep this from congress, and congress was ready to jump all over it. They may yet do so: and that, to my mind, is why I'm a BIT more optimistic than you that the 60 million's worth it for the game ... MLPA does NOT want subpoenas, not just of players but of Gene Orza!

And we needed those names (including Orza, and Epstein musing on Gagne), I think, to push activity. I do agree that the Olympic experience, among others (Tour de France) suggests that there will always be cheating. I do not believe that means we give up on trying to make it harder, rarer, less indulged.

That's the 'culture' word I keep using: the ambience where those Giants clubhouse stories emerged, or Epstein would query steroids just in terms of a player's present-value off the stuff. Or even all of us, grinning knowingly at the slimmed-down Pudge or Giambino. Or wondering if Roger skipped his first half year to possibly clean himself up. (His first reported steroids were the ones that took longer to get rid of.)

I don't think any more of Bud Selig or Don Fehr than many here do, but I'm prepared to watch and see if Mitchell has put them in a position where they have to dance.

Is that a reasonable position, 21 hours after the report?

27 Suggest for what? Getting rid of steroids/PED's/drugs in baseball, or eliminating cheating?

27 Well, I don't think we're talkin' here about the ol' Whitey Ford scuffball. If you see them as two different topics, go ahead and separate them out in an answer.

sorry, meant 32 ... 27 was ME!

sigh 31 ... I'll go be quiet awhile.

I think it's reasonable but not necessarily sustainable and we'll agree to disagree. I believe this report is as likely to prompt congressional action as it is to deflect it because it really doesn't do anything other than raise unsustainable (based on the proof offered) allegations of use and misuse by players and condonation on the part of ownership and management. It will provide a beautiful back drop for the House to engage in another odd display of kabuki theater.

The MPLA has to determine if the strategy that will advance the interest of their membership lies in cooperating with ownership or engaging them combatively and balking at a flawed report. Ownership has an opportunity to extend an olive branch by following Mitchell's suggestion not to punish the alleged offenders. I hope they are smart enough to do so. At that point this report will then assume it's proper status as one additional piece of the puzzle in figuring this mess out. In fact I think Mitchell's amnesty suggestion is the key to rescuing any utility from this exercise. It's really the only hope they have of obtaining voluntary cooperation from the MPLA.

35 is linked to 30 . Sorry!

>> To accuse him of intentionally slanting the report against any individual or organization is unfair and completely misses the point. >>

To me it's as simple as this - the report is slanted because the clubhouse employees in question worked for the Mets and the Yankees. Radomski only had so many connections, I imagine.

If they caught a guy who used to work in the Boston clubhouse, the list would be mostly Red Sox players.

30 That would be the first place to start; getting rid of the 'culture.' Personally, I think that the current steroids brouhaha, is a natural progression of the acceptance of cheating in baseball. Going by "Ball Four" PEDs (greenies?) have been around since, what, the 50's? Tom House mentioned that steroids have been around since at least the '70s.

I don't know how to "level the playing field." I suspect there isn't a way to do it.

I suppose a way to "cure" baseball of its "ills" is to perhaps implement draconian measures for PED/steroid/drug use, but I don't think that will be too effective, given the war on drugs. But sure, let's go with stiffer penalties.

And it's a pipe dream, but I would like to see a study on the effects of steroids in the game. If we're going to be outraged, may as well see what we're getting outraged about.

30 I get your point, and I suppose I hope this report can help change the culture, to the extent that's possible. But I feel quite strongly that those ends don't and can't justify butchering 80 guys.

There's no credibility in this report. I love the Paul Lo Duca "Thanks for everything, Paul" note, how rich. Maybe if we waterboard a few more towel boys we can get some more names & cocamame 'evidence'.

(If the semi-torture reference is in bad taste, I apologize & retract, I'm feeling surly this morning)

38 Is it unfair that one player spends so much time in the weight room, which pressures other players to do the same?

The only way to level the playing field is to make a bunch of clones of David Eckstein, grow them up in identical environments, and have them compete against each other. Until then, all players have different talents and different training regimens, and therefore the playing field will never be level.

40 "The only way to level the playing field is to make a bunch of clones of David Eckstein..." Great idea, then I'd finally have a real shot!

21 I pretty much skimmed the report, but I didn't catch that. Are you sure you are confusing Greg Anderson with Stan Conte (Giants trainer, no relation to Victor Conte of BALCO)? Sabean was taken to task in the SF paper today along with McGowan (Giants managing partner) and rightfully so, IMO.