Return to Baseball Leftovers

The Mitchell Investigation

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby mweir145 » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:40 am

in10s wrote:This has been said many places but it is worth repeating. We need to keep in mind the limits of this investigation. Appendix B explains those limits in details, and I have quoted some key points of that appendix below.

This report is based mostly on interviews of those who were willing to speak. (Lots of documents provided too.) But no subpoenas, no oath taken for the interview, no cross examination. (Which by the way, is pretty close to the definition of heresay)

The scope of this report is actually very narrow, these names are just the users who were caught by this batch of witnesses who were willing to talk. So how many players are NOT on this report?

This is also obvious looking at raw numbers. The first time steroid testing was done by MLB in 2003 1,438 anonymous tests resulted in between 5 and 7 percent positive results. (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/b ... index.html) That is between 71 and 100 for one season. Clearly the number of players who really did something to enhance performance is much higher than the names in the report.

There's a purpose to undetectable drugs.
25
mweir145
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 16464
(Past Year: -320)
Joined: 3 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Toronto

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby mweir145 » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:46 am

tinfoilxtouch wrote:Does anyone else feel the media is working overtime to dismiss this report and its credibility as best they can? Given the fact that a good portion of the baseball media is constructed of former players or coaches, it doesn't shock me... I just can't believe ESPN has guys on talking about the "victims" in the report having their names tarnished.

They didn't do that for any of the Bonds stuff, I'll tell you that.
25
mweir145
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 16464
(Past Year: -320)
Joined: 3 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Toronto

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby DK » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:52 am

mweir145 wrote:
tinfoilxtouch wrote:Does anyone else feel the media is working overtime to dismiss this report and its credibility as best they can? Given the fact that a good portion of the baseball media is constructed of former players or coaches, it doesn't shock me... I just can't believe ESPN has guys on talking about the "victims" in the report having their names tarnished.

They didn't do that for any of the Bonds stuff, I'll tell you that.


Well the former players in the media mostly remained pretty tame about Bonds if I recall correctly. The most mudslinging came from generic media guys that always got the cold shoulder from Bonds.
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9077
(Past Year: -456)
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby mweir145 » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:59 am

Matthias wrote:
mweir145 wrote:
Matthias wrote:Reading through the report, I feel bad for Pettite. His name is on every banner headline on ESPN and the only link between him and PED's in the report is that he received HGH in one week when he was rehabbing his elbow and trying to get back to his team. Using his name to attract viewers/interest isn't fair.

He worked out with Clemens and McNamee consistently. Come on, don't be naive now.

Read the report; or at least read all of this thread.

I spent about 2 hours reading that report and many of the things inside it on a plane today. And as of now, I've read everything in this thread.

McNamee talked about numerous times, spanning many years, that he injected Clemens with steroids or purchased them for him. And they are summarized in the report. The report only mentions one instance, when Pettite was rehabbing, that McNamee provided him with steroids. McNamee has literally no reason to lie about what he provided Pettite, and good reasons to tell the truth.

There's much better reasons to suspect players in the South or the Midwest not named in the report of being regular users (since virtually all of the Mitchell report came out of either the BALCO investigation or as a result of the criminal prosecution of Radmonski so is California and Northeast based) than there is Andy Pettite. And if you believe otherwise, then you're the one being naive.

I'm not singling out Andy Pettite, I'm just pointing out how he worked with a known user and dealer a lot, and reportedly used HGH with them. Put two and two together here. What's in this report probably only details a little of what he has in fact done.

And who made this about regions? PED use is part of the culture of baseball, everybody uses something. It's pretty clear that this report is only a miniscule account of everybody that's ever been on the stuff in this sport.
Last edited by mweir145 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
25
mweir145
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 16464
(Past Year: -320)
Joined: 3 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Toronto

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby Matthias » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:10 am

mweir145 wrote:
Matthias wrote:McNamee talked about numerous times, spanning many years, that he injected Clemens with steroids or purchased them for him. And they are summarized in the report. The report only mentions one instance, when Pettite was rehabbing, that McNamee provided him with steroids. McNamee has literally no reason to lie about what he provided Pettite, and good reasons to tell the truth.

There's much better reasons to suspect players in the South or the Midwest not named in the report of being regular users (since virtually all of the Mitchell report came out of either the BALCO investigation or as a result of the criminal prosecution of Radmonski so is California and Northeast based) than there is Andy Pettite. And if you believe otherwise, then you're the one being naive.

I'm not signalling out Andy Pettite, I'm just pointing out how he worked with a known user and dealer a lot, and reportedly used HGH with them. Put two and two together here. What's in this report probably only details a little of what he has in fact done.

And who made this about regions? PED use is part of the culture of baseball, everybody uses something. It's pretty clear that this report is only a miniscule account of everybody that's ever been on the stuff in this sport.

And I'm saying you don't have to put 2 and 2 together. If it added up to 4, McNamee would have said so since he had no interest in withholding information and a strong incentive to disclose it. He certainly didn't seem to withhold any information on Clemens.

And my original point is I feel sorry for Pettite. The banner on the bottom of ESPN today read either: "Clemens and Pettite Named in Mitchell Report" or, "Clemens, Pettite, and Bonds Named in Mitchell Report" (there were actually one or two others in the last one, but I don't remember who). He doesn't deserve to get lumped in with those guys. He took it once when he was injured. That's very different than taking it regularly to change the entire arc of your career.

And there were tons of guys who did take it regularly but were lucky enough not to play somewhere that was the focus of the investigation and so didn't have their names splashed across the networks.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4826
(Past Year: -34)
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby mweir145 » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:32 am

Matthias wrote:
mweir145 wrote:
Matthias wrote:McNamee talked about numerous times, spanning many years, that he injected Clemens with steroids or purchased them for him. And they are summarized in the report. The report only mentions one instance, when Pettite was rehabbing, that McNamee provided him with steroids. McNamee has literally no reason to lie about what he provided Pettite, and good reasons to tell the truth.

There's much better reasons to suspect players in the South or the Midwest not named in the report of being regular users (since virtually all of the Mitchell report came out of either the BALCO investigation or as a result of the criminal prosecution of Radmonski so is California and Northeast based) than there is Andy Pettite. And if you believe otherwise, then you're the one being naive.

I'm not signalling out Andy Pettite, I'm just pointing out how he worked with a known user and dealer a lot, and reportedly used HGH with them. Put two and two together here. What's in this report probably only details a little of what he has in fact done.

And who made this about regions? PED use is part of the culture of baseball, everybody uses something. It's pretty clear that this report is only a miniscule account of everybody that's ever been on the stuff in this sport.

And I'm saying you don't have to put 2 and 2 together. If it added up to 4, McNamee would have said so since he had no interest in withholding information and a strong incentive to disclose it. He certainly didn't seem to withhold any information on Clemens.

And my original point is I feel sorry for Pettite. The banner on the bottom of ESPN today read either: "Clemens and Pettite Named in Mitchell Report" or, "Clemens, Pettite, and Bonds Named in Mitchell Report" (there were actually one or two others in the last one, but I don't remember who). He doesn't deserve to get lumped in with those guys. He took it once when he was injured. That's very different than taking it regularly to change the entire arc of your career.

And there were tons of guys who did take it regularly but were lucky enough not to play somewhere that was the focus of the investigation and so didn't have their names splashed across the networks.

Why do you think you know that he only took it once? Because McNamee didn't say anything about being directly involved in giving him any of the stuff? Come on, I mean, there has to be a reason that Grimsley also specifically named him, also, right? Just because it's not on paper here, it doesn't mean it doesn't mean he couldn't have acquired drugs through some other process.

Pettite is also the one who worked out with Clemens and McNamee and supposedly took HGH, there's no reason to feel sorry for him. He kept McNamee on for years as a trainer, so even if the guy wasn't actually giving him stuff, why would you stay with a known steroid dealer like him if you cared about looking "clean?" He's just as "guilty" as any of the others in there, and if he didn't want his name to be up in headlines like it was, he probably shouldn't have hung around with the people he did.
Last edited by mweir145 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
25
mweir145
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 16464
(Past Year: -320)
Joined: 3 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Toronto

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby cordscords » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:33 am

IF I understand the report correctly:

He will be found not guilty on the perjury charges. According to several sources, Bonds insists that he was not knowingly taking steroids when Greg Anderson provided them. Bonds answered all questions directed towards him truthfully during that time period.

However he continued to take steroids after he found out, telling people that they were healing his arthritis. The grand jury failed to ask Bonds questions outside of the information that Greg Anderson had provided. This of course meaning that Bonds was telling the truth at the time.
cordscords
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4340
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 23 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby Lofunzo » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:44 am

mweir145 wrote:
CheeseBeger wrote:Wow, so does this mean voters will never let Clemens into the hall of fame?

A good question. I suspect he'll still get in. Many will accepts his denials as the truth, IMO.

I've missed a lot today in this thread, and these are the kinds of topics I like to discuss....time to go through it.


If he gets in on the first try or before McGwire, I will eat crow.

mweir145 wrote:
moochman wrote:It's a sport and sport is supposed to promote fairness and health. These drugs are not philosophically in tune with the sport I love. They need to be gone.

Sport is supposed to promote fairness and health? Haha, such naive idealism. Once you get to the highest level it's about competition and winning, and in pro baseball like this, much of it gets to be about the money. These drugs aren't going anywhere, so you might as well get used to them.


Maybe so but you can't fault us that, possibly in a naive way, would like them gone.

DK wrote:I'd like to make quick note of the fact that while everyone is focusing on the names, basically nobody has realized that we caught what was one of the the highest-profile drug dealers on the East Coast.

What are going to be his repercussions? It seems like nobody really cares.

Oh & my general feelings on the Mitchell Report can be summed up like this:

*shrug*


This is about the report. That, in itself, has nothing to do with a dealer getting caught. This thread is about the MLB investigation. I'm sure that we could have some fun with him if you want to start a thread.

Mr. Weir.......In the past, you have wanted a lot of proof regarding Barry Bonds yet now, you seem to be all about using common sense when it comes to other players here. Isn't that, as you say, hypocritical??
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23082
(Past Year: -616)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby mweir145 » Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:54 am

Lofunzo wrote:Mr. Weir.......In the past, you have wanted a lot of proof regarding Barry Bonds yet now, you seem to be all about using common sense when it comes to other players here. Isn't that, as you say, hypocritical??

You're really grasping for straws here.

I wanted the burden of proof in response to those that wanted Barry Bonds suspended and banned from the game for his steroid use, I've never once doubted that he in fact used. It's never changed from common sense for me. I'm not sure if I've gone over that with you before, but it sure seems like it.
25
mweir145
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 16464
(Past Year: -320)
Joined: 3 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Toronto

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby mweir145 » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:43 am

cordscords wrote:IF I understand the report correctly:

He will be found not guilty on the perjury charges. According to several sources, Bonds insists that he was not knowingly taking steroids when Greg Anderson provided them. Bonds answered all questions directed towards him truthfully during that time period.

However he continued to take steroids after he found out, telling people that they were healing his arthritis. The grand jury failed to ask Bonds questions outside of the information that Greg Anderson had provided. This of course meaning that Bonds was telling the truth at the time.

Yes...it appears that Bonds actually did cover himself very well during his grand jury testimony. I still think perjury is going to be a very hard thing to prove for the prosecution there.
25
mweir145
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 16464
(Past Year: -320)
Joined: 3 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Toronto

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron