Comments on: At Last, Our Long National Nightmare Is In Print Form

By: angryed

angryed — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:25:14 +0000

p.s. please ignore my poor sentence structure above- I am low on sleep.

By: angryed

angryed — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:24:11 +0000

If most (or just a large proportion) and not just 80 players are/have been on ‘roids/ HGH, given the fact that the only defense against libel is the truth, and I am not sure if any player named would want to go through any more public scrutiny. My guess is that The Surly One will be the only one in court as either a defendant or plaintiff as this stuff hits the fan.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:06:18 +0000

I think the most disappointing aspect of the Mitchell report is not in its lack of a thorough investigation, but rather the mainstream media’s decision that any player not on the list is automatically absolved of any wrongdoing.

I believe the Boston Globe has a large headline, “No Current Red Sox on Mitchell Report,” as if it’s a particular surprise that a report with a NY-based trainer as its main source of information, written by a member of the Red Sox Board of Directors, would have even a slight chance of containing such information.

The talk among NY tabloids is whether the Yankees’ 96-2000 titles are “tainted” because of their large representation on the list.

Also, if I’m Brian Roberts, I sue the shit out of MLB for putting my name on there.

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:02:29 +0000

I’d call the Mitchell Report an enormous disappointment simply because it failed to cite any hard evidence. Mitchell has ruined (we’d like to think deservedly) the reputations–and, in many cases, the playing careers–of 80+ players on uncorroborated testimony: that of a single witness, a trainer, whose testimony was the result of a plea bargain with federal investigators.

Mitchell’s and Selig’s stated goal was to use the report to put the steroids era behind us, and they thought that if they didn’t name names, they would simply feed into another decade of speculation. But by insisting on naming names in such an unsubstantiated way, they seriously harmed an already-rough relationship with the MLBPA–and securing the cooperation of the players association was the only way they could truly purge steroids use long-term, by writing into the next collective bargaining agreement that the MLBPA will help support research to create a test that identifies use of Human Growth Hormone, for example, or to discuss partnerships to send players to schools and youth teams and talk about how steroids destroy tendons, stunt growth, and ruin cardiovascular systems. By doing what they did, they shocked the public into recognizing how widespread steroids-use is in baseball, but they’ve done nothing to bring the solution any closer or to make the necessary relationships more trusting or transparent.

By: angryed

angryed — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:02:17 +0000

OK. Can they now ask Clemens to deny he took steroids in court, so they can indict him like a surly black man? Oh wait, Bonds is the only one whose shit gets the asterisk.

Save baseball? From what- purity? It never had it , and it never will. From lower attendance figures/revenue? Fuck the ‘business of baseball’ –Let the owners and players worry about that- not the fans? Shit, I don’t get any share of the revenue, so I don’t care if they all shrink their nuts, get huge, and cheat, as long as they entertain me.