Here's The Baseball Steriod List (1 Viewer)

[Doctor Detroit]

Well with the ESPN shtick in full force these days, they'll probably give Vina his own segment and make three "This is Sportscenter" commercials with him getting injected in the thigh by a large Samoan man wearing a leather mask and the Sryacuse mascot.

 

[Koya]

Listening to Fehr right now. I have to say, the guy not only has a lot of good points, but most of those points subtly but poignantly point toward the idea that baseball engaged this whole process for the dog and pony aspect of all this.

Now, the union in general has been awful when it has come to steroids. They are entrusted with protecting their members, but I think in many ways they did just the opposite.

That said, the unilateral actions of the commish and some other aspects of how this was conducted, the spurrious results with a relative handful of names named, especially current players and the fact that ongoing other investigations were going on meant even if a player WANTED to talk, his lawyer would have to tell him, no freaking way.

Like so many things Selig does, this was doomed from the start. Unless that was his intent? I just have more questions now (more about the integrity and ability of Selig) than I did before.

 

[Koya]

Well with the ESPN shtick in full force these days, they'll probably give Vina his own segment and make three "This is Sportscenter" commercials with him getting injected in the thigh by a large Samoan man wearing a leather mask and the Sryacuse mascot.

GO ORANGEMEN!

 

[redman]

The only joy I'll take out of this is watching some of these sanctimonious #######s prematurely drop dead from cancer in the next 10-15 years.

Bud Selig is atrocious BTW. He proves that you can take the salesman out of the used car lot, but you can never take the used car lot out of the salesman.

 

[Sammy3469]

The more I think about this the more convinced I become that this is just one big ball and pony show. MLB was happy to get a very small cross-section with a couple of big names in an attempt to show that they did something and let the others skate free. I mean for Pete's sake, there's nothing in it on Caminiti who was a confessed user and never really addresses any of Canseco's accusations. They only got 3 of who knows how many of these operations and basically everyone either passed through the New York or used BALCO. I'm suppose to think MLB did a good job of getting to the bottom of this from that small cross section. Please.

Bud got what he wanted, but looking back I think history will look at him as the biggest stooge in this entire thing.

 

[cobalt_27]

It was fun while it lasted, but the players association and the high salaries have ruined my favorite sport. Anyone know where I can watch the Korean baseball league? What a sham today was, a PR stunt if I've ever seen one...

You may have been right given the list. Seems like they at the very least failed to conduct a thorough investigation.

If players don't cooperate, I'm not sure what more there is to do.

 

[redman]

Let's be honest here about a few things:

1) the primary motive here was for MLB to look like and be able to claim that it had conducted a Thorough Investigation into performance enhancing drugs, and that it had found enough usage to justify implementing a more effective drug testing policy, both to insulate itself from a backlash from Congress (thus preserving its Anti-Trust exempt status) and to cut through resistance from Don Fehr and the player's union. Also, this will help focus attention on the future of the sport for PR purposes rather than on the past.

2) I have no doubts that the players who were identified were in fact guilty as charged. Some are more guilty than others, and obviously some have far more prestige than others, but generally speaking they're all dead to rights IMHO. I have equivalent confidence that far more players than those named used these drugs. Baseball doesn't much care about that given the reasons cited in point 1, above.

3) This will change nothing that was not already changed through the amendments to the testing policy implemented in the last few years.

4) Players will continue to think that it's "worth it" to take performance enhancing drugs given the size of contracts and the relative lack of backlash from fans and especially from MLB owners who sign them to those contracts.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Thank goodness Tejada was traded yesterday. His value just hit bottom.

I don't think the timing of that trade was coincidental, do you?

Considering two organizations had to be involved, I'm not sure what to think. I really wonder if HOU would have done the trade if they knew Tejada was going to be mentioned today, assuming they didn't know. I'm sure HOU fans are not too excited about this whole deal.Do you think the Orioles knew and HOU didn't?

 

[Koya]

Thank goodness Tejada was traded yesterday. His value just hit bottom.

I don't think the timing of that trade was coincidental, do you?

Considering two organizations had to be involved, I'm not sure what to think. I really wonder if HOU would have done the trade if they knew Tejada was going to be mentioned today, assuming they didn't know. I'm sure HOU fans are not too excited about this whole deal.Do you think the Orioles knew and HOU didn't?

It was widely suspected that Tejada used. The O's had to know, and HOU would have been stupid not to have very strong suspicions, like just about everyone else did about Tejada.

 

[shadyridr]

The only joy I'll take out of this is watching some of these sanctimonious #######s prematurely drop dead from cancer in the next 10-15 years.

Bud Selig is atrocious BTW. He proves that you can take the salesman out of the used car lot, but you can never take the used car lot out of the salesman.

I woulda done the same thing in some of their shoes. And I think 90% of regular people would as well. You're telling me if taking one cycle of steroids or HGH means a possibility of one big contract to set you up for life you wouldnt do it? Obviously Im not talking about the big time stars like Clemens & Bonds.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Let's be honest here about a few things:1) the primary motive here was for MLB to look like and be able to claim that it had conducted a Thorough Investigation into performance enhancing drugs, and that it had found enough usage to justify implementing a more effective drug testing policy, both to insulate itself from a backlash from Congress (thus preserving its Anti-Trust exempt status) and to cut through resistance from Don Fehr and the player's union. Also, this will help focus attention on the future of the sport for PR purposes rather than on the past. 2) I have no doubts that the players who were identified were in fact guilty as charged. Some are more guilty than others, and obviously some have far more prestige than others, but generally speaking they're all dead to rights IMHO. I have equivalent confidence that far more players than those named used these drugs. Baseball doesn't much care about that given the reasons cited in point 1, above.3) This will change nothing that was not already changed through the amendments to the testing policy implemented in the last few years. 4) Players will continue to think that it's "worth it" to take performance enhancing drugs given the size of contracts and the relative lack of backlash from fans and especially from MLB owners who sign them to those contracts.

These guys are dead to rights. They paid Radomski by check. Its not a drugdealers word against theirs as some had speculated.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Thank goodness Tejada was traded yesterday. His value just hit bottom.

I don't think the timing of that trade was coincidental, do you?

Considering two organizations had to be involved, I'm not sure what to think. I really wonder if HOU would have done the trade if they knew Tejada was going to be mentioned today, assuming they didn't know. I'm sure HOU fans are not too excited about this whole deal.Do you think the Orioles knew and HOU didn't?

It was widely suspected that Tejada used. The O's had to know, and HOU would have been stupid not to have very strong suspicions, like just about everyone else did about Tejada.

So why did HOU pull this trade off the night before the list was revealed? Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled with the outcome and timing of it all. I just can't figure out why another team would want to do what HOU did.I know Tejada was always mentioned to be involved, but it seems like HOU signed up for an unnecassary P.R. crisis. How are people supposed to be excited about the trade and welcome Tejada to town after today? At least in BAL he had an established fan base.

 

[shadyridr]

Thank goodness Tejada was traded yesterday. His value just hit bottom.

I don't think the timing of that trade was coincidental, do you?

Considering two organizations had to be involved, I'm not sure what to think. I really wonder if HOU would have done the trade if they knew Tejada was going to be mentioned today, assuming they didn't know. I'm sure HOU fans are not too excited about this whole deal.Do you think the Orioles knew and HOU didn't?

It was widely suspected that Tejada used. The O's had to know, and HOU would have been stupid not to have very strong suspicions, like just about everyone else did about Tejada.

So why did HOU pull this trade off the night before the list was revealed? Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled with the outcome and timing of it all. I just can't figure out why another team would want to do what HOU did.I know Tejada was always mentioned to be involved, but it seems like HOU signed up for an unnecassary P.R. crisis. How are people supposed to be excited about the trade and welcome Tejada to town after today? At least in BAL he had an established fan base.

I dont really think teams care much. I mean Guillen still got his 36mil contract

 

[Koya]

Thank goodness Tejada was traded yesterday. His value just hit bottom.

I don't think the timing of that trade was coincidental, do you?

Considering two organizations had to be involved, I'm not sure what to think. I really wonder if HOU would have done the trade if they knew Tejada was going to be mentioned today, assuming they didn't know. I'm sure HOU fans are not too excited about this whole deal.Do you think the Orioles knew and HOU didn't?

It was widely suspected that Tejada used. The O's had to know, and HOU would have been stupid not to have very strong suspicions, like just about everyone else did about Tejada.

So why did HOU pull this trade off the night before the list was revealed? Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled with the outcome and timing of it all. I just can't figure out why another team would want to do what HOU did.I know Tejada was always mentioned to be involved, but it seems like HOU signed up for an unnecassary P.R. crisis. How are people supposed to be excited about the trade and welcome Tejada to town after today? At least in BAL he had an established fan base.

Put it this way - out of my group of friends who follow baseball, 75% of them (at least) would say that Tejeda juiced. If that is the case, how could HOU not at least be very suspicious. I believe they knew (had to know) but went with the deal anyway.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.

If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.

I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

 

[JuniorGong]

"I saw the list of players, and there are definitely a lot of players missing," Canseco told Fox Business Network. "I don't know what they accomplished or what they are trying to prove." Prodded further about players not included, Canseco said this of Alex Rodriguez: "All I can say is the Mitchell Report is incomplete. I could not believe that his name was not in the report."

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

 

[Workhorse]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

The report takes as fact certain things that can only be opinion at best, and are based on the uncontested statements of questionable witnesses. If any of the players know they failed the drug test, then it would not be wise to fight this. But if they know they didn't fail it, they should go after MLB guns blazing because without that test, there is no proof except the statements of two people that, when contested, will weaken.And the collective bargaining part of this is interesting. Just how much of this information can be made public, and did this report cross a line even if it didn't intent to. I won't be surprised to see the Player's Union fight this thing once they are able to review it with their legal team.

 

[JuniorGong]

exactly what are they going to fight it? Mitchell isn't suggesting any penalities against the players named and at this point the damage is already done to those player's reputations.

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

The report takes as fact certain things that can only be opinion at best, and are based on the uncontested statements of questionable witnesses. If any of the players know they failed the drug test, then it would not be wise to fight this. But if they know they didn't fail it, they should go after MLB guns blazing because without that test, there is no proof except the statements of two people that, when contested, will weaken.And the collective bargaining part of this is interesting. Just how much of this information can be made public, and did this report cross a line even if it didn't intent to. I won't be surprised to see the Player's Union fight this thing once they are able to review it with their legal team.

 

[LTsharks]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.

If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.

I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?

Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

Well since some of the players are accused of taking HGH and they were not tested for that, I'm pretty sure that none of them tested positive for it in 2003 from their urine samples.

 

[Workhorse]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.

If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.

I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?

Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

Well since some of the players are accused of taking HGH and they were not tested for that, I'm pretty sure that none of them tested positive for it in 2003 from their urine samples.

Well, that's true. But that doesn't mean they didn't fail for another steroid. Back in '03 many guys were taking both anabolic steroids and HGH together. I still think that a lot of these guys aren't going to do anything because I have this sinking suspicion that the Feds quietly gave Mitchell a list of the '03 positive test results as corrobarating evidence for the guys listed in the report.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.

If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.

I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?

Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

Well since some of the players are accused of taking HGH and they were not tested for that, I'm pretty sure that none of them tested positive for it in 2003 from their urine samples.

Well, that's true. But that doesn't mean they didn't fail for another steroid. Back in '03 many guys were taking both anabolic steroids and HGH together. I still think that a lot of these guys aren't going to do anything because I have this sinking suspicion that the Feds quietly gave Mitchell a list of the '03 positive test results as corrobarating evidence for the guys listed in the report.

I'm pretty sure they still can't test for HGH unless it's a blood sample which is not part of the testing program.

 

[redman]

The only joy I'll take out of this is watching some of these sanctimonious #######s prematurely drop dead from cancer in the next 10-15 years.

Bud Selig is atrocious BTW. He proves that you can take the salesman out of the used car lot, but you can never take the used car lot out of the salesman.

I woulda done the same thing in some of their shoes. And I think 90% of regular people would as well. You're telling me if taking one cycle of steroids or HGH means a possibility of one big contract to set you up for life you wouldnt do it? Obviously Im not talking about the big time stars like Clemens & Bonds.

Even assuming your characterization of peoples' proclivities is true (which I doubt, and regardless I've never found that to be a great argument in favor of what is "right" or acceptable BTW) so what? You won't have a smirk on your face when Mr. Denial, Roger Clemens, can't be saved from an early death by the $150M or so he's banked in the last decade? You reap what you sow.

 

[redman]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.

If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.

I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?

Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

The report takes as fact certain things that can only be opinion at best, and are based on the uncontested statements of questionable witnesses. If any of the players know they failed the drug test, then it would not be wise to fight this. But if they know they didn't fail it, they should go after MLB guns blazing because without that test, there is no proof except the statements of two people that, when contested, will weaken.And the collective bargaining part of this is interesting. Just how much of this information can be made public, and did this report cross a line even if it didn't intent to. I won't be surprised to see the Player's Union fight this thing once they are able to review it with their legal team.

From a practical standpoint, you're right about a lot of the report's fidings, which will make it all the more amusing to me that players won't sue over it being false because they know for a fact it's not. Take Clemens - he's at the end of his career by any measure, and he's built up HoF credentials. He has nothing more to do than defend his reputation right now, and he could easily drop $3M on litigation to pursue that goal if he wanted to. He wouldn't even have to bat an eye. Do you think he's going to do that? I don't.

 

[Balco]

I am anxious to see all of these lawsuits that these accused players are going to file. Please. Note to Clemen's lawyer, if all of these comments were "slanderous", then sue for slander. Right?

 

[Alias]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.

If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.

I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?

Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

The report takes as fact certain things that can only be opinion at best, and are based on the uncontested statements of questionable witnesses. If any of the players know they failed the drug test, then it would not be wise to fight this. But if they know they didn't fail it, they should go after MLB guns blazing because without that test, there is no proof except the statements of two people that, when contested, will weaken.And the collective bargaining part of this is interesting. Just how much of this information can be made public, and did this report cross a line even if it didn't intent to. I won't be surprised to see the Player's Union fight this thing once they are able to review it with their legal team.

From a practical standpoint, you're right about a lot of the report's fidings, which will make it all the more amusing to me that players won't sue over it being false because they know for a fact it's not. Take Clemens - he's at the end of his career by any measure, and he's built up HoF credentials. He has nothing more to do than defend his reputation right now, and he could easily drop $3M on litigation to pursue that goal if he wanted to. He wouldn't even have to bat an eye. Do you think he's going to do that? I don't.

I think the big catch with any of these guys suing is if they lose the case wouldn't it paint them even more guilty?

 

[LTsharks]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.

If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.

I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?

Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

Well since some of the players are accused of taking HGH and they were not tested for that, I'm pretty sure that none of them tested positive for it in 2003 from their urine samples.

Well, that's true. But that doesn't mean they didn't fail for another steroid. Back in '03 many guys were taking both anabolic steroids and HGH together. I still think that a lot of these guys aren't going to do anything because I have this sinking suspicion that the Feds quietly gave Mitchell a list of the '03 positive test results as corrobarating evidence for the guys listed in the report.

I'd be willing to bet they won't do anything either. But you are making a huge leap that they all tested positive for something in 2003 when many of them aren't even mentioned using substances that could be tested for.This is one of the problems with this issue and this report. Everything that anyone ever did and any name ever mentioned are all lumped together as all doing the same thing. Clemens = the guy who is supposed to have injected one time. I guess you can say if they ever did anything illegal they are all just as guilty, but there are a ton of assumptions out there that will still never be proven.

Mitchell doesn't have anything extra. He just put together all of the public info he could along with info from a couple of interviews. This isn't an investigation, it would just be the tip of the iceberg. How many other sources are out there that aren't being pressured by the feds.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.

If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.

I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?

Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

The report takes as fact certain things that can only be opinion at best, and are based on the uncontested statements of questionable witnesses. If any of the players know they failed the drug test, then it would not be wise to fight this. But if they know they didn't fail it, they should go after MLB guns blazing because without that test, there is no proof except the statements of two people that, when contested, will weaken.And the collective bargaining part of this is interesting. Just how much of this information can be made public, and did this report cross a line even if it didn't intent to. I won't be surprised to see the Player's Union fight this thing once they are able to review it with their legal team.

From a practical standpoint, you're right about a lot of the report's fidings, which will make it all the more amusing to me that players won't sue over it being false because they know for a fact it's not. Take Clemens - he's at the end of his career by any measure, and he's built up HoF credentials. He has nothing more to do than defend his reputation right now, and he could easily drop $3M on litigation to pursue that goal if he wanted to. He wouldn't even have to bat an eye. Do you think he's going to do that? I don't.

I think the big catch with any of these guys suing is if they lose the case wouldn't it paint them even more guilty?

If you were innocent, wouldn't you risk that? In fact, if I were Clemens lets say, I would turn the tables in a big way and see if the OWNERS want to stand behind this. I don't know if you can ask for damages outside your person, but I would look for a billion in damages from the owners with the full commitment of money going to a steroid treatment facility. Lets see if ownership is that sure the Mitchell Report. If I were innocent, I flip the script on these guys. Make them look like bastards for not taking care of their athletes.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Jose Canseco wanted to tell me to say hi to you all.

 

[massraider]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.

If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.

I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?

Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

Well since some of the players are accused of taking HGH and they were not tested for that, I'm pretty sure that none of them tested positive for it in 2003 from their urine samples.

Well, that's true. But that doesn't mean they didn't fail for another steroid. Back in '03 many guys were taking both anabolic steroids and HGH together. I still think that a lot of these guys aren't going to do anything because I have this sinking suspicion that the Feds quietly gave Mitchell a list of the '03 positive test results as corrobarating evidence for the guys listed in the report.

I'd be willing to bet they won't do anything either. But you are making a huge leap that they all tested positive for something in 2003 when many of them aren't even mentioned using substances that could be tested for.This is one of the problems with this issue and this report. Everything that anyone ever did and any name ever mentioned are all lumped together as all doing the same thing. Clemens = the guy who is supposed to have injected one time. I guess you can say if they ever did anything illegal they are all just as guilty, but there are a ton of assumptions out there that will still never be proven.

Mitchell doesn't have anything extra. He just put together all of the public info he could along with info from a couple of interviews. This isn't an investigation, it would just be the tip of the iceberg. How many other sources are out there that aren't being pressured by the feds.

While I agree that it lumps in the fringe user with the Clemens' of the Roid world, I am not sure it matters. Levels of guilt wasn't the point of the report.And if any players want to clear their name, there are avenues to do so.

As to another matter, a lot of this stuff can't be proven, 'tis true. But aside from YouTube clips of trainers shooting up players, hard proof was never gonna come in this report. If people want to believe that it's just worthless hearsay from questionable sources, they will never pull their head out of the sand.

But another source will come forward. Some Roid dealer in Chicago will get busted for smacking his girlfriend, and give up Chi-Town ball players.

Some doctor in Boston will get cited for drunken driving for the 5th time, and rat out some Red Sox.

The Yanks and Mets felt the brunt because the source was a New York guy. If I was a user on the Angels, I'd be sending my dealer on an extended trip to Cancun.

 

[dparker713]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.

If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.

I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?

Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

Well since some of the players are accused of taking HGH and they were not tested for that, I'm pretty sure that none of them tested positive for it in 2003 from their urine samples.

Well, that's true. But that doesn't mean they didn't fail for another steroid. Back in '03 many guys were taking both anabolic steroids and HGH together. I still think that a lot of these guys aren't going to do anything because I have this sinking suspicion that the Feds quietly gave Mitchell a list of the '03 positive test results as corrobarating evidence for the guys listed in the report.

I'd be willing to bet they won't do anything either. But you are making a huge leap that they all tested positive for something in 2003 when many of them aren't even mentioned using substances that could be tested for.This is one of the problems with this issue and this report. Everything that anyone ever did and any name ever mentioned are all lumped together as all doing the same thing. Clemens = the guy who is supposed to have injected one time. I guess you can say if they ever did anything illegal they are all just as guilty, but there are a ton of assumptions out there that will still never be proven.

Mitchell doesn't have anything extra. He just put together all of the public info he could along with info from a couple of interviews. This isn't an investigation, it would just be the tip of the iceberg. How many other sources are out there that aren't being pressured by the feds.

While I agree that it lumps in the fringe user with the Clemens' of the Roid world, I am not sure it matters. Levels of guilt wasn't the point of the report.And if any players want to clear their name, there are avenues to do so.

As to another matter, a lot of this stuff can't be proven, 'tis true. But aside from YouTube clips of trainers shooting up players, hard proof was never gonna come in this report. If people want to believe that it's just worthless hearsay from questionable sources, they will never pull their head out of the sand.

But another source will come forward. Some Roid dealer in Chicago will get busted for smacking his girlfriend, and give up Chi-Town ball players.

Some doctor in Boston will get cited for drunken driving for the 5th time, and rat out some Red Sox.

The Yanks and Mets felt the brunt because the source was a New York guy. If I was a user on the Angels, I'd be sending my dealer on an extended trip to Cancun.

There really arent. As the players are public figures involved in a public matter, they'd need to prove that Mitchell included their names because of malice. Thats a huge burden on the players and really insurmountable at this point. And outside of court, sure they can defend themselves, but it wont ever be enough to clear their own names. Even if they won in court, that wouldnt be enough for some people. Just as in a rape case, the accusation is enough to ruin these players reputations forever.

 

[LTsharks]

I take back my C- grade. This report is a clear D- without positive qualities. The only saving grace allowing it to not be a total 100% waste of time is that it might lead to further development of some kind of drug testing scheme that works.

If I'm a player on that list I'm suing MLB by the end of next week for this report. As a fan that doesn't care about drugs in the game, I still don't really care. If I did, I would be pissed that this is what they came up with because it's nothing more then a show to make it look like they did something so Congress doesn't do anything.

I usually never support the players or Don Fehr in any confrontation, but I'm on his side on this one. Baseball owes every player on this report an apology for this half assed slam job that has more innuendo then fact, and is based on uncontested statements by two people that could be facing criminal problems.

Question: Let's say you're one of the people named in the Mitchell Report. If you sue MLB, can't they start REALLY digging into your past alleged drug use? I'd bet you won't see any lawsuits against MLB by any of these guys because I think that Mitchell and MLB knows that every one of those names in the report tested positive back in '03. The feds already have all of those names, by the way, based on the case against Bonds. Those same feds gave Mitchell information on the informants they used in the Mitchell Report.See where I'm going with this?

Mitchell listed all the evidence that he was ALLOWED to list. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there that the Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits them from mentioning in the report.

Well since some of the players are accused of taking HGH and they were not tested for that, I'm pretty sure that none of them tested positive for it in 2003 from their urine samples.

Well, that's true. But that doesn't mean they didn't fail for another steroid. Back in '03 many guys were taking both anabolic steroids and HGH together. I still think that a lot of these guys aren't going to do anything because I have this sinking suspicion that the Feds quietly gave Mitchell a list of the '03 positive test results as corrobarating evidence for the guys listed in the report.

I'd be willing to bet they won't do anything either. But you are making a huge leap that they all tested positive for something in 2003 when many of them aren't even mentioned using substances that could be tested for.This is one of the problems with this issue and this report. Everything that anyone ever did and any name ever mentioned are all lumped together as all doing the same thing. Clemens = the guy who is supposed to have injected one time. I guess you can say if they ever did anything illegal they are all just as guilty, but there are a ton of assumptions out there that will still never be proven.

Mitchell doesn't have anything extra. He just put together all of the public info he could along with info from a couple of interviews. This isn't an investigation, it would just be the tip of the iceberg. How many other sources are out there that aren't being pressured by the feds.

While I agree that it lumps in the fringe user with the Clemens' of the Roid world, I am not sure it matters. Levels of guilt wasn't the point of the report.And if any players want to clear their name, there are avenues to do so.

As to another matter, a lot of this stuff can't be proven, 'tis true. But aside from YouTube clips of trainers shooting up players, hard proof was never gonna come in this report. If people want to believe that it's just worthless hearsay from questionable sources, they will never pull their head out of the sand.

But another source will come forward. Some Roid dealer in Chicago will get busted for smacking his girlfriend, and give up Chi-Town ball players.

Some doctor in Boston will get cited for drunken driving for the 5th time, and rat out some Red Sox.

The Yanks and Mets felt the brunt because the source was a New York guy. If I was a user on the Angels, I'd be sending my dealer on an extended trip to Cancun.

I'm not sure it does either. But I can see it mattering to some of the players. As many guys that used roids or HGH, you know there had to be a bunch that tried it a few times and then never did it again. If they quite because they felt it was wrong, had side effects, or any other of a bunch of possible reasons I'm not sure it is fair to lump them in with guys who continued to do this stuff year after year after year. Pettitte is an example of this. Who knows if he is telling the truth, but I'd be willing to bet that there are some players that did exactly what he described. Again, maybe he isn't one of them, but we'll never know.For that reason, I can see why people would draw the line and say a few times = cheater = year over year repeat user. I can also see why people will try to look at individual players and make individual judgments.