Mitchell defends his investigation (1 Viewer)

[TitusIII]

From the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...ery_many_others

"But most of the talk in New York is about Clemens, who was a stunning name revealed in Mitchell's report. Clemens's lawyer called the allegations "slander," but Mitchell disagreed.

"I offered to meet with [Clemens] to tell him what evidence I had," he said. "If he is denying it, he could have come in and denied it to me."

Mitchell says each player named had chances to defend himself."

Pretty damning, imo...seems like they all know what would happen in a court of law

Also, looks like the player's union is/will be a problem

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/sports/b...p;ex=1197954000

The comissioner's office and the player's union secretly agreed to suspend testing in '04 to protect >100 players that had already one positive test, after testifying to Congress on what they were doing about the problem. This last issue will probably be seized upon by some members of Congress to recommend seizing the reigns and taking (actually unprecedented) legislative action themselves, since baseball cannot be trusted. The player's union had tried to get this part of the Mitchell report squashed before it was released for obvious reasons.

 

[skillz]

Also, looks like the player's union is/will be a problem

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/sports/b...p;ex=1197954000

The comissioner's office and the player's union secretly agreed to suspend testing in '04 to protect >100 players that had already one positive test, after testifying to Congress on what they were doing about the problem. This last issue will probably be seized upon by some members of Congress to recommend seizing the reigns and taking (actually unprecedented) legislative action themselves, since baseball cannot be trusted. The player's union had tried to get this part of the Mitchell report squashed before it was released for obvious reasons.

The players union has always been the main problem. I am sure Bud wanted to do more (i.e. broader testing, stiffer penalties for steroid use) but really had his hands tied because the union would have contested whatever he tried to do to curb steroid use. I do fault Bud in that he didn't have enough stones to push the issue by trying to do more anyway. He was too scared of putting the union in a position where it would be viewed as the party responsible for not allowing MLB getting to the bottom of the issue. That is why Congress is so ticked off that it wants to handle the issue itself since MLB and the union do not appear to be willing to do enough. The union's unreasonableness on all this will come to the surface more in the future when Bud tries to discipline some of the players listed in the Mitchell Report and the union grieves the discipline that is issued.

 

[dparker713]

I dont understand why people think any player should have met with Mitchell to defend themselves. There was nothing in place that could protect the players interests. Of all the things that could occur in such an interview, 99 out of 100 were negative for the player.

 

[Koya]

I dont understand why people think any player should have met with Mitchell to defend themselves. There was nothing in place that could protect the players interests. Of all the things that could occur in such an interview, 99 out of 100 were negative for the player.

Mitchell himself has explained that he completely understands why most players would not speak with him. And of course, if you have any chance to perjure yourself because you have been using steroids you can't go near this.That said, if you truly did not do them, presumably you have nothing to hide. While that does not stand up in the legal sense, in a logical or clear my name because I had no place being connected to this mess sense I could see a player coorperating. Frank Thomas talked to Mitchell, correct?That said, the REAL damning part is that excerpt (I had not heard of this) about the secret deal and perhaps a lack of disclosure / openness from both the union and MLB proper with congress.

 

[dparker713]

I dont understand why people think any player should have met with Mitchell to defend themselves. There was nothing in place that could protect the players interests. Of all the things that could occur in such an interview, 99 out of 100 were negative for the player.

Mitchell himself has explained that he completely understands why most players would not speak with him. And of course, if you have any chance to perjure yourself because you have been using steroids you can't go near this.That said, if you truly did not do them, presumably you have nothing to hide. While that does not stand up in the legal sense, in a logical or clear my name because I had no place being connected to this mess sense I could see a player coorperating. Frank Thomas talked to Mitchell, correct?That said, the REAL damning part is that excerpt (I had not heard of this) about the secret deal and perhaps a lack of disclosure / openness from both the union and MLB proper with congress.

In a legal sense, I dont care if my client is Mother Teresa, I wouldnt let a client get anywhere near the Mitchell investigation. There is no oversight of the investigation and zero safeguards in place. Its just an absolute nightmare.

 

[Koya]

I dont understand why people think any player should have met with Mitchell to defend themselves. There was nothing in place that could protect the players interests. Of all the things that could occur in such an interview, 99 out of 100 were negative for the player.

Mitchell himself has explained that he completely understands why most players would not speak with him. And of course, if you have any chance to perjure yourself because you have been using steroids you can't go near this.That said, if you truly did not do them, presumably you have nothing to hide. While that does not stand up in the legal sense, in a logical or clear my name because I had no place being connected to this mess sense I could see a player coorperating. Frank Thomas talked to Mitchell, correct?That said, the REAL damning part is that excerpt (I had not heard of this) about the secret deal and perhaps a lack of disclosure / openness from both the union and MLB proper with congress.

In a legal sense, I dont care if my client is Mother Teresa, I wouldnt let a client get anywhere near the Mitchell investigation. There is no oversight of the investigation and zero safeguards in place. Its just an absolute nightmare.

I tend to agree, but the option is out there.

 

[428143]

CJ Nitkowski was just on ESPN defending McNamara(trainer who gave Clemens and company roids). Basically said if the union wants a clean game at this point, we will get one, nevertheless...Nitkowski doesn't believe the union will agree to many of the recommendations of the Mitchell report.

Of course, the hosts defended the players after the interview(well the loudest of the bunch)...this is a battle of public opinion, and there is no doubt who's side ESPN is on...