MSNBC was showing names on the side of the screen. Paul Lo Duca and Eric Gange were two that I saw.

Eric Gagne's first achievement as a Brewer : Getting on the Mitchell Report.

 

Congrats Eric, you were so bad at obtaining steriods that an investigation with no power or cooperation was able to catch you.

What the heck is going on on ESPN.

Apparently no Pujols on the list... although this list doesn't really clear anyone.  I don't think anyone would honestly want to know the names that would show up if this investigation actually had some power.

Ike Turner passed away.

I still want to know why this is such a big deal. The circumstantial evidence was there that just about everyone used. Why the whole "hang them in effigy" talk?

I think you'll like this headline.

I actually thought that the presentation was kinda boring. Senator Mitchell's proposed plan for cleaning up baseball does sound like a great plan if they can implement it.

This report doesn't seem like a "here are the players that took illegal drugs, lets get them!". It seems more like an "MLB, Owners, and the Players Association failed America."

I browsed the report.  There are some a few big names, guys you've heard of and guys you were like "god he sucked."  It's 400 pages so I might have missed some stuff but it doesn't seem that earth shattering. 

 

Of course the first thing I did was control F and read about Bonds.  It doesn't look like Mitchell did much more the repurpose Game of Shadows for the Balco section.   His only new insight that I have seen has come from The Mets clubbie and the Florida health clinic. 

There the reporters go again, going at Barry just because he isn't the nicest of guys. Why not say that about Roger Clemens since he apparently did the exact same thing Barry did. That guy needs his credentials taken away.

At least now I know where Nook Logan got all that power from.

So I am betting Simmons has already called Johnny to rub it in that Clemens and Pettite are on the report.

Notice how there are no Red Sox on the list.

That couldn't possibly be because Mitchell sits on the Red Sox board of directors, could it?

The fact that it is strongly believe that pitchers benefit more than hitters do should mean that we should be talking about how Clemens shouldn't be in the HOF and how we can't talk about him being the greatest ever because we don't know how many wins he would have or strikeouts or how much higher his ERA would be? 

 

The whole picking on Bonds thing got old to me right away. Hopefully this report, with the knowledge that this probably doesn't even scratch the surface, will help open people's eyes that everyone was/is using this stuff.

The scary thing is that there were only about 3 drug dealers supplying names. My guess is that every single player in MLB uses steroids.

Lenny Dykstra's name kind of surprised me.

Mo Vaughn is in there. He's a pretty big name. Just no current big names.

I thought Mo Vaughn was just on doughnuts.

The key word is FORMER Red Sox.

My point is that Mitchell has a conflict of interest here...

Best name on the list : Gary Bennett

 

I think Brewers, Cardinals, Phillies, Rockies, Padres, and Nationals fans will appreciate that.  Dude is horrible.

Andy Pettite, Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada, and Brian Roberts are pretty big names.

Everyone else will claim tainted supplements. Mo will claim tainted Big Macs.

John Rocker?  I didn't see that coming!

I meant current big names on the Red Sox, since Mitchell is on their board.

Sammy Sosa isn't even mentioned?  Pudge Rodriguez? Brett Boone?

Chuck Knoblauch? Geez, no wonder he couldn't throw to first base anymore.

Their independent investigator should have been a little more independent from the beginning, but would you expect anything less from MLB?

That's the one that has surprised me the most.

I see. You're right. I personally suspect Manny Ramirez.

After reading the report one thing that really stuck out to me was that the only people who gave up names were Jason Grimsley, Greg Anderson, and the guy from the Mets locker room. There are more. Many, many more.

I can't believe I agree with John Kruk right now... I feel so much less of a person now.

What surprises me the most is the number of pitchers on the list. There seems to be more pitchers than hitters.

With the if this is true about Clemens then he is just like Bonds?

Fernando Vina. Does anyone know if he blasted Bonds about the alleged steroid use on Baseball Tonight?

Kevin Brown. I thought HGH was suppose to help you heal.

David Segui publicly said he did not cooperate because he did not want to rat on his fellow players.

Yep... Clemens being in this report might be the best thing to ever happen to Bonds.  Thing is, Clemens isn't exactly the most likeable guy either.

I just received information that Peter Gammons is listed in the report as also using annabolic steroids.

That is not a surprise.  If you look at the players who have already tested positive, most have been pitchers.

Actually it was Tim Kurk-Jian.

Our comments are 100 times better than the ones scrolling on the bottom of ESPN.

No wonder he hated everyone on the 7 Train.

You know Selig is obviously going to look pretty bad for presiding as commish while no one did anything for so long, but if he wants save any face, he really needs to come out during his conference and agree with a lot of the recommendations for the future. Get independent testing, test more often and during the offseason so players can't avoid detection, release the name of the banned substance taken so everyone knows when players are full of it for saying it was in their supplements. Put some pressure on the players union to agree to testing changes without having to put into labor talks. This should be a separate issue and the players should agree to changes without trying to get concessions from the owners because it just makes it long like they're still trying to protect players who are using banned substances.

Went over to the FanHouse and found this.  Apparently the Red Sox knew Gagne used steriods when they traded for him.  Interesting to see how well known steriod use is known throughout baseball.

Like I said in a previous comment - I think they ALL do it.

I liked how Mitchell called out the Commish and Owners in his speech.

What surprises me the most is that a lot of these guys should probably be getting refunds.

This is so reminiscent of the Pittsburgh drug trials of the 80's...

I'm sure in some cases the steroids probably gave them just enough help to even make it to the big leagues.
Steroids + talent = Barry Bonds
Steroids + 0 = Nook Logan

Rob Parker has a HOF vote?  What makes him any more qualified than any of us?

See, it's so easy to make Nook jokes.

Shcoked to see Brian Roberts on there.... But at the same time HGH was not a banned substance at the time that most of them used!  I've been fighting with friends that Roger was going to be on the list...

Unless he had some kind of growth condition, it's pretty likely he would have been using it illegally, whether it was actually written on a banned substance list or not.

Brenden Donnelly and Eric Gagne were both on the Red Sox when this investigation was done. Mitchell didn't work on this alone, there is no bias in the investigation. I am not saying that no current Red Sox took steroids but Mitchell isn't covering that up, he just might not have caught them.

Of course, he goes on to make points I agree with.  I've agreed with John Kruk and Rob Parker both in the same day.  Is Steve Phillips next?  Maybe I need to re-adjust my thinking?

Fernando Vina got caught. Anyone think he will be back on Baseball Tonight next year?

It's ESPN so he'll probably be back. How many years did they let Michael Irvin do the NFL pregame show? Guy got busted a couple of times with crack and hookers.

Both were short timers.

I would have been floored if Ramirez or Ortiz or Veritiek were named in the initial list.  Not because I don't think they took it.  But because of Mitchell's connection to the BoSox.

I suspect for every player named, there are at least 4 others (if not more) who used in the majors.

This is the whole thing on Roberts in the report:

Roberts lived with Segui and Bigbie in 2001. Segui and Bigbie used steroids in the house, but Roberts did not participate according to Bigbie.

In 2004, Roberts told Bigbie (according to Bigbie) that he has used steroids "once or twice" during 2003. Until then, Bigbie never suspected Roberts.

I wonder who else is in the report solely due to hearsay.

There's a lot more out there. The only players named were connected to Radomski, McNamee, or Larry Bigbie. The rest of them just got likely that their dealers wouldn't talk/weren't indicted. The Bigbie thing is why I suspected so many Orioles are in the report.

This is still a joke and wont accomplish anything

Selig said he deems active players listed in the Mitchell report as substance abusers.  He also said that baseball has the most aggressive drug testing program of major sports. Clearly, Bud Selig is incompetent.

Of course he is.  He is the main guy behind the wild card and interleague play.  You think he is going to handle this well?

So Selig is going to go case by case with asterisks. Allow me to translate..."I HATE BARRY BONDS! HE WILL NOT HAVE THE HOMERUN RECORD!"

I sat for a good 15 seconds going between smart and funny... went with funny.

You're pathetic. He hasn't been on the Sox' payroll for over 2 years now. That's completely irrelevant.

Selig is kind of coming off as a more of d-bag than before after listening to him for the past 30 minutes or so.

What a disgrace some of these players are who took steroids and still were horrendous players.

I have read two reports about this that said he is on the Red Sox board.  And multiple radio hosts have claimed the same thing. 
What makes them all wrong and you right?

I can't believe that they disclosed some of the things they did apparently without absolute proof.

Yeah, that smells of lawsuit(s)

LOL how are the Wild Card and inter-league play incompetent? Do you realize how much money these inter-league games bring in, and how much more excitement the Wild Card adds to baseball? If you're gonna bash the man, at least put together a valid point.

Especially with some of the agents we have out their today.

I just heard on PTI that Roger Clemens' lawyer is already up in arms.

They point out his idiocy by showing that he doesn't care about the game.  That he would sacrifice his whole house just to build a new garage.  IL play does not bring in hardly any money in the grand scheme of things.  Which also points out that he would sell his soul for an extra dime.  The wild card was something the fans weren't screaming for.  It kills the pennant race, and has helped to create a national disinterest in MLB.
So yes, his involvement in those things DOES show his incompetence at being the top guy at MLB.
He has handled this steroid thing the same way.  With his eyes on making an extra dime at the expense of the integrity of the game.

I'm not going to deny the steroid thing. The way he has handled it is most likely wrong, but we haven't seen a situation like this so whose to say how he SHOULD handle it. But you just contradicted yourself. If IL brings in no money, then how's he affording to build an extra garage for himself. As to killing the pennant race, I think you're completely wrong. Pennant races have heated up over the last few years since the WC was added, and the season wasn't over till the last game, then which it still wasn't over. It helps bring the smaller market teams in divisions to gaining a chance, and it helps improve the fan base. To say that it kills the pennant race is an over-kill, and the fans are higher than ever, so there is no national disinterest.

I have a new drinking game:

Every time Donald Fehr says, "Having said that," take a drink :P

I wouldn't doubt it, and I think the Clemens' accusation shocked plenty. I mean sure he could have done it trying to get healthy, but it's hard to believe. I'm surprise someone like Scott Rolen, whose been injured alot, isn't on the list.

This steroid thing is laughable.  Every time Selig talks about the "integrity of the game" it makes me want to vomit.  He has proved he has absolutely NO interest in the integrity of the game.  He doesn't care about what made MLB the greatest game.  In one respect, he is doing his job as the mouthpiece for the owners.  He represents their interest quite well.  That interest has little to do with the "integrity" of the game.

My point about IL play was that it only helps maybe 3 or 4 teams draw an extra 30-40K over a three game series.  Yes, that means more tickets sold, more beer sold, more parking revenue, etc.  But it also means screwing up the schedule.   Making things unfair within the division.  And creating a lessened interest in the All Star Game and World Series.  Is all that really worth it?  For the owners who do not care about the game but only an extra dollar, sure it is.  And his job is to look out for their best interest.  But, if one thinks the Commissioner ought to have what is best for the GAME overall come first, then he has done a TERRIBLE job.
Pennant races have been nonexistent since 1993.  You are confusing playoff hunts with pennant races.  They are different things.  You know what would also help more teams?  Still MORE playoff spots.
What Bud did with the wild card was not solve the competitive imbalance.  But merely swept it under the rug.  Put another way, he lowered the standards for passing so it looks like more students pass the test.  The students didn't do any better, but it LOOKS like they did because of the lower standards.  Hence, he has undermined the integrity of the game yet again.
There IS national disinterest.  FOX had no interest in showing both LCS's this year.  One was farmed out to cable.  The WS ratings have been lower than ever.  All this are signs of people ignoring baseball in droves.
Part of the reason can be traced right back to Bud Selig.

TBS. I blame tbs. heh

And Dane Cook. Don't forget about him ;)

I think that's a question only STEPHEN A. SMITH CAN ANSWER

This "list" is total nonsense. Its nothing more than two little punks trying to get out of jail time.

No surprises here at all. Every player on the list we've known about or at least have had an idea about for a while.

Really? Before this "list" came out you knew Andy Pettitte was "involved" in some sort of steroids usage?

Don't you remember when the Jason Grimsley story broke? Both Pettitte and Clemens names were allegedly in the affidavit. Whether or not it has been proven, there has been public suspicion since then.

I've tried to ignore the "cat calls" of the snitches chasing a deal. Thats pretty much what this entire steroids thing is based on, so I've pretty much ignored the whole thing.

What i have to say is now that Roger Clemens is listed this will most likely not get to happen anymore. The video of Roger Clemens in 2057 wanting to get a job as a pitcher for the Yankees. Roger Clemens in 2057.

Grimsley wasn't a snitch per se... he's a player who basically got caught with his pants down and did what he had to do to save his own hide. The names in the affidavit were redacted... however, some in the media (and anyone who bothered to read the affidavit, which I did) surmised based on the context around the redactions that Grimsley was probably talking about Clemens and Pettitte.

I personally have been suspicious of just about every player, but until there is a failed test or substantial evidence otherwise (such as all the circumstantial evidence surrounding Bonds), I can't realistically pass judgement on any player.

"he's a player who basically got caught with his pants down and did what he had to do to save his own hide."

AKA a snitch.

Are you saying you wouldn't do the same thing in his situation?

Thats exactly what I am saying. I did the crime, I do the time.

Actually, none of it was really disclosed as anything concrete. Mitchell specifically stated his sources for each piece of information, and none of it is presented as anything more than hearsay, unless he actually HAS proof. His disclosures were nothing more than a presentation of evidence, as opposed to any specific allegations.

And most of it was stuff we all already either knew or suspected.

The point is you can't just mention names. These guys names are tainted for good. Thats the whole point of the matter actually that by definition if it is not concrete they have no business mentioning names. This is ludicrous.

I wish I could give you 10,000 thumbs up for that.

Everyone he turned in also did the crime, therefore they should do the crime too. I'll admit it, if I have to go down, I would probably take some others with me, if I had a chance.

But how is it any different from how anyone has ever treated any of this stuff?

Taking steroids isn't a crime. And either way, you don't rat. Take your time and live with it.

Noted. Nick S clearly is not to be trusted.

Actually, taking steroids IS a crime according to federal law:

Anabolic Steroids became illegal to sell or possess without a prescription in the U.S. with the passage of the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 which added Anabolic steroids to Schedule III of the Controlled Substance Act.

Hey, you gotta do what you gotta do. Now I probably wouldn't snitch if I was going to jail but in something like this I would definitely drag someone down with me.

You just contradicted yourself all in one comment. You say "Actually, taking steroids IS a crime according to federal law" and than you say "Anabolic Steroids became illegal to sell or possess without a prescription". Using steroids is neither selling nor possessing them. A technicality yes, but a viable POV and a strong defense argument.

But to use them, you have to possess them.

Not necessarily.  I don't feel like getting to deep into this, but say I get arrested and they find steroids in my system. The cops search my house, my job, my car everything they can possibly think of, and find no syringes or steroids. Can they charge me with possession? I think not.

That sounds like "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make a sound?"

Not really. Like I said its totally valid. Try to dispute it.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just a weak attempt at humor.

I didn't contradict myself, I was simply paraphrasing the ruling by Congress. If you want me to find the specific language from the DEA relating the Controlled Substance Act, I will. I just hate reading legal jargon :P

 

But what you are arguing is really a question of semantics. For practical reasons, it doesn't make much sense to go after users who aren't actually distributing or possessing anabolic steroids... but say you were to get caught with something in your system, technically, you could be charged.

 

The reality is that the law isn't going to go after indivisual users, they are going to go after suppliers/dealers. But it doesn't mean that it's legal. Hypothetically, If I did cocaine but didn't actually possess it at any time, it's still illegal to do it, but the police, in all likelihood, wouldn't go after me. They want the dealers, the suppliers, the big fish.

Not even worth arguing.

That's fine with me, as I was never looking to argue with you. All I was doing was simply relaying the laws of this country we live in. I am pretty well acquainted with drug law, since I personally think a lot of it is nonsense.

If steroids are in your system, then you possess them in your body. Period.

Correct. And you CANNOT be charged with possession. Thanks for your assistance.

But her point was that a crime was committed. If someone took steroids, then they were in possession of them. It is physically impossible to have steroids in your system if you never possessed them.

Again not true. I thought I said I didn't want to argue this?

How is it not true? If you don't want to argue, then either put out some inarguable facts to refute what we're saying, or just stop posting here. It's that simple.

If someone else injects you with something that they supplied, than guess what? You never possessed anything. Good enough for you GOD of Sport?

Ok...let's go with your hypothetical situation...

If person A (we'll call him McNamee, for the sake of discussion) injects person B (let's call him Roger) with an illegal drug (we'll just refer to it as "anabolic steroids", to make it simple), then they are BOTH committing a crime.

Here's why:
If Roger is being injected with the steroids, then they are HIS steroids. If he paid McNamee for them (HIGHLY likely), then they are ROGER'S steroids. From the moment he buys them, he possesses them, in the legal sense of the word.

If he can prove that:
1) He never held the drug
2) He never paid for them in any way, shape or form

Then MAYBE he could slide out of a possession charge.

HOWEVER, there is still charges that could be levied against him. Things like "conspiracy to distribute illegal substances", since he is participating in such distribution.

Once again, you're blindly defending your guy, which is fine...but do us all a favor and try to inject some reality into your arguments. It makes them a lot more respectable when you do that, instead of the blind homerism.

Where did I say a name? No where. You added the name. I'm REALISTICALLY tearing the Mitchell report to shreds. I'm sorry if you don't like that. I'm not really sure what your stake in the whole thing is, but I'm not gonna sit back and be nice cause it hurts your feelings. Every part of what I am saying is real. Every part of what your saying is....um I don't know what to call it.

And where did the Mitchell Report say to charge anyone with possession? In fact, it recommended quite the opposite. Go read it, since I'm getting the funny feeling that you haven't.

And every part of what I'm saying is real as well. And you know you're not going to hurt my feelings. Just bring facts. RELEVANT ones. And if you can't, then bring it somewhere else.

I did read the whole thing. Never said it said anything about possession. Actually it contained a recommendation of quite the opposite, not to penalize any one named in ANY way. I have almost always come with relevant facts in my discussions. Any other way you want to try and knock me??

Yeah...I want to know how you have "tore the Mitchell Report to shreds".

Maybe I'll post a blog about it. It would take me forever to write, and would take up too much space in this thread. I've been analyzing it for days, and I think I've pretty much got it beat.

Good luck with that.

Personally, I don't think that it was concrete enough to really attack too hard. It was nothing more than a report of the results of a bunch of interviews. None of them are presented as hard evidence, or as anything truly admissible. Some of it is, but overall, the report is just a summary of his findings. There's just not a whole lot there.