Page 1 of 2

The Mitchell Report

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:57 pm
by _silentkid
The Mitchell Report will be posted online today. I think it'll be interesting to see who gets named. Early reports state that Roger Clemens is on the list. This is going to be big bad news for baseball. I wonder how many big contracts will suffer as a result of it.

Re: The Mitchell Report

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:01 pm
by _skippy the dead
silentkid wrote:The Mitchell Report will be posted online today. I think it'll be interesting to see who gets named. Early reports state that Roger Clemens is on the list. This is going to be big bad news for baseball. I wonder how many big contracts will suffer as a result of it.


I've already set aside the afternoon to begin reading it.

Do you suppose that people will be clamoring to put asterisks next to the Rocket's Cy Young awards? Will he be denied admission to the Hall of Fame? This is where we'll see a major difference in how certain players are treated for their steroid sins.

(And as for the early revelation that Clemens was dirty, I just say "Duh!")

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:03 pm
by _Doctor Steuss
I personally think they should split each sport into two leagues. Have a “natural” league where players cannot use any form of performance enhancing drugs, and then have a “juicy-juice” league where players can take whatever the hell they want.

My guess is that if a “natural” league game and a “juicy-juice” league game where on the TV at the same time, no one would be watching the “natural” league.

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:08 pm
by _skippy the dead
Doctor Steuss wrote:I personally think they should split each sport into two leagues. Have a “natural” league where players cannot use any form of performance enhancing drugs, and then have a “juicy-juice” league where players can take whatever the hell they want.

My guess is that if a “natural” league game and a “juicy-juice” league game where on the TV at the same time, no one would be watching the “natural” league.


Quite. I have no doubt that the majority of the management was well aware of the fact that players were dirty, but baseball needed to get asses back in the seats after the strike, when many of us were angry at baseball. Exciting games, including overpowering pitchers and amazing jacks, reignited interest in the game. Perhaps it would have been a slower process winning the fans back if guys topped out at 35 HRs a season and flamers didn't go past 88 mph.

As for me, I love the sport clean, but recognize that there was a time when most of the great players had some help. But I also see that there were enough guys juicing that the playing field was still relatively level. I expect to see the Mitchell Report bear that out.


(by the way - I knew I could count on SilentKid to bring this up today!)

Re: The Mitchell Report

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:13 pm
by _silentkid
skippy the dead wrote:Do you suppose that people will be clamoring to put asterisks next to the Rocket's Cy Young awards? Will he be denied admission to the Hall of Fame? This is where we'll see a major difference in how certain players are treated for their steroid sins.

(And as for the early revelation that Clemens was dirty, I just say "Duh!")


I remember you making the point (in the Bond's asterisk thread) that pitchers were just as guilty, if not more so, as power hitters. You were right. Were you using the peep stones again? ;) As far as the Rocket's Cy Young awards...take 'em away like Marion Jones' gold medals! In reality, I'm not sure how this is all going to be handled. The league and the Hall of Fame better be consistent in their take on the stats issue.

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:23 pm
by _silentkid
Doctor Steuss wrote:I personally think they should split each sport into two leagues. Have a “natural” league where players cannot use any form of performance enhancing drugs, and then have a “juicy-juice” league where players can take whatever the hell they want.


You know, allowing the players to take whatever they want is probably the only realistic way to solve the problem. No matter how accurate testing becomes, new enhancing drugs will be designed that will be untraceable. Kinda like co-evolution.

I know I'd end up watching the "juicy-juice" league too. They might have to make the fences deeper, though. And allow you to throw the ball at base runners to get them out.

One other thing: I'm kind of upset that this report won't address the amphetamines issue. It's weird that the NFL is so obsessed with its players smoking pot (i.e. Ricky Williams) which in no way enhances athletic ability. Baseball players have been using amphetamines for years with no consequence from the league.

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:32 pm
by _skippy the dead
silentkid wrote:One other thing: I'm kind of upset that this report won't address the amphetamines issue. It's weird that the NFL is so obsessed with its players smoking pot (I.e. Ricky Williams) which in no way enhances athletic ability. Baseball players have been using amphetamines for years with no consequence from the league.


Agreed. Especially when one hears of accounts of bowls of "greenies" in the trainers room, to help players keep their energy up. I'd say chronic use of amphetamines is way more of an issue than smoking pot.

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:44 pm
by _Doctor Steuss
silentkid wrote:[...] And allow you to throw the ball at base runners to get them out.

Brilliant!

One other thing: I'm kind of upset that this report won't address the amphetamines issue. It's weird that the NFL is so obsessed with its players smoking pot (I.e. Ricky Williams) which in no way enhances athletic ability. Baseball players have been using amphetamines for years with no consequence from the league.

I think the reasoning behind the whole “pot thing” (as well as the steroid issue) may be that they feel these athletes are “heroes” to the youth, and if they do drugs, youth will follow their example. This was perhaps a valid concern in yesteryears (I don’t know if you remember the baseball card days and idolation [made a new word] of athletes in the late 80’s); but now I wonder if such reasoning has any validity anymore.

Maybe amphetamines haven't received the stamp of demonization that the other drugs have received, so they aren't considered a risk to the "youth."(?)

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:10 pm
by _skippy the dead
Downloading the PDF now. . .

It's here:

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/1 ... report.pdf

if anybody is interested (I'm too lazy to make it into a pretty link, sorry).

I've finished my one open work project, so that I can spend my afternoon rolling in the report.

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:14 pm
by _Mercury
Yet another reason I do not follow any sports whatsoever.