by James Oliphant
A day after its release, the Mitchell Report continues to roil baseball – and its legion of fans.
Billed before it was made public as a comprehensive look into the sport's drug culture over the past 10 years, it apparently has raised as many questions as it has answered. Because of that, a counteroffensive has been building since former Sen. George Mitchell's New York press conference Thursday afternoon.
Its critics charge that as a prosecutorial document, the report is flimsy at best, defamatory at worst. That's because Mitchell, who prepared the report with his law firm, DLA Piper, more often that not resorted to bootstrapping his inquiry to ongoing federal investigations, which led to a disproportionate reliance on just a couple of key snitches. One, a former New York Mets clubhouse attendant, Kirk Radomski, and another, Brian McNamee, a former trainer, both cooperated with federal investigators in the hope of receiving leniency. And you know what criminal defense lawyers do with people like that.
There is also very little in the report in the way of hard documentary evidence beyond a few canceled checks. It isn't necessarily Mitchell's fault; he and his team had no subpoena power and received almost no cooperation from players.
All this would be acceptable if the document purported to simply be a narrative of baseball's woes during an era when owners, executives and players turned a collective blind eye to mounting steroid use. And if it serves as an engine of change to propel the sport to cleanse itself further, then its value is self-evident.
But the report goes beyond those things: It names names. That raises the ante, as well as the burden of proof.
The players union and others have complained that in that regard, the vast majority of the 80 or so players identified in the report are being tried in the court of public opinion, largely on the basis of hearsay, with no meaningful opportunity to defend themselves. That may good enough for fans and for Congress, both of whom have demanded an accounting from the sport. Beyond that, however, it leaves the players named in a bit of legal purgatory, with little chance for redemption.
Mitchell, and the game's commissioner Allen "Bud" Selig, appear content with that, although Mitchell, in perhaps tacitly conceding the report's flaws, suggested that Selig not discipline the players named in the spirit of moving forward. If Selig agrees, however, and takes no decisive, visible action, baseball may remain stuck in the murkiness that the report was designed to dispel, with more unresolved than not, and with individual players like Roger Clemens taking it upon themselves to attempt to salvage their images.
Whether the report is used to keep a legend like Clemens out of the Hall of Fame will be an interesting drama in five years (remember: the evidence against Pete Rose was much more damning). But regardless of the report's problems, it has succeeding in branding baseball's best hitter, Barry Bonds, and its best pitcher, Clemens, over the past decade, as chief architects of a fraud perpetrated upon the sporting public. As a snapshot of a troubled time, it could hardly do better. If those two luminaries end up taking the fall on behalf of every unidentified All-Star who breathed a sigh of relief yesterday afternoon, it may indeed be some sort of rough justice.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
If you conducted a similar investigation in the NFL, NHL or NBA, you would also turn a large list of names (especially in the NFL). Do these people really think fans don't realize players are on steroids? Who cares...how much money was spent do conduct this investigation? Waste of time if you ask me.
Posted by: berto | December 14, 2007 11:30 AM
WOW, could this journalist be more bias? Doesn't he depend on "snitches" to get the leads and information you produce his articles? Well, considering the quailty, probably not.
Posted by: Spike | December 14, 2007 12:27 PM
Yes it does take it to another level by naming names but ya know what, shame on them. My Grandma use to tell me. "Don't do anything you would be proud to be identified with." In that same vein, if they did something wrong, regardless of who else was doing it, they should be prepared to take the consiquences of their actions....
Posted by: Spike | December 14, 2007 12:32 PM
The real reputation that took a hit yesterday was Senator Mitchell. This report is not worth of his legacy as the broker of the Peace Agreement in Nothern Ireland. For a two year investigation it is remarkably shallow. Please save the excuse that he didn't have subpoena power, if he didn't have the tools to do the job right, that is what he should have reported, not just publish East Coast locker Room Gossip.
Posted by: Robert McDonald | December 14, 2007 12:39 PM
The Mitchell report is typical of the man he is. He made a career out of tearing down his opponents with flimsy evidence. Why should any one be confused by him using the same methods he has used in the past to make a pretty rich bank account for himself?
The EX senator owes many people some apologies as I have called for him to do on my blog: http://frankbroughton.us/blog/?p=30
Posted by: Frank Broughton | December 14, 2007 12:47 PM
George Mitchell:
The Self-Absorbed Grinch Who Really Stole Christmas
Not only is the Mitchell report sketchy and accusatory, it comes (after ignoring the problem for 10 years) right in the middle of Christmas season. Mitchell was a grandstanding look- at-me backstabbing politician while in the Senate, and has shown me he still is. He wants in the news cycle now, when the "report" could have just as easily been release in early 2008. But no, Mitchell destroys the holidays of those implicated, to puff himself up in the news cycle. I think every record set by cheating drug users needs revocation, back to Maris and and Aaron. But this could have been undertaken in January. Mitchell is despicable. A real pathetic Grinch who Stole Christmas.
Mark Norris
Columbus, GA
Posted by: Mark Norris | December 14, 2007 12:47 PM
What will the Mitchell Report really do? Is it really going to change sports? Will it even change how we perceive sports? back in the 80's when all of the cocaine abuse was uncovered in baseball, and players like Strawberry, Kieth Hernandez, Alan Wiggins and the like were all implicated, it was big news, but it all blew over. We all wonder how great Dwight Gooden would have been had ne not been a coke-head. Now we will all wonder if Barry Bonda would have been as great if he were not a steroid user. That's all that will change...
Posted by: Michael Seale | December 14, 2007 2:39 PM
What has changed is that guys like Aaaron who did it with class had their records passed by guys who did it with steroids. Just like Olympians who had to give back their medals all stats after the first proven use of steroids shold be expunged.
The arguement that Bonds is somewhat less guilt because he faced roid pittiching is bogus, that like saying we should let the runner who won the Gold keep her medal because the second place runner was juiced up too. Throw all their records out. To think that Marris had to live with an asterick on his record for all those years and these guys will skate is a joke.
Posted by: P McGuinne | December 14, 2007 3:39 PM
'SENATOR MITCHELL SPEAKS"
oh barry, oh barry we got you just like we got OJ.
SO IF THERE ANY OTHER BLACK AFRICAN AMERICAN SPORTS ATHLETES OUT THERE, WE ARE NOT ONLY EAVESDROPPING, WIRETAPPING, OUTSIDE THE LAW, BUT WE ARE COLLECTING URINE SAMPLES WHEREVER YOU GO.
ONCE WE HAVE A BIG GULP FULL, WE WILL SEND IT TO THE DICK CHENEY F&D ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES IN HIS PART OF HIS EXECUTIVE PART OF HIS OFFICE TO BE TESTED.
PLEASE SAVE ME THE FISA LAWS, AS WE HAVE A FISA JUDGE FOR EVERY FISA CASE OUTSIDE OF THE FISA COMMUNITY TO ENSURE THAT EAVESDROPPING, WIRETAPPING IS ABOVE AND BEYOND CIRCUMVENTING THE LAW.
ALL IN THE NAME OF A BLACK MAN BREAKING ANOTHER MANS HISTORY!
BLAME IT ON THE 97TH AND 95TH ENGINEERING BATTALIONS AND THEIR GENES FILTERING THROUGHOUT AMERICAN BLACK YOUTHS.
ITS BLACKMANS JUICE, AND IT'S CLEAR. THAT'S NOT MOONSHINE, THAT'S CLEAR!
Posted by: Roger Morris | December 14, 2007 3:45 PM
Who cares. baseball is dead
Posted by: rncbs | December 14, 2007 5:48 PM
How do you evaluate the Mitchell Report on Steroid use in Baseball?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1303
.
Posted by: PollM | December 14, 2007 5:52 PM
I have a very high regard for Sen.Mitchell,however what we have here is another investigation that really does not go far enough.What was said was mostly already known.I don't agree with the Senator I believe Bud Selig should be fired. I always wondered how he could own the Milwaukee Brewers and be commissioner at the same time. We need someone to come in as commissioner and have absolute power to fire and punish these cheaters.They try to make this into a big deal,it doesn't have to be. Simply fire all that would not cooperate and expunge all records of these cheaters, just like they never played the game. This should apply to active and retired players. Then when the salaries come down maybe the working man can take his family to the ball park again.
Posted by: Paul Jaeger | December 14, 2007 7:18 PM
does anyone get roger morris? i don't. maybe i'm just dumb.
Posted by: rncbs | December 14, 2007 7:29 PM
The only steroid users known are the few ratted on by their suppliers. There are many more suppliers that have not ratted yet. There are many more users of both genders in all sports. There seems to be a "reefer madness" attitude toward steroids. We would be better off trying to control rather than ban their use. There are many medicines you can only get with a prescription. After all cortisone is a steroid. There are probably many more steroids with important medical potential.
Posted by: c. perry | December 15, 2007 11:21 AM