This is just a list of players who were in contact with that one guy, Radomski, right? So this is just one dealers list of clients who, by the very nature of the business of baseball was able to spread his wares throughout the league, how many more Radomski's were/are there?
But the whole was to get away from this idea of hiding things and protecting people. The way to do that is to be as open as possible. On a seperate note, this is a pretty cool story - it's the "other way" to handle things: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3155299
I'll take Clemens back here in a heartbeat. This entire thing is a Boston witchhunt. SHOCKER! No major player was indicted in Beantown, and Yankees were implicated more than any other team. Bias?!? Mitchell needs to go to jail over this ****.
This is what I just sent to ESPN radio, because the damn b**** wouldn't tell you what # to call: You've gotta be kidding. You have a female "broad" caster at this hour. I spent the past 30 minutes listening to her, and she NEVER brought up the # to call. First, Clemens has been jaded in a Witch hunt. No major player from the Boston team currently playing was named. Manny, anyone? I'm the first person to love Bagwell when he played here, but if their is a poster boy for steroids, especially with Caminity's yapping, Bag's would be it. Which brings a good point up. If we enjoyed watching them, and loved their accolades at the time, and MLB was r****ded, why should we care? Once steroids were declared "banned" in MLB, it should've started from there. You don't (and shouldn't) get to go back retroactively unless you're Doc Brown and have a flux capacitor.
The greatest hitter and pitcher of the past 50 years both cheated to get where they were ... and if that's not enough, our all-time hits leader was a convicted felon who bet against his own team. Ladies and gentleman, America's pastime! Is it time to remake "Field of Dreams" and include a scene where Shoeless Joe sells $3,000 of HGH to Moonlight Graham? --Bill Simmons
do you honestly believe the allegations STILL wouldn't be printed by the Mitchell Report if they showed up to say, "we didn't do it!! he's lying!!"? it's a he said/he said situation.
And yet they stand up and say, "we've moved forward...we have a good testing system now." look, if these were positive tests, i'd be fine with it. but to merely parrot allegations from a former bat boy and a former trainer?? really? they spent around $15 million and spent months to print allegations from a former bat boy and a former trainer?? to tell us that....GASP...MLB had a problem with steroids??
Mitchell/DLA appeared fairly selective in putting in fact (or at least alleged fact) rather than just rumor, I thought. And you're right, the allegations are probably not enough to put somebody in jail for. But I for one found things like the canceled checks to be rather persuasive - I mean if baseball players are sending thousands of dollars to convicted drug dealers, I have a pretty good idea of what that money is for. Likewise, the bulk of information came from the drug dealer he interviewed along wtih FBI/DOJ, who was apparently testifying under penalty of perjury. I
I do agree with you on the cancelled checks. I thought that was pretty damning for Tejada, in particular.
I haven't found the story, but that little box at the bottom right corner of ESPN News said that Andy Pettite admits he used HGH.
Here it is http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...2/15/2010.ap.bbo.pettitte.hgh.admission.0117/ Pettitte admits briefly using HGH during 2002 NEW YORK (AP) - Andy Pettitte used human growth hormone to recover from an elbow injury in 2002, the New York Yankees pitcher said two days after he was cited in the Mitchell Report. Pettitte said he tried HGH on two occasions. "If what I did was an error in judgment on my part, I apologize,'' Pettitte said Saturday in a statement released by his agent. "I accept responsibility for those two days.'' Kind of lame, "if what i did was wrong"
But where there were just allegations, it was stated that they were just allegations. Whether they had more documentation, they stated what it was. Basically, the report was Mitchell saying "I was asked to look into the steroid problem in baseball, and this is everything I found. Take it for what it is. I didn't get to talk to everyone I wanted to. I don't think MLB should punish people based on this. But this is everything I learned."
Not at all the way it's been received...not at all the way it's been reported...not at all the way Selig talks about it with relation to discipline now on a case-by-case basis. That's what I find irreponsible about all this. Because despite the fact it's mere allegation...it's a guilty sentence for everyone on that list. MLB and everyone else knew the ramifications for these guys...that the mere allegation would be treated this way. The media speculated for months about who was on the list. It assails people's careers and their character. And it does so pretty flippantly, particularly in the instances where the only reason a name is included is because a former trainer or bat boy made some claims. Before this report came out, we had these sorts of allegations. We had stories and accounts. We did not have positive drug tests. Now we've put these accounts in a very important looking report prepared by very important people, and they're treated as gospel. I think that's unfortunate. And I still have zero idea of how baseball is better off for it.
Interesting blog on this from Buster Olney. http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blo...name=olney_buster&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos2 Mitchell established his own standard of fairness, his own standard of proof. A lawyer within baseball said early this week that because Mitchell had so much power, in deciding which names to include in the report, that he really needed to go on beyond a reasonable doubt in the cases of individual players. And this, he did not do. On page 146 of the report, it is written that former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski provided information, and in "many cases, his statements were corroborated by other evidence." What the report does not say is that in many cases, the statements of Radomski, former Oriole Larry Bigbie and others were not corroborated by other evidence. Now, we cannot be naïve to the probability that most and perhaps even all of the players named in the report used performance-enhancing drugs, and that the impact of steroid use on the game and the results of games has been nothing short of extraordinary. The belief here has been for some time that perhaps 75 percent of the major awards won from 1988 forward were done so with the use of performance-enhancing drugs, and we should assume that championship teams for the last 20 years probably fielded one or more players using the stuff. But Mitchell effectively ignored the possibility that in some cases, Radomski's version of events, or that of Larry Bigbie, might be untrue or inaccurate. If Kirk Radomski says he talked to you about steroids or sold them to you, well, Mitchell's report embedded Radomski's version of events into history. Mitchell clearly was frustrated with the lack of cooperation from the active Players Association. But for some former players, challenging Radomski's assertions didn't make a bit of difference: Mitchell went full-speed ahead with the naming of names, in the face of denials, just as he did in the face of silence. "It was," said one Major League Baseball lawyer, "nothing short of reckless." Brian Roberts is in the report, on page 158, because Bigbie told the Mitchell investigators that Roberts "admitted to him that he had injected himself once or twice with steroids in 2003." That's it. Radomski told investigators that he sold steroids to Matt Franco, and the former Mets player denied this. There is no other evidence. A case of he-said, he-said. And Franco is in the report, on page 165. Jack Cust is in the report because of a Bigbie interview. Nothing more. Mark Carreon: Radomski interview, and nothing more. Todd Williams: Radomski interview. Phil Hiatt: Radomski interview. Todd Pratt: Radomski interview. Mike Stanton: Radomski interview. In the cases of other players, the corroborative evidence is the fact that a phone number or address is in a book owned by Radomski. These players could sue, of course; Roger Clemens's lawyer said his client has been "slandered," and he, more than any other player in the report, has the money to go head-to-head with Major League Baseball, which indemnified Mitchell in the event of possible lawsuits. But that probably isn't going to happen, and in any event, a lawsuit isn't going to change the reality that a player's name is in the Mitchell report, forever. There's not a damn thing you can do to change that if you are Brian Roberts and you just might be innocent; George Mitchell has already been the prosecutor, judge and jury in his case.
