[Official}Astros or former Astros named in Mitchell report

To be fair chewing tobacco doesn't enhance performance. I do like the bit of 'roid rage Roger shows at the end when he grabs the kid by the shirt coller.

 

MLB is likely to focus on punishing those in the Mitchell Report whose violations took place after the 2003 season, ESPN reports.

George Mitchell had the right idea about how foolish it was to try to punish a few select players who were caught for infractions committed years ago, but Bud Selig didn't spend millions not to get a few attempted suspensions out of it. ESPN mentions Eric Gagne, Paul Lo Duca, Rondell White, Larry Bigbie, Ron Villone, Ryan Franklin, Cody McKay, Stephen Randolph, Jerry Hairston Jr., Bart Miadich, Matt Herges, Brendan Donnelly, Howie Clark and Nook Logan as players whose violations came between 2004 and 2006.
Source: ESPN.com

 

Tejada was 2003, huh?

 

soooo, should the players union sue mlb for publishing this information. One large class action considering there maybe some truth and some false accusations.

 

i don't think so. slander is really fact-specific per each person. i think, if anything, you'll see a lawsuit or 2 from individuals. but the burden is high, so i don't know that they'd see any success in a courtroom. again...how do you prove a negative? how do you prove you didn't do something? particularly when it's a he said/he said situation.

 

Plus, wouldn't the player have to testify in that scenario?

 

I know this isn't the right thread for this, but some of you had wondered what the benefit of naming names in the Mitchell report was and felt that it served no purpose.

I think, had it been a pretty generic "lots of guys in MLB did steroids" report, it would have been talked about for a few days and then swept under the rug. The specifics of it has kept this in the media and led to more congressional hearings and such. Now, we have our first player coming out in support of blood testing:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3191880

I think the more you shine a light on the problem, and the more you're willing to share about what you know, the more it forces the players and management to come together and deal with it. You saw it with the first congressional hearings and how they spurred the current drug policy, and now you're seeing it again with the talks of reopening and strengthening the policy.

 

1. I don't have a problem naming names when you have more evidence then, "i talked to this guy who knows ferris and he says he's doing steroids." i think parroting uncorroborated allegations is irresponsible, particularly for something as significantly touted as this report was.

2. i don't think kent is the first to suggest he'd submit to blood tests. long before the mitchell report was prepared and submitted, there were players suggesting they had nothing to hide and better testing would be welcomed by them.

 

Including, iirc, our very own Lance Berkman.