Baseball Bombshell: The Mitchell Report

[EagerBeaver]

That kind of decoy play happens more than once every game. Outfielders, infielders, pitchers, catchers. Hell, Manny does it all the time in left field and you won't find me calling him a smart player.

It doesn't happen often when a player has lost the ball in the late afternoon sun and has no fucking idea where it is. Piniella could have taken that ball off his head as he was decoying, for all he knew (it landed 10 feet in front of him). In fact, I don't recall ever seeing such a play on a ball that had been lost in the sun. Most players panic when they lose a ball in the sun and wave their arms in a questioning manner. Piniella pounded his mitt as if he was about to catch it.

I was wrong about the baserunner, it was Burleson, and it was Jerry Remy who hit the ball. This account from Piniella' biography:

"In the 1978 Series, which the Yankees also won, he usually batted fifth in the lineup. He had played a key role in getting the Yankees to the post-season, making a great instinctive play on a line drive single by Jerry Remy with New York holding a 5-4 lead over the Boston Red Sox with one man on in the ninth inning of the one-game playoff to determine the AL East champion on October 2, 1978; having lost sight of the ball hit straight at him, he pretended to be ready to make a catch, freezing the baserunner Rick Burleson in his tracks, then stuck out his glove at the last second to snag the bouncing ball, keeping the runners at first and second. When the next two Boston batters, Jim Rice and Carl Yastrzemski, both flied out, the Yankees had won one of the greatest pennant races in history. Earlier in the game, in the sixth inning, he had made a great catch off a Fred Lynn line drive to the right field corner with two men on; the Red Sox had a 2-0 lead at that point, and had Piniella not played far out of position, he would never have reached a ball that could have changed the course of baseball history. In the 1981 Series, which the Yankees lost, Piniella hit .438; in a couple of the games, he hit cleanup."

 

[korbel]

But look at it from another perspective: Supposing there was a drug that enhanced the sexual performance of women but came with the same legal and health issues as steroids, would you refuse to do business with an SP who used them because she was competing unfairly with the other girls?

Now, some of you will say, "That's not the same thing!" But it really is the same thing because prostitution is a business like sports and SPs compete with each other for clients.

Hello Curious,

No it's not the same thing. It's not a betrayal of millions of fans. It's not the failed integrity of role models for the young. It's not the fall of heros. There are no rules governing fair play. And while baseball cannot be separated from the business aspects, honest baseball on the field is still a sport. Except for the presence of the profit motive I find the connection of baseball to prostitution poor. You might as well connect baseball to allegedly steroid enhanced Purdue chickens ...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhEQ1E8XPp4
Are you really going to pay to see this??? Well...Hot Dogs!...get your Hot Dogs here!

As for several recent posts here, obviously the urge to speculate on this subject is too strong.

buk buk buk BAGAWK!

Korbel

 

[Doc Holliday]

Canseco shocked A-Rod's name NOT in report

Prodded further about players not included, Canseco said this of Alex Rodriguez: "All I can say is the Mitchell Report is incomplete. I could not believe that his name was not in the report."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3154625

 

[korbel]

Prodded further about players not included, Canseco said this of Alex Rodriguez: "All I can say is the Mitchell Report is incomplete. I could not believe that his name was not in the report."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3154625

Hello Doc,

Maybe that lends the Mitchell Report more credibility. No evidence, no name. Unlike Clemens, there is neither a record with near impossible abberations nor anyone in a postion to be a firsthand witness who has come forth with testimony. While the absence of any name deosn't disprove guilt it equally doesn't imply it either. If Canseco has evidence let him produce it. Talk about "tainted". He may have something valid to offer as a witness, but his money-grubbing sort of integrity stinks to high heaven.

Jose do you stink,

Korbel

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

Jose do you stink,

Korbie,
You're selling Jose a bit short here. He's been one of the only players involved to come completely clean.

 

[korbel]

Korbie,

You're selling Jose a bit short here. He's been one of the only players involved to come completely clean.

Hello Rumples,

I am not saying he shouldn't say what he knows, and I am not even trying to impugn what he alleges. But when it is done with all the character motive of a desperate mercenary it's PUTRID! Or am I wrong that he did it only when he really needed the money from his book? Had he used his millions begotten with the aid of steroids wisely I doubt we would have heard from his such an "honorable hero" as him.

Ooooo Ooooo that smell...tell me what's that smell,

Korbel

 

[Doc Holliday]

Korbie,
You're selling Jose a bit short here. He's been one of the only players involved to come completely clean.

Well said! If it weren't for Jose Canseco & "Juiced", there probably wouldn't be a "Mitchell Report" today. In this whole affair, he's the only one who ever came out clean & spilled the beans. MLB owes Jose Canseco!! Right now, they hate his guts. They blame him for this whole affair, for exposing them for not doing anything & letting this problem spread & get bigger....but one day, they'll thank him for it. Or maybe not!

 

[Doc Holliday]

Am I wrong that he did it only when he really needed the money from his book?

You honestly think Canseco needed money when he wrote his book?? Well then again, i haven't heard of anyone who's written a book & not expecting to make money out of it. Including Nelly Arcan.

Anyways, thank you Jose Canseco for being one of the main reasons why MLB today wants to rid itself of its junkies! Yes, junkies!! Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds & all of those other 'cheaters' are nothing but overpaid, millionaire junkies!!

 

[korbel]

You honestly think Canseco needed money when he wrote his book?? Well then again, i haven`t heard of anyone who`s written a book & not expecting to make money out of it. Including Nelly Arcan.

Anyways, thank you Jose Canseco for being one of the main reasons why MLB today wants to rid itself of its junkies! Yes, junkies!! Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds & all of those other `cheaters` are nothing but overpaid, millionaire junkies!!

Hello Doc,

The impact of Canseco`s book cannot be underestimated and all that follows may be a result of it. But here is what the Hall of Fame thinks of a player with such great stats. "In 2007, he received 6 Hall of Fame votes. This accounted for 1.1% of the ballots, failing to reach the 5% threshold necessary to stay on the ballot for another year." I`d say that rates as a de facto PEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUU for reasons including the color of his honor.

No HALL for you Jose,

Korbel

 

[Doc Holliday]

"In 2007, he received 6 Hall of Fame votes. This accounted for 1.1% of the ballots, failing to reach the 5% threshold necessary to stay on the ballot for another year." I`d say that rates as a de facto PEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUU for reasons including the color of his honor.

No HALL for you Jose,

Similar to Marvin Miller not being in yet. Same with Mark McGuire. Hell, Pete Rose! It`s called payback. MLB & the writers who vote are pissed off that Canseco dared to expose the Big Lie that has contaminated much of MLB over the past 15 years.

p.s. Pete Rose`s gambling mistakes don`t look as bad now, do they?

 

[korbel]

Joe first.

Similar to Marvin Miller not being in yet. Same with Mark McGuire. Hell, Pete Rose! It's called payback. MLB & the writers who vote are pissed off that Canseco dared to expose the Big Lie that has contaminated much of MLB over the past 15 years.

p.s. Pete Rose's gambling mistakes don't look as bad now, do they?

Hello Doc,

If Rose doesn't look so bad, think about Shoeless Joe. "In 1919, Jackson batted .351 during the regular season and .375 with perfect fielding in the World Series." Despite his alleged knowledge of or involvement in the "Black Sox" scandal there is no evidence he cheated at all. So if we are going to excuse mistakes let's start with Joe.

Joe for the HALL,

Korbel

 

[Doc Holliday]

If Rose doesn't look so bad think about Shoeless Joe. "In 1919, Jackson batted .351 during the regular season and .375 with perfect fielding in the World Series." Despite his alleged knowledge of or involvement in the "Black Sox" scandal there is no evidence he cheated at all. So if we are going to excuse mistakes let's start with Joe.

I excused Joe 20 years ago.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Clemens is the new Bonds

Interesting article by the Toronto Sun's Steve Simmons. Here is the bulk of it:

Steroid era's top pitcher, hitter enjoyed parallel career peaks

Everything about Roger Clemens is now open to debate and interpretation.

His place in history. His Hall of Fame status. His future and his past.

He is Barry Bonds, without the perjury charges or the attitude.

He is Barry Bonds, the real difference being that his personal trainer ratted him out and Bonds' went silently and loyally to prison.

He is every bit the cheat, the performance-enhanced fraud, as the home run king. The wins, the home runs, those numbers won't change. But what will change -- what has changed -- is how we will view him the way we view Bonds: As someone whose career is tainted by scientific advantage and chemical abuse.

The greatest player and the greatest pitcher of the steroid era were doing steroids.


The similarities between the historical performances of Clemens and Bonds are striking: Both were good players between the ages of 30 and 34. But both had their best seasons -- which belies the history of athletics -- between the ages of 35 and 39.

Both relied on their personal trainers for supplying them with performance enhancing drugs.

Clemens was renowned for his work ethic and his training regimen. Steroids experts will tell you that the greatest benefit of steroid usage is not the strength that is gained but the ability to increase training regimens. That profile fits Clemens in every way.

Even the perfunctory denial of yesterday was typical of the history of steroids and sport. Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, called the allegations "false."


He went on to say, what every steroid cheat has ever claimed, that he has never tested positive for anything. Hardin did call McNamee a "troubled man" under pressure from law authorities to name names.

And that is true. The way baseball closed ranks on the Mitchell Report people, refusing to co-operate, investigators had no choice by to settle on information from the likes of McNamee and former Mets clubhouse distributor, Kirk Radomski, or sewer rats as they were called on TV yesterday.

If Clemens or Hardin had something to say, however, yesterday was not the time. They were given the opportunity to meet with the Mitchell investigators. They were asked. They declined.

In truth, the Players' Association -- which seems to protect the guilty far more than the innocent -- urged its players to ignore what some union people called a "witch hunt."

This was no witch hunt. Roger Clemens had a chance to defend himself. He declined. The cheaters always do.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Simmons/2007/12/14/4724487-sun.html

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

If Rose doesn't look so bad, think about Shoeless Joe. "In 1919, Jackson batted .351 during the regular season and .375 with perfect fielding in the World Series." Despite his alleged knowledge of or involvement in the "Black Sox" scandal there is no evidence he cheated at all. So if we are going to excuse mistakes let's start with Joe.

Sorry on both cases, Korbie. Pete Rose bet on baseball. There is no place for him in the HOF. Shoeless Joe threw the 1919 World Series. There is no place for him in the HOF.

The arguments you make have been debunked long ago. There is more than the numbers. He fielded poorly, without making errors. He went slowly after balls in critical situations, misjudged fly balls, made poor throws. All of his offensive production was in the games the Sox won. Hell, even Chick Gandil, one of the organizers of the whole affair, knocked in the winning run in the 10th of game 6. Joe did not hit when it was most needed. And he took $5000.

The player who got the raw deal was the Sox fabulous 3rd baseman, Buck Weaver. He took no part in the fix; he was banned from baseball for knowing about it and not ratting out his fellow players. He fought, to no avail, to clear his name for the rest of his life. His family fights on.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Toronto Star reporter challenges Clemens to shut & sue if he's really innocent

Dec 15th, 2007

By Dave Perkins (Toronto Star)

There seems to be nothing preventing Roger Clemens, or any baseball player who feels he has been unfairly damaged by the Mitchell Report, from suing for the moon.

If he is, as he maintains through his lawyer, completely innocent – and isn't everyone when accused of using performance-enhancing drugs? – then why doesn't Clemens fire up the legal engines and start swinging?

Then again, that would involve things like subpoenaed records and testifying under oath and look how well that seems to have worked for Barry Bonds.

Not to single out Clemens, among all the names in the Radomski, er, Mitchell Report, but he surely was the biggest loser Thursday, specifically his reputation as one of the greatest pitchers in history.

Still, like Bonds when Game of Shadows was published, he is entitled to sue if it's all made up. (Tiger Woods' wife just won a bundle from an Irish magazine for faking nude pictures of her.) Clemens, after all, lives in probably the most litigious society in history; if Brian McNamee's charges won't stand up under cross-examination, Clemens can certainly afford to hire a lawyer to pick them apart.

Similarly, Mitchell stressed that no players, beyond Jason Giambi, Troy Glaus and a few other exceptions, would speak with him. Now, think about this. If you were wrongfully accused of terrible things that would ruin your professional reputation, would you sit by quietly knowing your name would come out? Or would you be there in a heartbeat emphatically showing the accuser is lying and defending your good name?

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/285908

 

[EagerBeaver]

Would Be Waste Of Time and Money

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/285908

In this case the accuser, McNamee, is threatened with federal prosecution for distributing steroids across state lines and if he is civilly sued by Clemens and subpoenaed to a deposition he would invoke his 5th amendment rights to the US constitution to not answer any questions, as they would tend to incriminate him. The threat of a prosecution against him is both real and looming (it's so real that DEA agents sat in during each of Mitchell's interviews with McNamee). So any lawsuit by Clemens would be pointless. The guy who wrote the article for the Toronto Star does not understand much about U.S. federal law and did little or no research as this has to be one of the most fundamental principles of constitutional law that any American legal expert knows. I have actually seen it happen in this situation that no questions were answered in a deposition - not one - and it was later upheld in Court. I have instructed clients to do it and I have also had it happen to me where witnesses did it in response to my questions.

Note that McNamee's cooperation with Mitchell under threat of federal prosecution should not be confused with voluntary testimony in a civil lawsuit in which McNamee is on his own. And any federal prosecutor of the appropriate jurisdiction is free to do as he/she wishes if voluntary testimony is given by McNamee.

Clemens does have some money to burn on litigation but suing McNamee would be a colossal waste of money. Plus even if he got a Secondino inference read to a jury that the testimony not given would have been unfavorable to McNamee, as permitted under the law, how does that help him in a defamation case? It doesn't. The jury does not get to draw an inference that Clemens is innocent. They get to draw the inference that the testimony that McNamee refused to give would have been unfavorable to McNamee. That does not help Clemens make out a prima facie case (or any case at all) for defamation.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I disagree with your calling steroid users junkies. Steroids are not physically addictive. I have a hard time referring to them as drugs at all. They're hormones and wholly different from narcotics, with a different set of side effects and problems.

I might have exaggerated my terminology in order to make a point. But not calling them addictive is like saying sex isn't addictive. Trust me, i have a few friends who have used the juice for years & can't get off of it. I admit that the percentage of this happening is considerably lower than someone addictive to nicotine, crack cocaine, heroine, oxycontin, etc. Saying you have a hard time referring to them as drugs reminds me of myself in regards to haschish & marijuana: "they're not drugs, they're plants!"

MLB & other factors including us baseball fans are wholy responsible of this mess. MLB imposed a quasi-inhuman schedule on the players (162 games during the baseball season & they play nearly every day) years ago & their bodies have been put a large physical toll on it because it doesn't have time to recuperate. Steroids keeps them strong & HGH greatly helps the tissues to heal & recover. Finally, MLB & fans in general are partly responsible for them wanting to juice up since they've been treating them like heroes ever since i can remember & have been throwing millions at their feet since the mid-70's. Hell, we'd all probably would have done the same thing if we would have been put in their shoes.

I'd like the same scrutiny applied to MLB to be applied to other sports such as NFL football & NHL hockey. It's simply not normal for 300 lbs players to be as quick & fast as many of them are today in the NFL.

 

[EagerBeaver]

MLBPA Also to Blame

I think the MLBPA is also to blame, notwithstanding the great- and I mean GREAT - legal work it has done. One of the most interesting articles I read was by New York Post media critic Phil Mushnick who slammed Donald Fehr in this morning's NY Post:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007/sports/fehr_factor_300743.htm

Donald Fehr is arguably the most successful union leader in the world. His successful lawsuit against MLB owners for collusion in the 1980s, resulting in the owners paying 280 million dollars damages to the players, stands as his crowning achievment. Donald Fehr is the reason why A-Rod is making 30 million a year and why MLB players are generally egregiously overpaid. Every single one of you guys should pray your union has a guy as talented as Fehr in charge.

That being said, Mushnick's critique is on the mark. Where is the due process for the players who played by the rules? I think Fehr is about to embark on the most difficult period of his tenure as Executive Director of the MLBPA. Personally, I feel the union has a conflict of interest and they need to bring in independent counsel for the "clean" players if they choose to defend the accused players. It's a completely messy situation. I don't know what Fehr is going to do, but hopefully he will keep a muzzle on Orza's mouth through the coming weeks and months.

 

[EagerBeaver]

A-Rod on 60 Minutes

A-Rod will be on 60 Minutes tonight in a wide ranging interview that will probe his affinity for blonde strippers with large fake tits, Jose Canseco's wild jealousy of him and the steroids scandal in baseball.

 

[Doc Holliday]

A-Rod will be on 60 Minutes tonight in a wide ranging interview that will probe his affinity for blonde strippers with large fake tits.

And what about blonde strippers with real tits?

A-Rod will be on 60 Minutes tonight in a wide ranging interview that will probe Jose Canseco's wild jealousy of him and the steroids scandal in baseball.

You seem to believe A-Rod's claims that he's never been on the juice. Would you still believe him if he were playing for the Red Sox instead? I will believe Canseco over A-Rod any day, even though i'm not a big fan of Canseco's arrogant personality. Canseco was the first person in all this mess to ever come fully clean about his past. He still uses HGH, by the way. Not sure if he still uses steroids, but i've yet to hear someone with as much knowledge about steroids & HGH as much as Canseco does.

As for the scandal in baseball, it's about HGH as much as it's about steroids. Testing methods for HGH are still very poor today & it's almost a miracle if someone ever gets caught. It cannot be tested with a urine test & it has to be a blood test taken within a few hours of the injection. An athlete would have to be a complete idiot to ever get caught using HGH with testing.