The Mitchell Report is on its way. Officially it's coming tomorrow. Mike Francessca just came back into the studio, and he looked like someone just killed his dog, diced it up, and force fed it to him. There is some rumor that's bothering him.

I'll be interested to see if this report really takes everyone to task or only focuses on the players. I think the owners have gotten a pass on their blind eye towards the problem because it was saving the game after 94.

ESPN's Howard Bryant has an article up on ESPN about the investigation, and I agree with one thing:

There's little to no chance that the owners get the blame..at all. Look for the GMs (and of course, the union, rightfully) to take the fall in the report.

So, what's the contingency plan in case Papi (for example) is on it?

I was wondering if any Sox would even be on it consdiering Mitchell is on the board (or whatever he is).

Why would they need a contingency plan?



I bet that in one form or another (majors, minors, etc) that there is at least one player from every team, just so that no one really gets off completely clean.

Damn you, Manny Alexander.

Damn you!

SSA, Please don't even think it. If Ortiz is on steroids I may never watch baseball again.

Of course if you ask me again in March and I'll probably change my mind, but still...

And the Yankees with A-Rod, the Tigers with Miggy, and the Angels with Vladdy?

We'll see when the names come out.

I don't especially like A-Rod, and needless to say, I don't care for the Yankees at all. But there are a handful of names whose appearance on "the list" would constitute "a sad day for baseball." A-Rod is one of those guys. Jeter is, too -- although in his case, I think I'd find it so overwhelmingly hilarious that I could deal with the "sad."

Manny and Papi, Griffey, Ichiro, Pedro, Maddux, Clemens (IMO, although I think a lot of people would relish seeing him on that list), Pujols. With how cynical everyone has become over all this, I'm not sure there are a whole lot of other names who would really make the "sad day for baseball" list. Thome, probably. Vlad is borderline. Chipper Jones maybe? Glavine, Schilling, Rivera? There's just not the same level of attachment to individual stars as there used to be (or as there is in, say, the NBA, which continues to market players first, teams and actual success a distant second).

If Arod is revealed to be on the juice, and in some sort of way adds credence to Canseco's rather questionable claims in the media that "Alex is a complete faker", then perhaps the talk should not be just about who shouldn't get into the hall of fame (as I'm sure there will be much talk about this over the next few weeks to years if big players are outed in the report), but if Canseco should get in. Really. In a sort of "baseball humanitarian" ultimately did good for the game sort of way. He really singlehandedly set all of this in motion with his book and can be argued was the main reason the sport actually became cleaned up (or is getting to close to being cleaned up), since the congressional hearings would have never occurred without his book, which is why all this has happened. He may be a "rat", but THE story in baseball the last ten years is the steroid era, first and foremost, and the stain on the game (whether fans flock to the ballparks or not). And Canseco, while in many ways popularizing roids, also became the most important voice that led to a change (hopefully).

By "they", I meant "us"... here on the board.

In the past I've said that "If so-and-so (Papi for example) gets nailed as a steroid guy, I'll drop them from my fanhood."

Now I want to see it in context, but this will probably suck for a lot of baseball fans.

AP quotes someone who has seen the report as saying "MVPs and all-stars are named."

Well Bonds is definitely in there and he's won MVPs, and been an All Star. The All Star thing rings hollow to me since every team sends soemone. Would Mark Redman really cause a huge stir? No, but he is an All Star. Ditto for Shea Hillenbrand.

I agree with the all-star argument, but if what Jackson said is true, that would mean at least one more MVP winner is going to be on the list. Who else is suspect?

Exactly what I was thinking.

I was wondering if by "MVPs and All-stars," they meant Ken Caminiti gets named, and then a sprinkling of guys in the same class as Redman, Hillenbrand, etc.

Guess we'll find out tomorrow.

No surprise that Caminitti, Giambi, and Bonds will be on the list (who have gathered 6 MVPS and 13 All star selections during the roid era between them). And if you add the very likely Miggy, those numbers go higher. And we know Troy Glaus (WS MVP) already got a shipment.

Maybe it's because I'm, you know, old but it's not going to bother me either way at this point. Do I wish steroids and HGH had never found their way into the game I have loved since childhood? Absolutely. Would I prefer to not have this Mitchell Report hanging over our collective heads? Most definitely.

And yet, one would have to be blind not to realize at this point that use of PE substances was rampant in all sports, even baseball. It was the reality of MLB for much of the 90's and the first half of this decade. Those who run the sport knew it and yet, they did nothing to stop it. Why? To understand the rationale, one only needs to travel back to the years just prior to the McGwire/Sosa Homerun battle.

Do you remember the condition MLB found itself in at that point?

Some were saying that the sport was dying a slow death. The Economics of MLB were bleak. The NFL had replaced it as America's favorite sport. Labor struggles, actually it's more accurate to call them Labor Wars, had decimated the sport's public image. It had become an industry in which Management spent much of it's time telling it's customer base how overpriced it's product, the players, were.

Baseball needed a jolt and, sadly, it was a chemically induced jolt that thrust the sport back into the headlines and to relevance. As McGwire and Sosa traded moonshots throughout the 1998 season, America took note. Longtime fans who had turned their backs on MLB as a result of the 1994 strike found themselves being pulled back in. Younger fans who dismissed the sport as boring, found excitement in the longball. By the end of that season, baseball was well on the way to recovery.

So, even if, (and it really is not an "if," is it?) the owners suspected steroid use as they watched players expand to grotesque proportions, to address it may very well have lead to a precipitous reversal in the sport's newly gained positive public image. Instead, they looked the other way as a survival mechanism.

The players saw that those who were using PEDs were getting the press' attention and, more significantly, monster contracts. They were also recovering more quickly from fatigue or injury. Also, let's not forget, MLB had not outlawed the use of such substances. Can you honestly blame those who made the choice to use? If you could get yourself a contract beyond your wildest dreams in your career field by taking a particular substance, can you say with absolute certainty that you would not do it? What if you believed that failure to take the substance in question would cause you to lose your job to someone who was? Would you dismiss the possibility of using?

I will be saddened if certain athletes are on the list but I've learned a long time ago that no matter an athlete's public persona, we don't really know them. Our perceptions of our favorite, and not-so-favorite athletes are most likely far from accurate. I appreciate the skill and the passion of my favorite ball players. That is real and tangible. I don't presume to know who they are or even whether I would like them if I were to meet them in real life.

Baseball has always had a dark underside. Whether it be the Black Sox scandal, the use of speed or alcohol abuse. There have been great players who were racists and wife abusers. Pitchers and catchers cut baseballs to enhance the a pitcher's movement. Some used foreign substances on the ball. Hitters corked bats. On and on and on.

Nothing in that Mitchell Report would cause me to stop watching the greatest sport ever invented. I love baseball because it is unique. I have loved it since I was old enough to remember. I won't let imperfect human beings dull the enjoyment I get from following the Red Sox each season. I won't let poor judgement rob me of all that this sport has given me.

Baseball is bigger than steroids and Human Growth Hormones just as it was bigger than a World Series bag job, a strike that caused the World Series to be cancelled and the ignorant decisions of racist owners. The sport has been wounded but it's nothing that time won't heal.

The game isn't going anywhere and neither am I.

Miguel Tejeda.

Check and mate. I forgot he won the MVP in 2002.

So Bonds and Tejada wrap up the MVPs and the likes of Shea Hillenbrand and Mark Redman round out the "all-stars".

While I believe you post was quite compelling on a number of levels, and pretty much true for most, if not all of us, Ned, i really wonder how we would feel if a significant player from the 2004 Red Sox was using (heaven forbid a guy like Ortiz). The 2004 Red Sox season was so perfect in so many ways, especially coming off the worst possible circumstances the season before (at least for me, 2003 ALCS Game 7 was the all-time worst sports moment, given i had invested 25+ years of my life rooting for the Sox and being a huge Pedro fan boy). Add to it the historic comeback and the whole fairy tale nature of that season, and I don't want anything tarnishing that. And if a player from the Sox of the 25 was using, it would tarnish it alot for me and i think many others. Will we leave the game or stop being sox fans. Hell no; we've invested too much of our lives into the team and love doing so. But 2004 was the pinnacle of most of our lives from a fan's perspective, and it would just be downright horrible for that season to lose even a little of it's luster.

I wonder if there are parents out there this holiday season who listen to their kids clamoring for a jersey of their favorite player, only to put the purchase of same on the back burner until this report comes out.

Assuming, natch, that your kid isn't clamoring for the jersey of a backup OF.

MVPs who have already (pre-Mitchell report) been connected to juicing:

Bonds
Sosa
Tejada
PudgeRodriguez
Gonzalez
Caminiti
Canseco
Clemens
Giambi


And those are just the guys whose names have already been in the papers because they've been mentioned by guys who got caught or they already got caught themselves.

somewhere Dock Ellis is smirking ....of course the irony is that he now works as a drug counselor....

Rumor has it that the Yanks will be the most-named team on the report. George Mitchell may turn out a 100% objective, unbiased report, but this is why it was a mistake for him to do it. I honestly believe that he did the report objectively, didn't turn in any special favors to his co-workers at Fenway, but if the Yanks are the highest named team in terms of players, you know there will be a lot of squinted eyes turned toward the report.

While I understand the concern about conflict of interest, we are talking about a well respected, experienced man here. Despite what those of us embroiled in the rivalry believe, there are matters in the world that dwarf Red Sox/Yankees. Here is an excerpt about George Mitchell from a corporate bio:



Honestly, does anyone seriously think that a man with the above resume would suddenly be willing to put his reputation on the line in order to protect current or past Red Sox players if he found evidence that they had purchased, distributed or used PEDs?

I doubt he would protect the sox, but I don't understand why MLB couldn't have hired someone without ties to an MLB team to lead the investigation.

I have to reiterate, I am not accusing him of playing favorites. But if as reported the Yanks are the most named team on the report and the Sox don't have "enough" players on the report, the perception will likely overrule the reality. Which to me is why it it unfair to George Mitchell himself to be in this position (even though he put himself there by taking the job). Mitchell's honesty, which I'm not questioning isn't the issue, the perception is. Unless he is the only person in this country capable of doing this investigation, I think MLB would have been better served hiring someone outside of the game.

Because he has a financial interest in protecting that team. He shouldn't have been selected, and he shouldn't have accepted the job. At the end of the day, he's still a politician, which means he's quite familiar with agendas.

I realize that you weren't accusing Mitchell of impropriety. As for more Yankees' names appearing on the list, that could be logistics as much as anything. The bust in New York has reportedly yielded a treasure trove of MLB names and it would makes sense that NY players would be more likely to use a NY state source. That does not mean that the rest of the teams, Sox included didnt have players purchasing the stuff elsewhere. Those labs just have not been closed down by the authorities.Look, we need to assume that each team has players who are using or have in the past. No matter which names appear on the Mitchell report, no assumptions should be made about a particular franchise being more deeply involved than any other.And at the end of the day, you are already readying your excuses in case the reports are true. The focus of the report will not be George Mitchell, your desperate hopes aside.

Honestly, the ONLY way Mitchell escapes the perception issues is if prominent Red Sox names are on the report. Even if the facts of the matter is none should be, the perception will be if none are listed that he played favorites. And this could have been avoided if MLB had appointed someone with no ties to any MLB team to do the investigation to begin with.

I don't need any excuses, I've never used steroids. There isn't a single name that could come up that would shock me. There are several players for the Yankees who I'd be pretty surprised if they weren't on there. Doesn't change the fact that no director in any team's front office should have had this gig. That's whether he works for the Padres, the Royals, or the Sox.

See how that works? Some things are bigger than the rivalry. Right? Right.

You have to figure though, Giambi is definitely in it, ditto for Sheffield. Jason Grimsley played for the Yankees, and Raul Mondesi was on the team for like half a season. I wouldn't be surprised if, "Many Yankees named," turns out to be ESPN speak for, "A bunch of guys who once had an AB or an IP in New York."

Thanks for pointing that out.

I have a question...where were the complaints when Mitchell was appointed? I don't recall reading any comments from other MLB teams that expressed concern...why not? I suppose the teams who are the most affected by the report will be the ones to most loudly cry about conflict of interest.

Mitchell was a good choice for MLB because they HAD to keep the investigation in house. There was no way they were going to turn this over to an independent body if it could be avoided. Neither the player's association nor the owners wanted to risk what might have come about.

But I'm sure you will see it as a conspiracy against the Yankees.

What? Where were the complaints? Myself and others have been complaining about this from day one. You mean you didn't read too many complaints on here? Gee, why do you suppose that would be?



Which is why this entire issue is a joke. MLB is not interested in cleaning up any steroids/HGH problem. They're interested in the appearance of doing something about it, so in order to make that happen they're going to feed some names to the media. In the long run, it won't change a single thing.



Who said anything about a conspiracy against the Yankees? For someone who's so magnanimous towards a politician, you're awfully cynical about a fan of another team that *might* question the results generated in a report spearheaded by a director for a baseball team. I don't doubt that any Yankees named are guilty of whatever it is they're accused of. I also don't doubt that George Mitchell is a very good politician, and as such he's going to do his best to mitigate any damage to the place he was elected to serve.

I'm the guy questioning why someone with a financial interest to protect is heading up a report and you're the guy insisting there's nothing to see here, move along. Forgive me if your accusations of excuse-making fall with a bit of a thud.

You just don't see it as clearly as BBtB. Sure, George Mitchell has served as the President pro tempore, Senate majority leader, US Special envoy to Northern Ireland helping to head up the peace process, Chancellor of the Queen's University of Belfast, founded an institute (Mitchell Institute) which helps kids in Maine get to college, was partner and Chairman of the largest law firm in the world, Co-Chairman of the Task Force on the United Nations, professor at Leeds Metropolitan University's School of Applied Global Ethics, served as attorney for the antitrust division of the Department of Justice, Chairman of the Walt Disney Corporation, and was offered a seat on the Supreme Court which he turned down to focus on his health care work in the Senate, but this is bigger than all of that. He's going to screw the Yankees!

Mike and Mike reporting Rocket Roger will be listed.
No surprise there...

I don't think you can get around the fact that people are going to question whether or not he had an agenda. It's human nature.

However, I do agree with your supposition about making the assumption league-wide. Since his main source was a New York one, maybe the assumptions we should make are that if 40% of a given roster (Yanks maybe) at one time was identified as using, then maybe it's fair to juxtapose that across the major leagues and assume 40% of all players used it during the era. I think that's a fair assumption and it would have to include the Sox (Kapler, Nixon, Millar?, Nomar, etc.)

Per Mike & Mike, they've been informed through Sean Aziel(misp?) of ESPN News that Roger Clemens is named in the report receiving steroids through his personal trainer(also Andy Pettite's trainer).

"It's bigger than all of us! Can't you understand??!!"

I was referring to MLB executives. Not posters on an Internet Message Board. Sorry, I'll be clearer next time.

On a related note, according to ESPN the Magazine, Roger Clemens' steroid usage will be front and center in the Mitchell Report. He has always been one of my favorite players but there is no surprise there. The leaks have begun...

Why would MLB executives, the guys who earn a living from the sport that's investigating itself, be outspoken about Mitchell's choice? You just said yourself that they absolutely wanted this in house. So because the folks that wanted this in house picked an in house guy kept quiet, that means...what?

Clemens used steroids? Not shocking. What will be interesting is what time frame pops up.

Permission to borrow this Caspir?

Awesome.

Well I don't know if you want to call it a "Yankee" or not, but ESPN and WEEI are reporting Clemens is on it too. There were comments from around baseball at the time. Maybe not owners.

It means MLB did what was best for them. They would have chosen a Yankee exec but most of them have criminal records

So, if few Red Sox are on the report, there won't be any suspicion thrown Mitchell's way from around baseball (not just the Yanks)? Because even if few Red Sox SHOULD be on the list, that isn't what's pertinent. The perception will be that Mitchell hooked his Boston buddies up and hid some evidence. And this is why it was a mistake (which I've said since this was announced) that hiring ANYONE with ANY connections to MLB was a mistake. I am not doubting Mitchell's credentials or integrity, but it literally put the Sox in a no-win situation. If enough names are on it, then they lose for being prominently mentioned. If few are on it, then they lose for the suspicious looks that will come their way.

It only put the Sox in a no win situation in the eyes of people like you. Can you find me a quote from somebody in baseball that had a problem with his selection? I really don't remember any.

Mitchell has nothing to gain and everything to lose if he doesn't do this on the complete up and up. As Caspir pointed out, why would he risk everything, his entire legacy, for just one small part of his life?

Nope. And if you don't recall people questioning his selection, you must have fallen asleep on NYE 2005 and woken up New Year's morning 2007.

And I will say this for the THIRD time as it seems be ignored. I'm not saying and I never did say Mitchell would do anything shady. I'm talking about perception. If the Sox are not represented and if you honestly beleive that with the person issuing the report is associatted with that team that no one outside of Boston will look at it funny, then I don't know what to say.

For the record, if Mitchell were involved with the Yankees, the A's or whomever I'd say the same thing. MLB would have been far better served hiring someone outside the game.

I'm not sure why I'm replying, as your reply had nothing to do with what I said.

I don't have the time or energy to look up links but remember Matt Lawton ? I seem to remember that after his half season with the Yanks, he was suspended for steroids. Wasn't he quoted saying that he was first introduced to them during his time in NY ? I remember reading this and wondering why more wasn't made of it.

So they went one step below on the food chain and selected a politician.

I bet a certain clean cut ex-Stripper's husband ends up on that list. I've also got word that a certain straight throwing fireballer, who has underachieved in pinstripes may be landing on that list.

If there are Sox on the list, so be it. I only hope they handle whatever punishment they receive with tact and remorse.
I'm guessing there will be at least 2-3 Red Sox on the list...

Yeah, it sucks...but at least the era is coming to a screeching halt and these bozos have to think twice about cheating again.

I'm of the "leaglize everything" mindset at this point in regards to performance enhancers. I'd like to see someone hit 150 homeruns in a season and kill several infielders while rounding the bases - That's Entertainment.