The Mitchell Report has served the American public a platter filled with hearsay and innuendo that tarnishes the reputation of dozens of America's finest athletes and the sport they play for our entertainment. As far as we know, none of the players on Mitchell's list ever failed a drug test. Their alleged "crime" was being on someone else's list as a purchaser of performance-enhancing substances. Did they use those substances? Did they affect their performance? We will never know.
Good lawyers learn early the value of cross-examination in assessing truth. Prosecutorial accusations are just that - accusations. Unless a witness is put under oath and subject to questions, his credibility is based only on reputation and status. In hearing over 2000 labor arbitrations over the last thirty years, I have heard many fine, upstanding witnesses lie to me with a straight face. Cross-examination points out the inconsistencies in their testimony and the contradictions with prior stories.
That does not mean that the Mitchell Report is without value. It was a good faith attempt led by a good lawyer and statesman to save baseball from this scourge of innuendo and media accusation. The Report spreads the blame widely -- MLB, clubs, union, etc. -- but saves none for the fans who have long enjoyed the performances of these belatedly accused players. It assumes two facts not in evidence: (1) that these substances would make a difference in how the game was played and (2) we really care. I am yet to be convinced of the former, and the latter seems questionable. We want our athletes powerful, big and healthy.
Make no mistake. Using illegal substances is bad business. Artificially bulked up bashers are bad role models for our kids. Any lush who lived life to excess, like Babe Ruth, should not be emulated, but remember he saved the game after the perfidy of the Black Sox game-fixing scandal. So too did Mark McGuire and Sammy Sosa after the 1994-95 strike.
Just take the good with the bad, treasure the game and get on with life.
Read more news and blog posts on the Mitchell report on steroids in baseball here.
As to your points: for you to assert that these drugs do not make a difference in performance is ludicrous: why would these players use them otherwise? For you to assert that no one cares is simply ridiculous. My evidence, albiet anecdotal, is that many folks who once supported baseball have ended that support as a direct result of the drug scandal.
That statement implies that "Big Baseball" would have had a business case to go to extremes to halt the use of steroids and hormones.
Given the known facts, it would have been more appropriate to say:
"Getting caught using illegal substances is bad business."
Revealing these names only tarnishes these players, without hard evidence, and the sport, which already has a black eye.
Selig says he will act swiftly to deal with this issue. To do so, he would have acted in the early 90s. I'm afraid what he means at this point is that he will magnify the damage of past steroid use in the sport in an effort to look, at long last, like a strong leader. In fact, this is just more bad leadership.
That steroid use has been and probably still is a widespread problem is obvious. The commissioner, MLB, the Player's Union and the players are all to blame. But there is NO good way to deal with the past on this one. The remedies are all worse than the disease. The only solution is to focus on the future in an effective, convincing manner, and bury the ineptitude and corruption of the past with consummate honesty and effectiveness. Unfortunately, none of the parties involved seem up to the task.
What is the difference between athletes using performance enhancing prescriptions and actresses having breast enhancement surgery -- or office workers using penicillin -- or drivers using No Doze? Maybe Congress should have hearings about breast enhancements, No Doze and penicillin.
This is the stupidest thing I've seen in a long time, whether Mr. Abrams is right -- and the Mitchell report is the equivalent of a legal lynching or it accurately accuses the athletes of using steroids.
It's not the bulk or the physique those athletes get that makes steroid use a bad thing for the fans and for kids. It's not the change in performance. It's not the records set. It's not the medical side effects. It's not the drugs per se. It's the idea that in order to succeed in one's chosen profession, one must break the rules - cheat - in order to get ahead.
We have a generation of kids growing up to see stars getting millions of dollars every year by cheating. Many Americans still support cheating, not because we threaten to hold congressional hearings on the subject (Congress has nothing better to do?), but because we still pay attention to those sports on TV, on the radio, and in person.
the days of the White Men Only Era, the Deadball Era, the Spitball Era, the Greedy Owner's Era, and the Hopped-up Ball Era have been categorized, and be done with it. The last time I took baseball seriously ended when O'Malley uprooted the Dodgers from Brooklyn in 1957. Where have you gone, PeeWee and Preacher?
cjm
Nova Law "1990"
Talk about facts not in evidence.
Do you really believe that these players purchased performance-enhancers and didn't use them? Maybe you think that Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Jason Giambi are secretly gay and bought the drugs for their body-building boyfriends.
Not I. Steroid use ruins the excitement of competition for me. Until the sport is 100% clean, I won't have anything to do with it.
Just take a look at professional bike racing to see what steroid use can do to ruin a sport.
Granted, it might be good for people like you and big business.