How The Mitchell Report Vindicated Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens

The Mitchell Report is finally out, and as expected, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and all the other beefy superstars and juiced-up journeymen who've gotten the "j'accuse" treatment were finally vindicated.

Oh, I don't mean that it was proven that they didn't take whatever they were accused of taking. It's just that the whole "unfair advantage" aspect of the steroids story should finally be laid to rest.

With the pathetically small number of sources at his disposal and no subpoena power, George Mitchell and his homies managed to finger 89 current and former major leaguers, with one degree of certainty or another. Who knows how many other players would have been caught with the needle in their buttocks had Mitchell been able to get information from more than a handful of trainers and players?

Because a healthy proportion of the dopers were pitchers, the point is now moot as to whether Barry Bonds' home run total is legit or not. After all, every time he and his oversized head strode to the plate over the last decade or so, there was a reasonable chance he'd be facing a pitcher who was just as juiced up. And when Clemens would strike out a Rafael Palmeiro or a Miguel Tejada ... well, let's just say the playing field was level.

So enough with all this talk about how certain players should be banished from the Hall of Fame, or how their records should be stricken from the books. What are baseball historians going to do, count Barry's home runs against 'roid users and not against pitchers who were supposedly clean? How will they measure Clemens' victories -- will wins against teams with a certain percentage of juicers count?

And where does it stop? Will we obliterate the stats of all the cocaine users from the '70s and '80s, or all the players who popped amphetamines (a/k/a "greenies") like they were Skittles back in the '60s?

You can't rewrite history. Mark McGwire, weirdly enough, may have been right when he stood before Congress three years ago and said "I'm not here to talk about the past." The baseball equivalent of the Starr Report solves nothing. The only thing Major League Baseball can do now is go forward and figure out a way to make sure that players stop doing illegal substances on or off the field, and to deal harshly those who do. Anything else is pointless.

Read more news and blog posts on the Mitchell report on steroids in baseball here.

Follow Tony Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RetroManNYC

Comments

[Shake-A-Spear]

08:22 PM on 12/16/2007

Suggestion: Give 'em all steroids. The fans too. That'll level the whole works. OR ...
Tear up all the records, clean out the Hall of Fame and as of the 2008 season start from scratch. And this time, urine testing after every inning, particularly after every home run. By the way, what ever happened to Catfish Hunter? Ron Guidry? Anyway, stay clean guys until opening day.

[pizzmoe]

04:18 PM on 12/16/2007

I'm certainly in the minority. I don't see this as cheating, and I have no idea what would be considered a "level playing field" here. Should we tell the players they can only do so many pushups or lift x amount of pounds, otherwise they have an advantage over other players? Baseball evolves, and so does technology, but most of all, the amount of money being paid to these guys. Let's stop looking at these guys as "heros" (which they certainly aren't)

[RevATHist]

10:46 AM on 12/16/2007

There are College ad HIGH SCHOOL kids who are emulating these superstar millionaire cheaters in order to get there shot in the show. Putting their health ad sometimes their lives at risk.

There has to be consequences or this will continue.

[archee]

06:54 PM on 12/15/2007

Although it's easy to agree that not every cheater was caught (not that they're guilty without proof, but Sosa, Brady Anderson, Luis Gonzalez, to name a few seem conspicuously absent), I disagree with the logic that there was a level playing field, unless as another reader stated, everyone cheated. As a simple example, if a juiced up Ben Johnson won his gold medal against 2 or 3 other juiced runners, clearly, that's still unfair for the other clean runners. As far as rewriting history, I believe Ben Johnson (and Marion Jones) lost their unjust achievements. Baseball can do the same. Regarding your comment about every era having substances that unfairly aided players, I'm no scientist, but when George Foster hit 52 HRs in '77, he was the first since Mays in '65 to hit more than 50 in a year. After Foster, it was another 13 years until Fielder hit 51. By '95 this feat became commonplace, sometimes by previously common players. My conclusion, steroids worked way better than whatever juice was used in earlier generatons. I'm not a Bonds' fan and I don't think he should be vindicated. I do think the media should be asking why questions weren't asked about others, partcularly Clemens. A Google search prior to 12/13/07 would have only turned up a few articles speculating about Clemens and steroids. A journalist in Pittsburgh stated some facts (also cited by the NYT on 12/14) that after a stellar career in his 20's Clemens' career took a downturn and the Red Sox essentially gave up on him. He then signed with a mediocre Blue Jays team and surprisingly while in his mid-30's posted 2 of the best years ever by any pitcher. I sent Phil Rogers of the Chicago Trib an email asking him to write an article including pictures of both Bonds and Clemens at 21 and 42. Doesn't mean either was guilty, but more people should've been asking questions. Furthermore, did anyone really think the only pitchers cheating were Jason Grimsley, Clay Hensley and Paul Byrd?

[travy]

11:48 AM on 12/15/2007

i realize this post is somewhat tongue in cheek but, this logic doesn't hold up specifically for the home run records because inflated home run numbers are about more ordinary fly balls traveling a few feet farther and becoming home runs. in fact, juiced up pitchers throwing a little harder will even increase the distance the ball travels by increasing the energy released at contact.

it's undeniable home run numbers started spiking across the board around the time that the steroid era started. 50 used to be a rare feat and 60 and impossibility. then all of a sudden you've got infielders knocking 50 like it's nothing and 60 happening in consecutive years with multiple players. seriously, the records are tainted and any longtime fan knows it...

[Michael Giltz]

02:33 PM on 12/14/2007

You're right, it was a level playing field -- EVERYONE was cheating. But "anything else is pointless." I'm not sure what you're referring to. If someone is systematically cheating and you find evidence of it that justifies action (not true of everyone but certainly true of Clemens), you should take appropriate action, be it symbolic suspension from a few games or whatever. You can't rewrite the record books and parse out what counts and what doesn't. Bob Costas says the record books should begin with a page listing all the disparities you should take into account, like segregation (when some of the most talented athletes weren't allowed to play, making Babe Ruth's dominance less impressive), amphetamines, expansion of teams and certainly the steroids era. But if you refer to the Hall of Fame and think the past is the past and shouldn't count, I think you're wrong. The Hall of Fame is not a right. We're not talking about putting anyone in prison (in which case, someone is innocent until proven guilty). We're talking about honoring someone as the best of the best. If there's any taint to their legacy, if there's any reason to keep someone OUT of the Hall, you should. It is reserved only for the finest (on the field). Thus, no Pete Rose (though his accomplishments are certainly acknowledged in context there, just no personal admission.) no Barry bonds. And certainly no Clemens. Doesn't matter when we believe he started cheating. He did cheat extensively and for years and that disqualifies him for the Hall. Period.

[blueraven]

02:12 PM on 12/14/2007

Vindicated? Blatant proof they were cheating is vindication because everyone else was doing it? By that logic, nothing should be illegal because multiple people break the law.

And to all the people who think Pete Rose should be let in, he should never be let in unless and until Shoeless Joe Jackson gets in. THEN we can talk about Bonds and Clemens.

[NorCalNative]

01:44 PM on 12/14/2007

Tony, the pure moralists just don't get it. I also would prefer every athlete was a clean player. However, the real issue I had with the use of these drugs was the idea or feeling that only a handful of elite players were taking great advantage over the rest of baseball.

Real fans love the history of the numbers. If, however, it wasn't just a few, but many then the idea of a non-level playing field doesnt' become quite so bothersome. I was ready to deny McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa, Bonds and others the Hall of Fame. Now, knowing the extent of the abuse I'm way more willing to discuss their entrance to the Hall.

It is naive and lacking in an understanding of human nature to expect that some athletes will not try to cheat and push the envelope. The moralist will suggest that only clean sport has value. Why is that? These substances made the game more dynamic and thus more entertaining. Let me think about that for a second. Entertainer's being more entertaining! What a concept! Sounds good for business.

What is REALLY interesting here is that there was no intention or search to root out those players using "greenies," i.e., amphetamines. We have all this drama in the press about chemicals that have medical uses but IGNORE the institutionalized of amphetamines by pro baseball. The "wink-wink" use of a controlled substance continues to be intertwined with American baseball history. So, what did Senator Mitchell's report really solve or attempt to solve?

This is a blatant error in investigation and is a form of cover-up by OMISSION. In my newspaper there was a single line that read. "The report did not look at stimulants."
I'm amused that the business of baseball seems immune to the Controlled Substances Act.

Is a 162-game schedule impossible without the use of stimulants? Is the length of the schedule part of the problem?

[WintonyMay]

01:08 PM on 12/14/2007

Congratulations:
Your piece exposes a previously-unconsidered dilemma for the League and fans; and I think that your solution is well reasoned, cathartic and most fitting.
WintonyMay.

[Blackspeare]

12:49 PM on 12/14/2007

There’s actually a bigger story that lies beneath----that of supposedly loyal friends and confidants snitching. Both McNamee and Radomski were confidants of the players they allegedly said used PEDs. They did it, no doubt, to help themselves----a dastardly deed in itself. But more importantly they broke an implied fidelity when they snitched. It is understood, where I come from, that when the only person you will hurt is the person you snitch on then you do not snitch ever! The use of PEDs in sports hurts no one except maybe the user in later years and that’s the price they pay for success today.

[cheforacle]

12:34 PM on 12/14/2007

I would agree that the whole idea of the Mitchell report being some comprehensive transparent view of what was going on in MLB, as far as steroid use was concerned, was doomed when it became clear Mitchell had no subpoena power to compel people to talk. Once the grand jury testimony on Bonds' case leaked nobody was gonna talk even with immunity (as Bonds had before the grand jury). Accordingly, Mitchell's report is more like trying to survey whether you want to buy a house from certain vantage points and angles which differ in their ability to give you an opportunity to see how it looks.

That being said, I don't think the batters (Bonds, McGwire, Giambi, etc. who have been implicated) are off the hook by suggesting the pitchers were juiced too. To prove that point you'd have to see how many pitchers were juiced; if Bonds or McGwire only faced 5 or 10% pitchers on steroids it doesn't mean the other 95% isn't tainted. Also when a pitcher takes steroids that does not mean the pitches would necessarily improve like hitters ability to knock balls out of the park. Strength is not necessarily as big an advantage for pitchers vs. power hitters. The big help for pitchers does not have to do with the quality of each pitch but rather the extra recuperative abilities one on steroids supposedly has. Of course, this is what helped the hitters too. But for a starting pitcher to have help in their recovery process is huge. It doesn't give a special advantage on particular pitches but it does help them get their bodies ready for their next start.

[JimR]

12:00 PM on 12/14/2007

Wow, this sure is some twisted logic, Tony. It only works if all players were using steroids. But all of them weren't.

But I agree it's time to move forward.

[ZZTOP]

11:46 AM on 12/14/2007

So are you saying 2 wrongs make a right?

If so, you must be a Republican, there's a
great old adage, "not getting caught in a lie
is the same thing as telling the truth"...

The answer is simple, make them legal or start
enforcing the law. I'm tired of 2 sets of
law in this country with our overpaid athletes,
politicians and the other for the "little
people" in this country. If not taking drugs
is a hardship, go work the night shift at
GM.

If Clemens and Bonds didn't use steroids, have
them take a polygraph test and we can end
this fiasco.

[FrictionSoul]

11:27 AM on 12/14/2007

Minimize and marginalize are characteristics of someone in denial. This goes beyond records and stats.

Steroids and other man-made substances should be banned for no other reason than for one's health.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

11:24 AM on 12/14/2007

This is the best thing I've read about the steroids issue.