Mitchell Report Thread

[Controlled Chaos]

They are reporting on Boers and Bernstein that wnbc is standing behind their list that came out earlier...That it was from two sources that were invovled with the report and the final report only has the names that they had concrete evidence on.... TIFWIW There are a few additinal names...Sosa being one of them. Glaus is another.... I guess things will clear themselves up soon enough

 

 

List of players named in Mitchell Report:

 

 

Mitchell Report (pdf)

 

Allen, Chad

 

Ankiel, Rick

 

Bell, David

 

Bell, Mike

 

Bennett Jr., Gary

 

Bonds, Barry

 

Brown, Kevin

 

Byrd, Paul

 

Cabrera, Alex

 

Caminiti , Ken

 

Carreon, Mark

 

Christiansen, Jason

 

Clark, Howie

 

Clemens, Roger

 

Conseco, Jose

 

Cust, Jack

 

Donnels, Chris

 

Donnelly, Brendan

 

Dykstra , Len

 

Franco, Matt

 

Franklin, Ryan

 

Gagne, Eric

 

Giambi, Jason

 

Giambi, Jeremy

 

Gibbons, Jay

 

Glaus, Troy

 

Gonzalez, Juan

 

Grimsley, Jason

 

Guillen, Jose

 

Hairston Jr., Jerry

 

Herges, Matt

 

Hiatt, Phil

 

Hill, Glenallen

 

Holmes, Darren

 

Hundley, Todd

 

Jorgernson, Ryan

 

Justice, David

 

Knoblauch, Chuck

 

Laker, Tim

 

Lansing, Mike

 

Lo Duca, Paul

 

Logan, Exavier

 

Manzanillo, Josias

 

Matthews, Jr. Gary

 

McKay, Cody

 

Mercker, Kent

 

McGwire, Mark

 

Miadich, Bart

 

Naulty, Daniel

 

Neagle, Denny

 

Morris, Hal

 

Palmeiro, Rafael

 

Parque, Jim

 

Pettitte, Andy

 

Pratt, Todd

 

Randolph, Stephen

 

Rocker, John

 

Riggs, Adam

 

Rios, Armando

 

Roberts, Brian

 

Santangelo, F.P.

 

Santiago , Benito

 

Schoenweis, Scott

 

Segui, David

 

Sheffield, Gary

 

Sosa, Sammy

 

Stanton, Mike

 

Tejada, Miguel

 

Valdez, Ismael

 

Vaughn, Mo

 

Velarde, Randy

 

Villone, Ron

 

Vina, Fernando

 

White, Rondell

 

Willaims, Jeff

 

Williams, Matt

 

Williams, Todd

 

Woodard, Steve

 

Young, Kevin

 

Zaun, Gregg

 

[Balta1701]

Please for God's sake someone ask Selig how Bonds could possibly have learned of a steroid test in advance.

[iamshack]

Maybe because Jerry Reinsdorff wasn't injecting himself with steroids.

 

Obviously, most of us blame the people actually cheating and committing crimes. I am sure that others deserve blame too, for letting it happen. But clearly the larger burden of guilt lies with the actors, not the bystanders.

 

But honestly, ask yourself these questions:

 

1) Why were some players cheating?

 

2) What would motivate a player to do so?

 

3) If I could do something in the context of my profession (in terms of HGH), in which I would not immediately be caught (or caught at all), and could very likely result in a drastic pay raise, could result in my family and friends being financially taken care of for life, would I do so?

 

4) If others in my profession were "cheating," thereby making it more difficult (or even in some cases impossible) for me to be compensated according to my true value, would I be tempted to cheat as well? Would I cheat?

 

This is far more complex than merely blaming the players for cheating. So much more was at stake- and that which was at stake was because of the fault of the managers, the GM's, the Owners, etc. I find it overly simplistic to simply cast the majority of the blame on the players.

 

The entire baseball industry deserves to be blamed equally, IMO. Certainly players such as Frank Thomas and others deserve praise. But I don't believe that the players who used steroids or HGH should be the only ones cast in the spotlight created by the Mitchell Report.

[NorthSideSox72]

No Ross Gload. I'm happy.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

But honestly, ask yourself these questions:

 

1) Why were some players cheating?

 

2) What would motivate a player to do so?

 

3) If I could do something in the context of my profession (in terms of HGH), in which I would not immediately be caught (or caught at all), and could very likely result in a drastic pay raise, could result in my family and friends being financially taken care of for life, would I do so?

 

4) If others in my profession were "cheating," thereby making it more difficult (or even in some cases impossible) for me to be compensated according to my true value, would I be tempted to cheat as well? Would I cheat?

 

This is far more complex than merely blaming the players for cheating. So much more was at stake- and that which was at stake was because of the fault of the managers, the GM's, the Owners, etc. I find it overly simplistic to simply cast the majority of the blame on the players.

 

The entire baseball industry deserves to be blamed equally, IMO. Certainly players such as Frank Thomas and others deserve praise. But I don't believe that the players who used steroids or HGH should be the only ones cast in the spotlight created by the Mitchell Report.

So because they were "motivated" to cheat, by peers cheating or because they could make more money, that someone makes them less to blame?

 

Or because management fostered an environment where performance was key, that someone made them partly to blame?

 

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. It would carry no water in any other line of business either.

 

[G&T]

Please for God's sake someone ask Selig how Bonds could possibly have learned of a steroid test in advance.

 

From what I'm hearing from him, I'll answer for him.

 

"We didn't know. Somebody must have been telling Barry when the tests were taking place. But that is in the past, and we have to move forward."

[hitlesswonder]

I think it's interesting that nearly everyone who has posted thus far has implied a very negative reaction or stance towards the players who have used steroids.

 

I've commented several times in this thread that the owners, upper-level execs, and managers were fully aware of exactly what was going on in most instances.

 

And yet I've not commented positively or negatively regarding the players. And I won't, because I think this subject is enormously complex.

 

Why are the players the one's taking such a huge hit here? Why not the rest of the baseball industry? Why so harsh to judge the players, and no one else?

 

Oh, I think they should. I think really it's a workplace fairness issue. There was tremendous incentive to use drugs that are non to have bad health consequences, just to perform well enough to have a job. I think that's the worst part of the whole "scandal". Both the players that used and management are implicated in creating that environment.

Edited December 13, 2007 by hitlesswonder

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh, I think they should. I think really it's a workplace fairness issue. There was tremendous incentive to use drugs that are non to have bad health consequences, just to perform well enough to have a job. I think that's the worst part of the whole "scandal".

Bogus.

 

Let's look at a similarly big money, highly competitive field - trading. Now, at times, "rogue" traders have been so motivated by the huge money and ultra-competitive lifestyle, that they crossed the line and ended up breaking the law to get ahead. Sometimes they get caught.

 

Now, have you ever heard anyone say they felt that "the worst part" was that the IB's pushed them to make money?

 

I'm sorry but having a competitive environment, and rewarding performance, are not excuses for breaking the law - and they are certainly not reasons to blame "management", unless "management was SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING them to do so.

 

[GoSox05]

Paul Lo Duca is really in the middle of all this. His name just went from team leader to team cheater.

[iamshack]

So because they were "motivated" to cheat, by peers cheating or because they could make more money, that someone makes them less to blame?

 

Or because management fostered an environment where performance was key, that someone made them partly to blame?

 

I'm sorry but that makes no sense. It would carry no water in any other line of business either.

 

Have you had a chance to read the report?

 

Did you read what was said about LoDuca by the Dodgers in 2003? They were concerned that he would not hit as many hard line-drives because he was not on steroids anymore. That maybe he should be dealt because he had some trade value. That the Marlins might be interested. Obviously, he was traded to the Marlins at the deadline in 04'.

 

You don't think that management is more to blame because they fostered an environment where "performance was key"?

 

How about an environment where you might be traded because you were no longer taking steroids and they thought your performance would decline soon?

[NorthSideSox72]

Have you had a chance to read the report?

 

Did you read what was said about LoDuca by the Dodgers in 2003? They were concerned that he would not hit as many hard line-drives because he was not on steroids anymore. That maybe he should be dealt because he had some trade value. That the Marlins might be interested. Obviously, he was traded to the Marlins at the deadline in 04'.

 

You don't think that management is more to blame because they fostered an environment where "performance was key"?

 

How about an environment where you might be traded because you were no longer taking steroids and they thought your performance would decline soon?

I have no doubt that some GM's were aware of what was going on. Doesn't change anything - the criminal actors have most of the blame themselves. Then as a secondary issue, one should look at the system and the other moving parts, and make changes as necessary. But unless GM's or others somehow directed or told or asked players to break the law (or the rules), then they bear only a very small part of the blame.

 

Its all about personal responsibility, plain and simple.

 

[iamshack]

Bogus.

 

Let's look at a similarly big money, highly competitive field - trading. Now, at times, "rogue" traders have been so motivated by the huge money and ultra-competitive lifestyle, that they crossed the line and ended up breaking the law to get ahead. Sometimes they get caught.

 

Now, have you ever heard anyone say they felt that "the worst part" was that the IB's pushed them to make money?

 

I'm sorry but having a competitive environment, and rewarding performance, are not excuses for breaking the law - and they are certainly not reasons to blame "management", unless "management was SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING them to do so.

 

Are you kidding me? So unless you do something which is explicitly in violation of "the law," it isn't the same? Do you know some of the unethical behavior that goes on in trading? Often times because other people are behaving unlawfully? It isn't always a clear-cut violation of the law, but it is certainly unethical. And otherwise good people break that code of ethics every day. Should they be all painted with the same brush that says "cheater"? Because they want to provide for their family?

 

I think you're oversimplifying the issue far too much.

 

It isn't simply that the environment is ultra-competitve. It's about the field not being level. And it's one thing for Frank to stand-up against those using performance-enhancing drugs- his natural ability allowed him to still compete quite favorably in the marketplace (I know, he was often injured, and he has had money problems)- but imagine the guys who weren't as naturally gifted as him, imagine those pressures.

 

I'm not saying that the players who used are to be completely absolved of any blame whatsoever, but I, for one, would not rush to judge any of them. And I certainly will not overlook the role that so many others had in this entire situation.

[iamshack]

I have no doubt that some GM's were aware of what was going on. Doesn't change anything - the criminal actors have most of the blame themselves. Then as a secondary issue, one should look at the system and the other moving parts, and make changes as necessary. But unless GM's or others somehow directed or told or asked players to break the law (or the rules), then they bear only a very small part of the blame.

 

Its all about personal responsibility, plain and simple.

 

Did they not do this by directly rewarding some of these players with mega-contracts and other individual perks (think Sosa, Clemens) when they knew full-well that these players' outrageous success was directly caused by performance-enhancing drugs?

 

You're saying that unless a GM or manager or owner said "take steroids or be cut," they bear a very small part of the blame? You don't believe that they were de facto telling certain players that by awarding them these contracts or DFA'ing them when they knew full-well exactly why those players' performances were what they were?

Edited December 13, 2007 by iamshack

[jackie hayes]

Someone critique this math --

 

About 80 players named. Average career length is 5.6 years (headline from a google search). 30 teams, about 12 years covered (since the strike), average of about 26 players on a team at a team (considering roster expansions). So the list represents roughly

 

80/(30*26*(12/5.6)) = 4.8% of all players during the era

 

Is that calculation accurate?

[Buehrle>Wood]

Why is John Kruk so upset that he named names? Sheesh.

[NorthSideSox72]

Did they not do this by directly rewarding some of these players with mega-contracts and other individual perks (think Sosa, Clemens) when they knew full-well that these players' outrageous success was directly caused by performance-enhancing drugs?

 

You're saying that unless a GM or manager or owner said "take steroids or be cut," they bear a very small part of the blame? You don't believe that they were de facto telling certain players that by awarding them these contracts or DFA'ing them when they knew full-well exactly why those players' performances were what they were?

Yup - that's about it.

 

Well, except that they didn't KNOW, in some cases probably. But other than that, yeah. NO matter how competitive the environment or how much money is at stake, unless the managerial staff was breaking the law or telling others to do so, I put most of the blame on the people who DID break the rules or laws. Its really quite simple.

 

[Vance Law]

I think it's interesting that nearly everyone who has posted thus far has implied a very negative reaction or stance towards the players who have used steroids.

 

I've commented several times in this thread that the owners, upper-level execs, and managers were fully aware of exactly what was going on in most instances.

 

And yet I've not commented positively or negatively regarding the players. And I won't, because I think this subject is enormously complex.

 

Why are the players the one's taking such a huge hit here? Why not the rest of the baseball industry? Why so harsh to judge the players, and no one else?

I totally agree with you. In addition to the players ending up with bigger contracts for the big numbers they put up, who makes money off of and otherwise benefits their enhanced performances? MLB, the owners, the networks/newsparers (Home Run Race '98! Home Run Race 03!) the GM (looks good when his player hits 12,000 home runs or goes 12-0 pitching in the second half). Who gets hurt? The players from the olden days and the steroid era players who were clean. The fans who paid higher and higher ticket prices.

 

[MurcieOne]

Why is John Kruk so upset that he named names? Sheesh.

 

he's fat.

[iamshack]

Someone critique this math --

 

About 80 players named. Average career length is 5.6 years (headline from a google search). 30 teams, about 12 years covered (since the strike), average of about 26 players on a team at a team (considering roster expansions). So the list represents roughly

 

80/(30*26*(12/5.6)) = 4.8% of all players during the era

 

Is that calculation accurate?

 

I can't critique your math, but i bet 4.8% is too high. Considering the call-ups, etc., and the fact that many of these players were mostly career minor leaguers, I'd bet the number is lower.

 

But in terms of players that actaully did test positive in 03' when mlb first began testing, I believe the number was 5-7%.

[iamshack]

Yup - that's about it.

 

Well, except that they didn't KNOW, in some cases probably. But other than that, yeah. NO matter how competitive the environment or how much money is at stake, unless the managerial staff was breaking the law or telling others to do so, I put most of the blame on the people who DID break the rules or laws. Its really quite simple.

 

Yeah, I agree with you. The way you are looking at this is amazingly simple. Too simple.

 

 

[BaseballNick]

I can't critique your math, but i bet 4.8% is too high. Considering the call-ups, etc., and the fact that many of these players were mostly career minor leaguers, I'd bet the number is lower.

 

But in terms of players that actaully did test positive in 03' when mlb first began testing, I believe the number was 5-7%.

 

 

I bet the Mitchell Report didn't catch all users either...pretty much just those who went through Radomski.

[jackie hayes]

I can't critique your math, but i bet 4.8% is too high. Considering the call-ups, etc., and the fact that many of these players were mostly career minor leaguers, I'd bet the number is lower.

 

But in terms of players that actaully did test positive in 03' when mlb first began testing, I believe the number was 5-7%.

Ah, okay, I was treating them all as major leaguers. But if we replace the numerator with the number of named players who ever played in the majors, should be correct, right?

 

I thought 5% was too high, too. But the calculation looks right...

 

Edit: Are you sure some of these guys were career minor leaguers (as in, never even sniffed the majors)? I was looking at the NYTimes list, which calls them "former and active Major League Baseball players". I counted 78 names (quickly).

 

YAEdit: Actually, looking at the career length study in a little more detail, the average career length has been rising over time, so that for rookies starting between 1968 and 1992, a career lasted 6.85 years on average, which brings the percentage up to

 

77/(30*26*12/6.85) = 5.6% of all players

 

(Also counting the list more closely -- 77 players on the NYT list.) Higher than I'd thought it would be.

Edited December 13, 2007 by jackie hayes

[Steve9347]

Well, heading home to curl up with my copy of the Mitchell Report. If i find anything that went unnoticed I'll give it a whirl.

[iamshack]

Yup - that's about it.

 

Well, except that they didn't KNOW, in some cases probably. But other than that, yeah. NO matter how competitive the environment or how much money is at stake, unless the managerial staff was breaking the law or telling others to do so, I put most of the blame on the people who DID break the rules or laws. Its really quite simple.

 

Some more tidbits from the Dodgers' meetings of 03'.

 

1) In regards to Kevin Brown

 

"Steroids speculated by GM."

 

2) In regards to Eric Gagne

 

"He probably takes medications and tendons and ligaments don't build up just the muscle."

 

And from the Red Sox when considering trading for Gagne:

 

3) From Theo Epstein to a colleague

 

"Have you done any digging on Gagne? I know the Dodgers think he was a steroid guy. Maybe so. What do you hear on his medical?"

 

And his colleague's response:

 

"Some digging on Gagne and steroids IS the issue. Has had a checkered medical past throughout career including minor leagues. Lacks the poise and committment to stay healthy, maintain body, and re-invent self. What made him a tenacious closer was the max effort plus stuff...Mentality without the plus weapons and steroid help probably creates a large risk in bounce back durability and ability to throw average while allowing the change-up to play as it once did...Personally, durability (or lack of) will follow Gagne."

 

Still think they don't know?

Edited December 13, 2007 by iamshack

[MurcieOne]

According to Mitchell.... Gene Orza told players when they were going to be tested..... ummm thats a problem.