Mitchell Report Thread

[Heads22]

Peter Gammons looks like he's been crying all day.

[Vance Law]

CNBC is claiming the list they have is the original Mitchell Report list, but that those 39 names were eventually excluded because there was no "direct" evidence to inculpate those players. Meaning, these players were highly suspected or commonly known to use performance-enhancing drugs but there either was no one who came forward claiming they sold them the drugs, saw them use the drugs, or had a record of payments for the drugs.

 

But the thing is, there are a lot of names in the report that are not on the CNBC list. It's not like the CNBC list has 39 more names than the report has. The have roughly the same number.

 

So are they suggesting there were 145 names, and CNBC just decided to pick 75 that it liked. And meanwhile, the Mitchell Report picked the 86 names with the most tangible evidence?

 

[hammerhead johnson]

Former and Current Chicago players:

 

Albert Belle, Mike Cameron, Carl Everett, Scott Schoenweiss.

 

Matt Lawton, Mark Prior, Sammy Sosa, Kerry Wood.

 

Is this your personal speculation? WTF, man? You make it hard for people like myself to read through these here threads without cringing. Please, please stay the hell out of these threads.

[Soxbadger]

Ive heard the word hearsay thrown around so many times today its insane.

 

The Mitchell Report is the equivalent of an indictment, its not absolute proof, you dont get any chance to defend yourself.

 

But its interesting how people respond so differently.

 

Good day for Bonds fans.

 

And I dont know what this ESPN Law anaylst is saying about slander/defamationthe standard is not reasonable basis, its a reckless disregard for the truth, because the athletes are all public personalities and therefore held to a higher standard (have to prove malice.)

 

 

Edited December 14, 2007 by Soxbadger

[witesoxfan]

Roids must make people stupid. How can anyone believe that no one could hit babe ruths record for all these years. Then within a few years of each other 3 people shatter that record, not only beat it. But clear it by a bunch. Outside of the ability to use our eyes and see normal human beings go into Cro-Magnon reverse engineering mode.

 

If the numbers start to go up again with HGH, they should raise the mound and shut the offenses down again.

 

AHEM

 

I believe that record belonged to Barry Pepper

 

[Linnwood]

The Mitchell Report is the equivalent of an indictment, its not absolute proof, you dont get any chance to defend yourself.

 

 

In the court of public opinion, it is more than enough proof.

[witesoxfan]

In the court of public opinion, it is more than enough proof.

 

Which is why Roger Clemens is guilty as s***

 

god I just love saying that

[max power]

Roger was my favorite player in beisbol. Sucks to be me.

[Kid Gleason]

OK this is funny. Jose Canseco tried to enter the press conference, and was turned away by MLB officials.

 

Canseco claims he just happened to be staying in the same hotel as the press conference.

 

It's kind of funny, if all of this is true (names in the Mitchell), shouldn't Bud Selig actually be erecting a statue for Canseco? How much of this is happening BECAUSE of Canseco being an attention-whore and having to out people in that book. He is a BIG reason that this is all happening.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's kind of funny, if all of this is true (names in the Mitchell), shouldn't Bud Selig actually be erecting a statue for Canseco? How much of this is happening BECAUSE of Canseco being an attention-whore and having to out people in that book. He is a BIG reason that this is all happening.

Sort of ironic. Huge roider, and just a complete and utter asshole - worse than Bonds, it appeared - and yes, he is a major reason this is all happening.

 

[iamshack]

Is this your personal speculation? WTF, man? You make it hard for people like myself to read through these here threads without cringing. Please, please stay the hell out of these threads.

 

Umm, connect the dots. The names I posted were players that were on the first list that CNBC populated (or was given). I did not post the entire list because I did not want the entire thread to run with that list. I apologize that list apparently ended up being faulty, but put 2 + 2 together man...

[Harry Chappas]

Ive heard the word hearsay thrown around so many times today its insane.

 

The Mitchell Report is the equivalent of an indictment, its not absolute proof, you dont get any chance to defend yourself.

 

But its interesting how people respond so differently.

 

Good day for Bonds fans.

 

And I dont know what this ESPN Law anaylst is saying about slander/defamationthe standard is not reasonable basis, its a reckless disregard for the truth, because the athletes are all public personalities and therefore held to a higher standard (have to prove malice.)

 

They all had the opportunity to respond to the inquires and declined. It is the same thing with slander they have to contest that what is being accussed is wrong. There has to be some proof to this and there was and it is in the report. These are not baseless allegations. The Pettite and Clemens information is really damning as this was not Radomski though I am not sure went that trainers crime was.

 

They were asked to respond and declined.

 

[DrunkBomber]

Im kind of sick of the media now talking about if everyone owes Barry Bonds some kind of apology. It doesnt matter that anyone else was doing it, the fact that he cheated and lied about it is why he got the criticism he did.

[NorthSideSox72]

Im kind of sick of the media now talking about if everyone owes Barry Bonds some kind of apology. It doesnt matter that anyone else was doing it, the fact that he cheated and lied about it is why he got the criticism he did.

Where are you seeing that? The only player I have been seeing that about is Sosa.

 

[iamshack]

Im kind of sick of the media now talking about if everyone owes Barry Bonds some kind of apology. It doesnt matter that anyone else was doing it, the fact that he cheated and lied about it is why he got the criticism he did.

 

Well, to me, Barry Bonds comes out of this as a somewhat sympathetic figure. Barry has been stating over and over in the media that it is ridiculous that there is a relentless witch hunt into his activities, as well as a media crucification of his character and accomplishments. He's also implied that the reason for this is because he is African-American.

 

Bonds has basically been dragged through mud for the past 4-5 years, while Clemens has been celebrated by the public, worshipped in the mainstream media, and paraded around by public opinion as some sort of mythical hero.

 

I am not going to sit here and claim we should all feel sorry for Bonds, but at the same time, he's been the recipient of the majority of the fallout from the steroid scandal unil now. It's about time some of the blame, anger, disappointment, and hatred fell on other shoulders.

[Balta1701]

The Mitchell Report is the equivalent of an indictment, its not absolute proof, you dont get any chance to defend yourself.

Well, fine. Now that they've been named, I want to see someone come out with a counter-case. Not just an "I didn't do it" in the press. They've been named and had evidence presented against them. They could, if they really had solid proof that they didn't do anything, still bring a suit against Mitchell. Or, they could bring a suit against Radomski. Or, they could simply counter Mitchell's report in the court of public opinion by producing evidence that the sales weren't for steroids, like actual doctor's receipts, or products purchased with those moneys that weren't steroids, etc. If a player truly believes he is innocent, there is a lot more that he can do than issue a simple denial. Heck, even if they brought a suit for Slander and lost, that's at least saying something; that's saying that they're willing to stand up and risk the money they've made by attempting to defend themself in this case. For now, I'm going to believe every single thing presented in the Mitchell report as anything factual until someone gives me something that I could say is equally concrete as counter-proof.

[iamshack]

Well, fine. Now that they've been named, I want to see someone come out with a counter-case. Not just an "I didn't do it" in the press. They've been named and had evidence presented against them. They could, if they really had solid proof that they didn't do anything, still bring a suit against Mitchell. Or, they could bring a suit against Radomski. Or, they could simply counter Mitchell's report in the court of public opinion by producing evidence that the sales weren't for steroids, like actual doctor's receipts, or products purchased with those moneys that weren't steroids, etc. If a player truly believes he is innocent, there is a lot more that he can do than issue a simple denial. Heck, even if they brought a suit for Slander and lost, that's at least saying something; that's saying that they're willing to stand up and risk the money they've made by attempting to defend themself in this case. For now, I'm going to believe every single thing presented in the Mitchell report as anything factual until someone gives me something that I could say is equally concrete as counter-proof.

 

And Mitchell is indemnified, which means if they want to sue him, they have to sue Major League Baseball. Which means you are suing a corporation with an unlimited amount of funds.

 

Roger Cossack was on Mike & Mike this morning, and said that if Clemens really is innocent, as he proclaims he is, that he should be the one to take on Major League Baseball. He has the money to fight them and the HOF and "top 5 pitcher ever" reputation to protect. The person who named him gave up information regarding Roger as part of a plea agreement to not face any charges. He did not offer any physical evidence, such as cancelled checks, Fed-Ex airbills, or any other physical proof that Radomski was able to produce against players he named.

 

I don't doubt that Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs. But he does have the most to lose from the Mitchell Report, and very little evidence was presented against him other than hearsay evidence.

[Balta1701]

And Mitchell is indemnified, which means if they want to sue him, they have to sue Major League Baseball. Which means you are suing a corporation with an unlimited amount of funds.

Like I said, even if you sue for defamation and lose, at least you're putting your money where your mouth is. That tells me something. I feel the same way about all these guys that claim "Oh it was just a tainted supplement" or "Oh it was a vitamin b-12 shot i got from Tejada". Fine. Go to court against the guy who you say wronged you. Even if your case is weak, at least present it. At least say something. Don't just sit there and say "Oh I never did anything" and expect me to believe you if you're not even willing to risk some legal fees on proving it.

[jackie hayes]

Well, fine. Now that they've been named, I want to see someone come out with a counter-case. Not just an "I didn't do it" in the press. They've been named and had evidence presented against them. They could, if they really had solid proof that they didn't do anything, still bring a suit against Mitchell. Or, they could bring a suit against Radomski. Or, they could simply counter Mitchell's report in the court of public opinion by producing evidence that the sales weren't for steroids, like actual doctor's receipts, or products purchased with those moneys that weren't steroids, etc. If a player truly believes he is innocent, there is a lot more that he can do than issue a simple denial. Heck, even if they brought a suit for Slander and lost, that's at least saying something; that's saying that they're willing to stand up and risk the money they've made by attempting to defend themself in this case. For now, I'm going to believe every single thing presented in the Mitchell report as anything factual until someone gives me something that I could say is equally concrete as counter-proof.

"Equally concrete"? Some of the "evidence" is as concrete as water. Jack Cust -- Larry Bigbie recalls that Cust told him he had tried steroids. Do I trust that? Even if I did, In the pros? In high school? Wtf kind of "evidence" is that?

 

Read the report, Balta. Many of the accusations are based on VERY weak "evidence".

 

And, asking people to prove something didn't happen is just asking for the impossible, as you damn well know.

[jackie hayes]

Like I said, even if you sue for defamation and lose, at least you're putting your money where your mouth is. That tells me something. I feel the same way about all these guys that claim "Oh it was just a tainted supplement" or "Oh it was a vitamin b-12 shot i got from Tejada". Fine. Go to court against the guy who you say wronged you. Even if your case is weak, at least present it. At least say something. Don't just sit there and say "Oh I never did anything" and expect me to believe you if you're not even willing to risk some legal fees on proving it.

So are you committing to believe anyone who files a lawsuit?

[iamshack]

Like I said, even if you sue for defamation and lose, at least you're putting your money where your mouth is. That tells me something. I feel the same way about all these guys that claim "Oh it was just a tainted supplement" or "Oh it was a vitamin b-12 shot i got from Tejada". Fine. Go to court against the guy who you say wronged you. Even if your case is weak, at least present it. At least say something. Don't just sit there and say "Oh I never did anything" and expect me to believe you if you're not even willing to risk some legal fees on proving it.

 

Well, the other side of the coin is that people who are going to make these claims should be a little more responsible in doing so. Find some proof before you attempt to tarnish someone's reputation. Simply because these players are in the public view doesn't mean their reputations should be tarnished or even shattered based simply on blind speculation or the word of convicted felons.

 

Also, I have to say I am a bit disappointed in the Mitchell Report. The evidence presented against the players is primarily the word of two men- two charged with felonies, no less- and one of those men only offers up hearsay evidence. I think it's unfair to name these players without a more encompassing report released simulataneously. What this has done has managed to ruin (or severly damage) the reputations of some players, but not others, simply because those named in the report happened to be contacts of the distributer that happened to be caught. This Report basically slays the players who happened to work with the guys they caught, and I think it's implications are far too reaching to release it publicly, while the players who work with the guys they haven't caught are implicated in very little or nothing.

[Harry Chappas]

"Equally concrete"? Some of the "evidence" is as concrete as water. Jack Cust -- Larry Bigbie recalls that Cust told him he had tried steroids. Do I trust that? Even if I did, In the pros? In high school? Wtf kind of "evidence" is that?

 

Read the report, Balta. Many of the accusations are based on VERY weak "evidence".

 

And, asking people to prove something didn't happen is just asking for the impossible, as you damn well know.

 

All of the players could have responded to the investigators and said, "I did not say that" or "that did not happen". This report is not some author making things up. Everybody had the opportunity to defend themself and choose not to.

 

What is the deal with Clemens trainer? Has he been busted for something I had never heard his name before.

 

In the slander and libel case the person making the accusations has to prove his position. If McGwire sues Canseco, Canseco has to prove McGwire did steroids. Sure much if it can be hersay but if Canseco does prove his case what happens.......McGwire is proven in court to be a user.

 

The question I have never seen asked of Bonds, "If you were unknowingly given steroids, why did you not sue the party that gave them to you and ruined your reputation?" same thing with Sheffield.

[Vance Law]

Im kind of sick of the media now talking about if everyone owes Barry Bonds some kind of apology. It doesnt matter that anyone else was doing it, the fact that he cheated and lied about it is why he got the criticism he did.

 

The people who owe him an apology are the media, first. If there were 1,000 players who have done steroids over the years, Bonds has not gotten 1/1,000 of the blame and negative attention. He's gotten 99% of it.

[Harry Chappas]

Well, the other side of the coin is that people who are going to make these claims should be a little more responsible in doing so. Find some proof before you attempt to tarnish someone's reputation. Simply because these players are in the public view doesn't mean their reputations should be tarnished or even shattered based simply on blind speculation or the word of convicted felons.

 

Also, I have to say I am a bit disappointed in the Mitchell Report. The evidence presented against the players is primarily the word of two men- two charged with felonies, no less- and one of those men only offers up hearsay evidence. I think it's unfair to name these players without a more encompassing report released simulataneously. What this has done has managed to ruin (or severly damage) the reputations of some players, but not others, simply because those named in the report happened to be contacts of the distributer that happened to be caught. This Report basically slays the players who happened to work with the guys they caught, and I think it's implications are far too reaching to release it publicly, while the players who work with the guys they haven't caught are implicated in very little or nothing.

 

How are checks written for a few thousand dollars not proof?

 

So because their supplier was busted but others were not they should be freed.

[Vance Law]

The evidence presented against the players is primarily the word of two men- two charged with felonies, no less- and one of those men only offers up hearsay evidence.

 

Which one are you referring to here?