Mitchell Report

[He Hate Me]

doesn't sound like Buster was too happy with Mitchell.

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3157032&name=olney_buster&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos2&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3157032%26name%3dolney_buster%26lpos%3dspotlight%26lid%3dtab3pos2

 

Mitchell lacked critical insight

posted: Sunday, December 16, 2007 | Feedback | Print Entry

filed under: MLB

 

After the commissioner's office received access to the report, word leaked out that the Mitchell report was tough on Major League Baseball; the advance notice was that individuals within the MLB offices were upset, angry. Which is, of course, what Major League Baseball needs everybody to believe: that it really got thumped.

 

Then George Mitchell stood in front of a microphone and said out loud, "Everybody involved in baseball -- commissioners, club officials, the players association and the players -- shares responsibility to some extent for the steroids era. There was a collective failure to recognize the problem and deal with it early on." Baseball had a drug culture, Mitchell said, a nice general thesis that was fresh when it was first reported years ago by the San Francisco Chronicle, ESPN, the New York Daily News, Sports Illustrated and just about every other major news outlet.

 

But if you expected any critical insight from the report into how that culture developed, well, forget it. Baseball's leaders should send a Christmas basket to Mitchell for the way he glossed over the decisions -- their decisions -- that created the vacuum in which hundreds or even thousands of players, in the majors and minors, felt free, or felt the need, to take drugs.

 

Oh, sure, Giants general manager Brian Sabean looks awful in anecdotes on pages 122-126 of the report, and union counsel Gene Orza is alleged to have tipped off a player to a forthcoming test. But the report is almost wholly absent of a direct examination and assessment of how the decisions of Don Fehr and Bud Selig led us to where we are today.

 

We are told of the alleged drug use of 86 players by name, but nothing that addresses almost all of the big-picture questions: Why did baseball not act decisively after the sport's first steroid scandal, around Jose Canseco, during the 1988 World Series? Why did the owners and union leaders do nothing?

 

In a 1995 article in the Los Angeles Times, Selig made reference to a meeting in which owners discussed steroids. What was said, specifically, in those meetings? What were owners saying about the change in size in bodies? What were they saying about the Athletics of the late '80s, the Reds of 1990, the Rangers of the early '90s, the Phillies of 1993?

 

We are told that after the noteworthy L.A. Times piece was published in 1995, with quotes addressing the perceived rise of steroid use from Frank Thomas, Tony Gwynn, GMs Randy Smith and Kevin Malone and Selig, there was no follow-up. Why not? What was Selig's thinking? Why didn't he view these words as an alarm in the night? Why didn't he ask Thomas, Gwynn, Malone and Smith about what they knew? Why didn't he do something? Why was it that when Kevin Towers spoke out loud in the spring of 2005 about how executives in the game had known for years about steroid use, he was admonished by baseball executives? Why did Selig issue a public gag order on executives on the issue of steroids?

 

In fact, there is no mention of Towers' statement in the report. There is virtually no information within the report about the players' union deliberations and conversations about steroids during the mid-'90s. Where was Fehr? Where was Orza? What were they saying and doing? What was being said in the meetings? We understand that the union didn't cooperate with the Mitchell investigators, but there have been many newspaper and magazine stories written about this, and Mitchell could have cut-and-pasted all of this for context, as he did in so many other places in the report.

 

The commissioner had full autonomy over the minor leagues and could have implemented drug testing at any time. So why did it take 13 years after the Canseco scandal to do so? What were owners saying about all this in meetings? Is it true, as sources indicate, that one owner was so fed up with the union wars that he said, in so many words, If the players want to kill themselves by taking that stuff, then let them. It's not our problem.

 

We got a whole lot of information about the symptoms of the problem -- the cases of individual players -- but almost nothing about the virus of failed leadership that is the root of baseball's drug culture.

 

Selig has said that he wanted the report because it would show that he had nothing to hide. But it was, in fact, another example of a lack of leadership, a lack of accountability.

 

In March of 2006, he could have stood up, perhaps with Fehr at his side, and said: We blew it. The entire institution of baseball shared in this failure to ask the right questions at the right time, and failed to take the right action at the right time. But we could learn the full extent of how pervasive that problem was, so the best thing that we could do would be to strengthen our drug-testing program as much as possible, and move forward.

 

A number of executives who work for Selig believed, in March of 2006, that a mea culpa was the best action possible for the sport. But Selig has never been someone to admit mistakes. So he hired a baseball executive to investigate the sport, paying Mitchell and his firm tens of millions of dollars -- and the leaders of the sport largely got a pass.

 

And it's possible that in lieu of Selig's standing up and taking the hit for his sport, individual players and the game itself may suffer enormous collateral damage.

 

None of that excuses the individual decisions that were allegedly made by players. Look, if Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens or others took performance-enhancing drugs, then they have to live with the ramifications of their actions.

 

But it's possible, as Fehr said, that players have had their reputations wrecked forever, and perhaps wrongly.

 

Mitchell established his own standard of fairness, his own standard of proof. A lawyer within baseball said early this week that because Mitchell had so much power, in deciding which names to include in the report, that he really needed to go on beyond a reasonable doubt in the cases of individual players.

 

And this, he did not do.

 

On page 146 of the report, it is written that former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski provided information, and in "many cases, his statements were corroborated by other evidence."

 

What the report does not say is that in many cases, the statements of Radomski, former Oriole Larry Bigbie and others were not corroborated by other evidence.

 

Now, we cannot be na?ve to the probability that most and perhaps even all of the players named in the report used performance-enhancing drugs, and that the impact of steroid use on the game and the results of games has been nothing short of extraordinary. The belief here has been for some time that perhaps 75 percent of the major awards won from 1988 forward were done so with the use of performance-enhancing drugs, and we should assume that championship teams for the last 20 years probably fielded one or more players using the stuff. But Mitchell effectively ignored the possibility that in some cases, Radomski's version of events, or that of Larry Bigbie, might be untrue or inaccurate. If Kirk Radomski says he talked to you about steroids or sold them to you, well, Mitchell's report embedded Radomski's version of events into history.

 

Mitchell clearly was frustrated with the lack of cooperation from the active Players Association. But for some former players, challenging Radomski's assertions didn't make a bit of difference: Mitchell went full-speed ahead with the naming of names, in the face of denials, just as he did in the face of silence.

 

"It was," said one Major League Baseball lawyer, "nothing short of reckless."

 

Brian Roberts is in the report, on page 158, because Bigbie told the Mitchell investigators that Roberts "admitted to him that he had injected himself once or twice with steroids in 2003."

 

That's it.

 

Radomski told investigators that he sold steroids to Matt Franco, and the former Mets player denied this. There is no other evidence. A case of he-said, he-said. And Franco is in the report, on page 165.

 

Jack Cust is in the report because of a Bigbie interview. Nothing more.

Mark Carreon: Radomski interview, and nothing more.

Todd Williams: Radomski interview.

Phil Hiatt: Radomski interview.

Todd Pratt: Radomski interview.

Mike Stanton: Radomski interview.

 

In the cases of other players, the corroborative evidence is the fact that a phone number or address is in a book owned by Radomski.

 

These players could sue, of course; Roger Clemens's lawyer said his client has been "slandered," and he, more than any other player in the report, has the money to go head-to-head with Major League Baseball, which indemnified Mitchell in the event of possible lawsuits.

 

But that probably isn't going to happen, and in any event, a lawsuit isn't going to change the reality that a player's name is in the Mitchell report, forever. There's not a damn thing you can do to change that if you are Brian Roberts and you just might be innocent; George Mitchell has already been the prosecutor, judge and jury in his case.

[26 to 6]

Nice job Buster. Well written.

 

I'm still anxious to see what action Clemens takes.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Hmmm. Buster is outraged. Let's look at those names.

 

Brian Roberts: Allegedly started using steroids in 2003. Gained 70 OPS points from 2002-2003 in AAA; gained 99 OPS points in MLB those same two years. Roberts's XBH production increased astoundingly from 2003-2005. In 2003 he had 26 doubles and triples. In 2004 he had 52, exactly twice as many. His home runs went from 5 in 2003 to 4 in 2004 to 18 in 2005. Of those 18 HR, 15 came in the first half, and only three came after the news broke that Rafael Palmeiro had tested positive for stanozolol. Robert's OPS for that first half of 2005, 1.007, is 156 points higher than he had ever managed before or since for a half-season of full-time MLB play. He had attributed the gain to his new contact lenses...perhaps he has lost them.

 

Matt Franco: Matt Franco was a utility infielder who allegedly bought steroids in 2000, the year he was released by the Mets and resigned as a minor-league player. Franco hit for an OPS of between .726 and .730 in each of three years 1997-99 at ages 27-29. He returned to MLB in 2002, hitting .317/.395/.517 for a .912 OPS at age 32, his peak level of performance. Very few players reach a normal peak at age 27 and another, higher peak at age 32 after being released unconditionally instead of being offered arbitration. Franco was such a player.

 

Jack Cust: Jack Cust was allegedly using steroids in 2003. Checking his MiLB stats, he could've been using them since Rookie League, or even since kindergarten: there's no sudden spike. The saddle curve dip in his stats coincides with his moving from Colorado Springs in the PCL to Ottawa in the IL, so league and park factors could explain it. Frankly, although Cust looks as if he's juiced, there's nothing in the record to suggest it statistically.

 

Mark Carreon: Allegedly received steroids in 1996 while with the Giants. Carreon peaked at age 25 as a corner outfielder, but then languished for three seasons before being traded to the Giants. Carreon hit a new, higher peak from ages 29-31 with the Giants. Then he was traded to Cleveland, where he hit .324/.385/.451 until August 23, where he went 2-5, was replaced by Jeff Kent in extra innings, and then never played again. Carreon's career showed both a saddle curve and a late peak, as well as a surprisingly swift decline. (I can't even find that he ever went on the DL...he seems to have just gotten benched while on a hot streak, probably because of some injury very close to roster expansion time. I can't help but wonder if it might have been steroid-related.)

 

Todd Williams: Allegedly received steroids in 2001. Williams hit his career peak very late at age 34 with the 2005 Baltimore Orioles.

 

Phil Hiatt: Allegedly received steroids in 2001. Hiatt, a career journeyman, had an early peak around age 24 and a later, higher peak in 2001 at age 32. The career showed both a saddle curve and a late peak.

 

Todd Pratt: Allegedly received steroids in 2001. Pratt posted his best hitting stats as a rookie in 1992-93 at ages 25 and 26, although he received more playing time in his later twenties. He hit .185/.327/.301 in 2001, the year of alleged steroids purchase. The next year, 2002, Pratt hit .311/.449/.500, hitting a new career peak. Pratt's career has a very late peak at age 35, as well as a saddle curve.

 

Mike Stanton: Stanton allegedly received hGH in 2003. Stanton's peak came two years earlier at age 34, and Stanton pitched very effectively through age 39, although he was less effective after his 40th birthday this past season. Stanton had a very late peak as a pitcher.

 

***

 

Look, the only guy he's cited who doesn't have some bizarre trend in his career performance curve is Cust, and Cust has the phenotype of a steroid abuser nailed perfectly. I see this article as similar to Nate Silver's: they want the baseball audience to question the report and to question accusations of steroid use because they fear a loss of revenue for and interest in MLB. If one looks at the careers in question, all of these players had something weird going on, and the accusations of PED use could explain the oddities.

[TheKilo]

Since when has the Mitchell Report been about charging people with anything?

[Jayhawk Bill]

Since when has the Mitchell Report been about charging people with anything?

 

Selig said he would act upon each of the 20 recommendations Mitchell made in the report, which are not covered in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and also broadly hinted he will go against Mitchell’s advice and punish players linked to steroid and human growth hormone use.

 

“Anybody who knows me well has to know that this is not something I wish had happened, but it has,” Selig said. “And I have to do something about it. I cannot say it any more plainly. I have to do something.”

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6995

 

Charging? Dunno. :dunno: Bud Selig may, however, attempt to discipline named players despite lack of the specific evidence required by the Basic Agreement.

[TheKilo]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6995

 

Charging? Dunno. :dunno: Bud Selig may, however, attempt to discipline named players despite lack of the specific evidence required by the Basic Agreement.

 

That's Selig's decision. Mitchell had no power to do so.

[Jayhawk Bill]

That's Selig's decision. Mitchell had no power to do so.

 

Has Mitchell initiated legal action or employer disciplinary action, or has he merely investigated an issue?

 

I'm not sure that I understand your point.

[TheKilo]

Has Mitchell initiated legal action or employer disciplinary action, or has he merely investigated an issue?

 

I'm not sure that I understand your point.

 

In my opinion, he merely investigated the issue of steroids in baseball. He never intended it to be punitive, and he even said as much. I do feel he needed to include the names because the report would have been a mockery without them, but he shouldn't have been the one to lead the investigation in the first place.

[a700hitter]

Nice job Buster. Well written.

 

I'm still anxious to see what action Clemens takes.

Don't hold your breath. His lawyer gave no indication that Clemens would take any legal action. In fact, he lamented that he had no forum in which to be heard to clear his name. Well that is just not true. He could sue, but he will not. His buddy's admission lend credence to the allegations of his accuser. Truth is a defense against libel or slander. Clemens will not spend millions to be exposed even more.

[das11209]

Brian Roberts acknowledged steroid use once in 2003 as mentioned in Mitchell report.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/12/18/bc.bba.orioles.roberts.steroids.ap/index.html

 

Listen - if there was one person against whom there was no good case in the report - it was Roberts. Now that Pettitte and Roberts have acknowledged the report - anyone think Clemens will win a case against that report? This report looks pretty accurate at this point.

[26 to 6]

I read an article todya pointing out the cons of Clemens suing, even if he was innocent. I don't remember what paper it was but if I can find one, i'll post a link. And again, this isn't to say that Clemens is innocent, just acknowledging that the article was interesting.

[TheKilo]

Love how every player is saying he did HGH for rehab.

 

Also:

 

[youtube=My New Haircut]4JMOh-cul6M

 

POWERBARS

[jacksonianmarch]

Selig should step down.

[26 to 6]

NOOOO. Selig takes a lot of unfair treatment. Minus this steroids-era controversy I think Bud has done a GREAT job, I think. Interleague play, two expansions, unifying the AL and NL, etc. I would be more than happy to see him finish out his term.

[das11209]

Love how every player is saying he did HGH for rehab.

 

 

Well - so far if it is HGH - then the player did it to rehab an injury to help his team. If it's steroid - then it was just one time curiosity for the player.

[das11209]

Like the Dodger's big scoreboard used to say - 'Game Over'.

Brewers general manager Doug Melvin expects newly acquired closer Eric Gagne to eventually address the allegations made against him in the Mitchell Report last week. Melvin, who has discussed the matter with Gagne's agent, Scott Boras, isn't sure when that might happen, however.

[das11209]

From NY Post:

 

The ripples of the Mitchell Report are spreading. The Players Association agreed to meet with Major League Baseball to begin negotiations about re-opening the collective-bargaining agreement to include recommendations from former Sen. George Mitchell. Meanwhile, several congressmen said yesterday they'd like to hear what Roger Clemens has to say about his name appearing in the Mitchell Report. "I think Roger Clemens might have some interesting explaining to do," said Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.). He may get that chance at congressional hearings next month and it is possible players will be subpoenaed.

 

[Jayhawk Bill]

Selig should step down.

 

That would be a good start.

[TheKilo]

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c39216e887be0116e88dfd0d0003

[Thumper]

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c39216e887be0116e88dfd0d0003

 

I can see 26 to 6 agreeing. :harhar:

 

"How you think Ted Williams fought all them Nazis? Roids."

[Jayhawk Bill]

Mini-Bump

 

I'd missed this article 'til now:

 

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1806&Itemid=49

 

It includes this breakdown of drug use violations by team, MLB and MiLB both included:

 

[table]Mariners | 12

Rangers | 10

Mets | 10

Athletics | 9

Cubs | 8

Blue Jays | 8

Padres | 7

Dodgers | 7

Royals | 6

Rockies | 6

Reds | 6

Orioles | 6

Giants | 6

Angels | 6

White Sox | 5

Twins | 5

Cardinals | 5

Yankees | 4

Tigers | 4

Pirates | 4

Diamondbacks | 4

Brewers | 4

Braves | 4

Free Agents | 4

Phillies | 3

Nationals | 3

Guardians | 3

Rays | 3

Astros | 3

None | 3

Marlins | 2

Red Sox | 1[/table]

 

This suggests that the Red Sox system is trying to encourage their players to avoid PEDs. :thumbsup:

[Thumper]

This suggests that the Red Sox system is trying to encourage their players to avoid PEDs. :thumbsup:

 

Or in the eyes of a Yankees fan, Mitchell hid the goods on Ortiz, Ramirez, Nixon, Garciaparra, Varitek, Beckett, and others. Because they had to have juiced!

 

Good stats there Bill.

[HeadOfSoxNation]

Or in the eyes of a Yankees fan, Mitchell hid the goods on Ortiz, Ramirez, Nixon, Garciaparra, Varitek, Beckett, and others. Because they had to have juiced!

 

Good stats there Bill.

 

Yea, Yankee fans (most) do assume that. In fairness, though...assuming that Mitchell's ties to the Red Sox helped a few Sox remain off the list isn't being a Yankee fan, it's being a realist.

[a700hitter]

Yea' date=' Yankee fans (most) do assume that. In fairness, though...assuming that Mitchell's ties to the Red Sox helped a few Sox remain off the list isn't being a Yankee fan, it's being a realist.[/quote']Mitchell didn't put the $20 million in his pocket. There were dozens of investigators beating the bushes for evidence. If there had been any coverup or steering of the committee away from the Red Sox, I am sure that will come out. You can't keep the lid on something on that. I don't think it occurred, so we will not be hearing anything about it except as a result of Yankee fan paranoia.

[TheKilo]

Yea' date=' Yankee fans (most) do assume that. In fairness, though...assuming that Mitchell's ties to the Red Sox helped a few Sox remain off the list isn't being a Yankee fan, it's being a realist.[/quote']

 

Excuse me? You think it may have something to do with the fact the main witnesses were involved with the New York teams?

 

Every player named in the report had the opportunity to speak with Mitchell. I don't blame them for not doing it, because it's their choice. But they had the opportunity to do something about it if they were named.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Yea' date=' Yankee fans (most) do assume that. In fairness, though...assuming that Mitchell's ties to the Red Sox helped a few Sox remain off the list isn't being a Yankee fan, it's being a realist.[/quote']

 

But these aren't Mitchell Report names--they're violations.

 

Here are the details (long link):

 

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=996&Itemid=85

 

Back to the Mitchell Report, maybe the diligence of the Red Sox in enforcing standards in, particularly, its MiLB system was effective. Maybe the sources' being associated with New York made a difference. But regardless of the Mitchell Report, no MLB system has had fewer drug testing violations than the Boston Red Sox.