Shots In The Dark
Friday, December 14, 2007
  The Mitchell Report
Like a lot of Yankee fans, I am dismayed by the news that Andy Pettitte was a steroid user, though not entirely shocked; he's close friends with Roger Clemens, and that suspicion has long hovered over the Rocket. (Just ask Mike Piazza.) The other Yankees named in the report aren't really central to the team—Kevin Brown (that explains him punching a wall), Gary Sheffield, and so on. They were hired guns.

But also like many Yankee fans, I am skeptical about the paucity of Red Sox players mentioned in the Mitchell report. The only one of import: Mo Vaughn, and he hasn't played with Boston for a decade. (He's retired now.) Ortiz? Ramirez? Other Red Sox who suddenly had terrific years in, say, 2004?

We'll never know. And, one suspects, a big reason we'll never know is because George Mitchell is a director of the Red Sox.

How baseball could have asked a man who's affiliated with one team to conduct this investigation, I'll never understand, but it's probably evidence of Bud Selig's general incompetence.

"Take a look at how the investigation was conducted," said Mitchell. "Read the report. You will not find any evidence of bias, of special treatment of the Red Sox or anyone else, because there isn't. They had no effect -- none whatsoever -- on this investigation for this report. As for players, I remind you that it is common now for players to serve many clubs. Many of the players named on this report played for many years with other clubs, including the Red Sox."

Oh, balderdash. The Red Sox dodged a bullet when Mitchell was named to head this investigation, and they must be delighted with the report. (They should be.)

The Times genuflects before the Mitchell aura, raising the issue of Mitchell's potential bias, then merely saying, essentially, that everyone respects George Mitchell. (Which, frankly, ain't necessarily so.)

When of course, every decent journalist would know that appointing a director of one team to run such an investigation compromises the thing from the start.

“Judge me by my work,” Mitchell said. “Read the report.”

To be fair, I haven't done that yet. (It's 400 pages long.)


Still, Mitchell's conflict of interest should have prevented him from heading this investigation, and if Selig et al think that this report has closed a chapter on steroids, they are wrong. The question of whether it whitewashes the record of baseball's dominant team of this decade will remain.
 
Comments:
Think the impending report had anything to do with trading Gagne?
 
Knock it off ya big baby and accept that for once Boston beat NY.

Enough!
 
I do, oddjob.

I give the Sox plenty of credit for beating NY. They deserved both their Series wins. But this is an anti-New York report, and you have to wonder if Mitchell/MLB aren't protecting the Red Sox.
 
Having only recently become a baseball fan, I can look at this report in a fairly unbiased way and my very first impression also was that it was an anti-Yankee report. Now that I know Mitchell is a Director of the Red Sox, I have to wonder what Selig or whoever was responsible could have been thinking. In what other kind of investigation would there be allowed such blatant conflict of interest.

lmpaulsen
 
Dan Shaughnessy is pretty good on that point in his column today:

"Mitchell again arrogantly dismissed his obvious conflict of interest by citing his good works and his efforts brokering peace in Northern Ireland. It's astounding that a man as smart as Mitchell can so easily shrug off his compromised position. He either has a blind spot or he thinks his audience is stupid. The man is the official "director" of the Red Sox and he just issued a report that trashes some Yankee gods while leaving the championship Red Sox unscathed (Mo Vaughn played here in the pre-Mitchell era, Eric Gagné was dirty as a Dodger, and who cares about Mike Lansing?). Mitchell's reputation is impeccable, but he had no business holding his Red Sox title while conducting this investigation."
 
I spent most of the afternoon yesterday stuck in traffic (the snow!) with nothing to do but listen to radio as all this news trickled out. What was strange was that talk show hosts were mentioning Varitek and Nomar a few times, as if they were in the report, but obviously they weren't! I don't understand what that was all about.
 
You all should read the report before coming to any conclusions. For one thing, you'd learn that Pettitte isn't accused of using steroids; he's accused of using HGH to recover from an elbow injury in 2002, which is well before HGH was banned by baseball, for example.

You all should also familiarize yourselves with baseball a little. The Red Sox didn't trade Gagne this offeason as you seem to imply, oddjob60. They just refused to offer him a new contract and if you ever watched him pitch for the Sox, you'd immediately know why that was the case (Hint: he sucked).

Moreover, if you actually read the report, you'd see the Red Sox do not come off well. Emails in the report show that in 2006, Wonder Boy Theo specifically inquired of a scout if Gagne was a "juicer"; the scout said he thought Gagne probably had used steroids and Theo traded for him anyway the next year.

So, again, if you even glance at the actual report, it would be clear to you this is not an anti-Yankees report. Now, the way that the media is covering this story is both poorly informed and Yankee-centric, to be sure, but what else is new?
 
eadw: there was a fake list of names circulating on the Internet yesterday before the report was actually released (see here) that included Nomar, Tek, and Damon, among others. About half the names on that list turned out to be wrong.

For what it's worth, I bet Nomar actually did use steroids, though.
 
Lets face it, folks - the real news here is that our beloved national pasttime is rotten as a turkey cooked at 150 degrees. Psst, wanna know another secret: steroids are big in the NFL too. Oh my, oh my, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!
 
9:38, far and away the most intelligent opinion found here. Kudos.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More

Name: Richard Bradley
Location: New York, New York
ARCHIVES
2/1/05 - 3/1/05 / 3/1/05 - 4/1/05 / 4/1/05 - 5/1/05 / 5/1/05 - 6/1/05 / 6/1/05 - 7/1/05 / 7/1/05 - 8/1/05 / 8/1/05 - 9/1/05 / 9/1/05 - 10/1/05 / 10/1/05 - 11/1/05 / 11/1/05 - 12/1/05 / 12/1/05 - 1/1/06 / 1/1/06 - 2/1/06 / 2/1/06 - 3/1/06 / 3/1/06 - 4/1/06 / 4/1/06 - 5/1/06 / 5/1/06 - 6/1/06 / 6/1/06 - 7/1/06 / 7/1/06 - 8/1/06 / 8/1/06 - 9/1/06 / 9/1/06 - 10/1/06 / 10/1/06 - 11/1/06 / 11/1/06 - 12/1/06 / 12/1/06 - 1/1/07 / 1/1/07 - 2/1/07 / 2/1/07 - 3/1/07 / 3/1/07 - 4/1/07 / 4/1/07 - 5/1/07 / 5/1/07 - 6/1/07 / 6/1/07 - 7/1/07 / 7/1/07 - 8/1/07 / 8/1/07 - 9/1/07 / 9/1/07 - 10/1/07 / 10/1/07 - 11/1/07 / 11/1/07 - 12/1/07 / 12/1/07 - 1/1/08 /


Powered by Blogger