Friday, December 14, 2007
More on Mitchell
Tim Marchman of the New York Sun, a little-known gem of a baseball writer, has a smart column about the Mitchell report in today's paper.
A list of all the conflicts of interest that prevent Mitchell from credibly playing an independent role in baseball is tucked away near the end of his voluminous report. Consultant to Boston Red Sox ownership, a former director of the Florida Marlins, and former chairman of Disney at a time when it owned both the Anaheim Angels and ESPN, Mitchell is a member of baseball management as surely as anyone now living. He was also a member of the 2000 Blue Ribbon panel, which produced a notoriously owner-friendly report on baseball economics and prompted Mitchell's former colleagues in the Congress to intervene in baseball labor disputes in various ways.
...The real takeaway here, though, is that despite using questionable means to questionable ends, Mitchell can present literally no evidence of his key claim that "the use of steroids in Major League Baseball was widespread." This assertion is stated flatly, as fact, but his entire report contradicts it.
Marchman goes on to point out that the report paints the players in vividly unflattering terms but consistently suggests that the owners—which is to say, the people who hired Mitchell (who is, after all, a lawyer)—were trying to do the right thing throughout.
...The problem, in this telling, is that the owners have simply been too virtuous for their own good, that if they'd just not been so nice they would have been able to nab the missing 48.5% of drug-addled players that their very expensive investigation wasn't able to find.
And as I keep saying to my colleague, Bom Kim, a Red Sox fan, this report wouldn't pass for good journalism: It's based on interviews with one trainer, one batboy, some stuff from the Barry Bonds investigation, and various news accounts.
I'm not saying that anything in the report is wrong, just that what is not in the report is probably far more important than what is in it. And it seems like there's quite a lot that isn't it.
¶ 11:32 AM
A list of all the conflicts of interest that prevent Mitchell from credibly playing an independent role in baseball is tucked away near the end of his voluminous report. Consultant to Boston Red Sox ownership, a former director of the Florida Marlins, and former chairman of Disney at a time when it owned both the Anaheim Angels and ESPN, Mitchell is a member of baseball management as surely as anyone now living. He was also a member of the 2000 Blue Ribbon panel, which produced a notoriously owner-friendly report on baseball economics and prompted Mitchell's former colleagues in the Congress to intervene in baseball labor disputes in various ways.
...The real takeaway here, though, is that despite using questionable means to questionable ends, Mitchell can present literally no evidence of his key claim that "the use of steroids in Major League Baseball was widespread." This assertion is stated flatly, as fact, but his entire report contradicts it.
Marchman goes on to point out that the report paints the players in vividly unflattering terms but consistently suggests that the owners—which is to say, the people who hired Mitchell (who is, after all, a lawyer)—were trying to do the right thing throughout.
...The problem, in this telling, is that the owners have simply been too virtuous for their own good, that if they'd just not been so nice they would have been able to nab the missing 48.5% of drug-addled players that their very expensive investigation wasn't able to find.
And as I keep saying to my colleague, Bom Kim, a Red Sox fan, this report wouldn't pass for good journalism: It's based on interviews with one trainer, one batboy, some stuff from the Barry Bonds investigation, and various news accounts.
I'm not saying that anything in the report is wrong, just that what is not in the report is probably far more important than what is in it. And it seems like there's quite a lot that isn't it.
¶ 11:32 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Shame on you Richard for taking the Karl Rove technique and attacking the messenger, instead of facing up to what the report says. And for letting your being a Yankee fan outweigh being a baseball fan.
Given that only two active players (Giambi and Frank Thomas) cooperated, it should be no surprise the report has to rely on some less than firm evidence. The shame is that press reports have lumped the people who have shaky, second hand evidence (for example, Brian Roberts) and those that have firm proof (Miguel Tejada for one). I mean, the whole end of the report are photocopies of the CHECKS PLAYERS WROTE FOR THE DRUGS. What more evidence do you need? Video of them getting the shots?
Given that only two active players (Giambi and Frank Thomas) cooperated, it should be no surprise the report has to rely on some less than firm evidence. The shame is that press reports have lumped the people who have shaky, second hand evidence (for example, Brian Roberts) and those that have firm proof (Miguel Tejada for one). I mean, the whole end of the report are photocopies of the CHECKS PLAYERS WROTE FOR THE DRUGS. What more evidence do you need? Video of them getting the shots?
# posted by 
: December 14, 2007 1:18 PM
: December 14, 2007 1:18 PM
Could someone explain to me why anything relating to baseball is an issue for the Senate? I'm completely baffled by this.
Beecham -- because Congress has granted baseball an exemption from monopoloy laws, they have a right (actually an obligation) to be involved in situations like this.
# posted by : December 14, 2007 1:40 PM
: December 14, 2007 1:40 PM
It's like a public-private partnership. The government maintains the monopoly, and then the elected officials get to be bigshots with celebrity players and team owners. The government couldn't be involved in the NFL in the same way. (Not that I would want to suggest that there is any steroid use in pro football!)
# posted by : December 14, 2007 2:48 PM
: December 14, 2007 2:48 PM
1:18, I think Marchman's argument that the report doesn't support its conclusions is worth considering. I'll read it this weekend, and perhaps we can reconvene.
It's true, though, that I'm not a huge fan of George Mitchell, who has always seemed overrated to me.
I think the disappointment with this report is that it will go down as the "definitive word" on the steroid issues, but because of the weak hand Mitchell was dealt (no subpeona power, no players required to talk to him) and perhaps because of his bias as director of the Red Sox, it really only scratches the surface.
The bottom line is this: This is the worst event to hit baseball since the Black Sox scandal. I would argue this is worse than professional bike racing where it really seems everyone is on drugs, so it is hard to say anybody got an edge. With baseball, the highest estimates that I've seen guess 50% of players used steroids. That does not mean "everyone did it" like some people like to say. That means half did it. They cheated. If still playing, they should all be banned from the game. If they are retired they should be banned from joing the Hall of Fame and their records stricken from the books.
That would certainly get everyone's attention and quickly end drug cheating in baseball imho.
The bottom line is this: This is the worst event to hit baseball since the Black Sox scandal. I would argue this is worse than professional bike racing where it really seems everyone is on drugs, so it is hard to say anybody got an edge. With baseball, the highest estimates that I've seen guess 50% of players used steroids. That does not mean "everyone did it" like some people like to say. That means half did it. They cheated. If still playing, they should all be banned from the game. If they are retired they should be banned from joing the Hall of Fame and their records stricken from the books.
That would certainly get everyone's attention and quickly end drug cheating in baseball imho.
# posted by : December 14, 2007 3:15 PM
: December 14, 2007 3:15 PM
This is not the worst thing to happen since the Black Sox scandal. Yes, using PEDs (performance-enhancing drugs) is cheating, but so what? When people on the teams we root for cheat, we cheer them for being tough and gritty and wanting to win more than anything else. Gaylord Perry didn't do so badly building a career on cheating.
Honestly, though, this is just a logical extension of the culture of sports. We want our athletes to be willing to do anything and everything to win. We then say that we want them to win with honor and win honestly, but if we find out that one of our people cheated to win, we will make excuses and justifications to explain it away (see Belichick and the videotaping). If every professional athlete who regularly broke one of the rules of his sport were to be kicked out, there wouldn't be anybody left playing.
Does that mean we should ignore PEDs? Of course not. It just means that we should keep the whole thing in perspective. Sports are so popular because they are unpredictable contests between teams of people who are all trying to win. The win-at-all-costs culture that we sports fans have created is why athletes try to cut corners to get ahead. That's completely different from gambling, wherein the nature of the contest itself is called into question. Using PEDs is no different--within the context of the game--than throwing a spitball or corking a bat. It's cheating, but it's cheating to win. Gambling raises the specter of athletes cheating to lose, that the outcomes of these contests that we pay so much money to see are actually predetermined.
Honestly, though, this is just a logical extension of the culture of sports. We want our athletes to be willing to do anything and everything to win. We then say that we want them to win with honor and win honestly, but if we find out that one of our people cheated to win, we will make excuses and justifications to explain it away (see Belichick and the videotaping). If every professional athlete who regularly broke one of the rules of his sport were to be kicked out, there wouldn't be anybody left playing.
Does that mean we should ignore PEDs? Of course not. It just means that we should keep the whole thing in perspective. Sports are so popular because they are unpredictable contests between teams of people who are all trying to win. The win-at-all-costs culture that we sports fans have created is why athletes try to cut corners to get ahead. That's completely different from gambling, wherein the nature of the contest itself is called into question. Using PEDs is no different--within the context of the game--than throwing a spitball or corking a bat. It's cheating, but it's cheating to win. Gambling raises the specter of athletes cheating to lose, that the outcomes of these contests that we pay so much money to see are actually predetermined.
# posted by : December 14, 2007 4:49 PM
: December 14, 2007 4:49 PM
4:49 that's absurd. Cheating is cheating and it's wrong. Your comparison to corking a bat or a spit ball misses the point: those are rare occassions. These were widespread, representing from around 8% to 50% of players, and including the man who broke Hank Aaron's home run record, and a pitcher who is (or rather, seemed to be) the best pitcher since Walter Johnson. That's a bit more than a corked bat and a spitball here and there.
# posted by : December 14, 2007 7:36 PM
: December 14, 2007 7:36 PM
looks like the A's traded Haren to the Diamondbacks, so the Yankees have missed out on getting another top notch starter. This is not good for Yankee fans
# posted by : December 14, 2007 8:29 PM
: December 14, 2007 8:29 PM
Rich, how about a little check-in analysis on the Dem primary run? Hillary is finally going down, and it's a beautiful thing...
# posted by : December 15, 2007 1:18 PM
: December 15, 2007 1:18 PM
Hilary fails to gain sufficient electoral votes to win on first ballot. Convention moves to draft Gore. Hillary accepts VP. Gore triumphs. Obama waits. Edwards pines. Kucinich grows shorter.
# posted by : December 17, 2007 11:12 AM
: December 17, 2007 11:12 AM
Don't be silly. Gore is on tape last week criticizing the US of A in front of a bunch of foreigners, which means even Ron Paul would beat him. He's not running for anything. Go Edwards!
Post a Comment
# posted by : December 17, 2007 10:48 PM
: December 17, 2007 10:48 PM<< Home
