More Skepticism about the Mitchell Report The Baltimore Orioles have released a statement urging baseball fans to read the Mitchell report with skepticism.

The Baltimore organization said it supported baseball’s efforts to rid the game of performance-enhancing drugs but took issue with how Mitchell decided to include names in his final report.

“As to the information and allegations contained in the Mitchell report, the Orioles caution observers to resist the temptation to accept collective judgments based upon unsubstantiated allegations,” the statement said.

Meanwhile, in the Times, Murray Chass argues that George Mitchell did a terrible job investigating steroid use in baseball.

The report talks about the widespread use of steroids, but by now we know that, albeit belatedly. What we don’t know is how widespread the use was, and Mitchell can’t tell us because he doesn’t know.

Was it the 5 to 7 percent who tested positive anonymously in 2003? Was it the 50 percent estimated by Ken Caminiti? Was it the 85 percent that José Canseco said? The Mitchell report doesn’t tell us. The report doesn’t define “widespread use.” There is, I would say, a large difference between 5 percent (about 40 players) and 85 percent (about 680).

And here's the problem that, from a journalistic point of view, stands out in my mind: Mitchell's reliance upon a handful of sources to draw sweeping conclusions.

Two-thirds to three-fourths of the approximately 90 names in the Mitchell report came from Kirk Radomski (Brian McNamee, who gave Mitchell the names of Clemens and Andy Pettitte, was a Radomski customer). Most of the others came from the Balco case and the Albany County district attorney’s investigation into Florida pharmacies and clinics. Still others came from baseball’s list of suspended players.

Pretty lame, for a guy who took 20 months investigating. And Mitchell only got McNamee because the Feds leaned on him.

Sadly, the Mitchell report seems to raise more questions than it answers. And one of them is still, how compromised was Mitchell himself?  ¶ 7:28 AM