So MLB Spent About $40 Million on That

by royalsreview on Dec 14, 2007 12:31 AM EST in News Comment 20 comments

Hope it was worth it to everybody.

But now we can rest that we know the truth about Nook Logan.

I could have done the same for $25,000, maybe less, since apparently Juiced is acceptable evidence.

The last twelve hours have been quite depressing. The tone was set earlier this morning, when the internet was abuzz with gleeful speculation about "the names". Since then, coverage both intense and casual has treated these names as if they somehow mean anything. Maybe some of them do, but quite a few are mostly specious. To lump them all together is to misconstrue what the Report actually was, or at least, what it wanted to be.

JQ has outlined pretty consistently why the Report needed to be made, and what good might come out of it (check the post below, especially the back-and-forths with NYRoyal).

However, upon further reflection I can find no justification for the inclusion of the precious names. Even if you feel some bit of public shame is a good thing, I think that Mitchell seriously compromised his own claims of balance with the seriously unbalanced nature of the report. Moreover, why did the report have to be realized as such? Why not release a set of general findings and recommendations, and release a fuller version a week later?

Here is the thing about the Steroid Hysteria: since evidence and decency and the presumption of innocence have never mattered, there's no logical end to this. No number of names will ever be enough, because in every city there's another bad guy. Whether its Frank Thomas in Chicago or the Sweeney haters in KC or whatever else, it never ends. If you want to live a long and happy life, I have advice: never cross a sportswriter or a "trainer". Beat your wife, say that your Jewish teammates are going to hell, tell people making minimum wage you need a sales tax to pay for your stadium, whatever. America is a forgiving nation, as we love telling ourselves in between executions, but stay away from substances you believe will be banned in the next decade.

One day if you are really bored, spend a day poking around the blogs and message boards of a team you know nothing about. In short time you will find a local consensus that some random player is an obvious 'roider. The various gay rumors actually provide a close parallel, although interestingly enough, those are usually less vicious. Progress I guess.

For the vocal minority that are obsessed with this, who somehow think that the whole era has been tainted -- but only helped hitters, somehow -- there can never be enough blood in the water. Not until hearsay against the media starts being treated publicly and seriously.

The next time someone broadsides the blogosphere as the site of unsubstantiated rumor-mongering tell them about George Mitchell and DLP.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

JoePo has the best take on it

as usual...
http://www.kansascity.com/180/story/403200.html

by raefzilla on Dec 14, 2007 12:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

eh...

he lost me with the first point

saying that oh of course so many players used roids is NOT the point that needs to be made

by royalsreview on Dec 14, 2007 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're not saying that you don't believe

the era to be tainted, are you? That would be a little crazy. Bonds would have retired 5 or 6 years ago without roids. Instead, he's the home run record holder and that record is laughable now. Maybe I took it out of context. The fact that it tainted the era is basically indisputable, but who is to blame and what to do now are the questions. This report was lame because it didn't talk much about the idiot commissioner or the union. They should have stopped it before it got out of control and yet, they will escape without scrutiny. That's what I'm upset about.

by royaldaddy on Dec 14, 2007 1:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

oh, and to be fair

Roger Clemens, a pitcher, wouldn't be putting up some of his best years past the age of 40 without roids either. He may have been a serviceable pitcher, but not a Cy Young pitcher.

by royaldaddy on Dec 14, 2007 2:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If we all know this era had rampant steroid use,

then why does it matter what peoples' stats are? There have been many, many, many factors that have affected players' stats over the years: steroids, greenies, the dead ball, the live ball, the high mound, the low mound, spitballs, corked bats, gambling issues, the outlawing of black players, stadiums with different dimensions, etc. All of these offered advantages to some players. When knowledgeable people talk about baseball they mention these things. There's no need to go putting asterisks on stats--we know certain stats are inflated or deflated, depending on where and when you played. There are even some stats that measure these differences.

We now "know" that Hal Morris was only half the player he claimed to be and that Mark McGwire was a model human being since he wasn't mentioned in the Mitchell Report.

If we're so obsessed with not "disgracing the game," then why not make an inquiry into Mickey Mantle's past indiscretions? Should the unfair dimensions of Babe Ruth's ballpark be taken into consideration? Did Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown have some sort of advantage? Should Gaylord Perry be thrown out of the Hall of Fame because of his spitball? Satchel Paige pitched into his 50s--sounds suspicious to me. Rickey Henderson stole lots of bases, and I'm sure did a lot of other bad things, too...maybe we should re-examine his credit card receipts.

by mikewormdog on Dec 14, 2007 3:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Jesse Jackson made a good point

when he said that banning African-Americans from MLB was far worse than steroids.

by jbrocato on Dec 14, 2007 6:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

it's been 60 years Jesse

get over it. Stop living in the past and work on the present.

by David Howards Legacy on Dec 14, 2007 10:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I don't see how you can deny the stats. What happened, happened. You can't change the fact that Bonds DID hit those 762 home runs. That is a fact. I don't think you can erase that from memory.

Accept the stats and put them in context. People are smart enough to decide for themselves what is legit and not legit.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 15, 2007 10:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

juiced

accused Bret Boone, Juan Gonzalez & Brady Anderson and possible Ivan Rodriguez. I don't see these names in the report. The first three are pretty clear users.

Help Jose we need more names to feed the machine!

by David Howards Legacy on Dec 14, 2007 10:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Juiced

accused Bret Boone, Juan Gonzalez & Brady Anderson and possible Ivan Rodriguez. I don't see these names in the report. The first three are pretty clear users.

Help Jose we need more names to feed the machine!

by David Howards Legacy on Dec 14, 2007 10:44 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agree with RR

The report should have been written in general terms, excluding names, and, after briefly explaining that a broad drug "culture" was pervasive in the game, the report then should have focused on what was needed to correct the problem. This focus on the future should have constituted over 90% of the report.

Of course, that would be boring to the average fan and media member.

Not to defend Mitchell, but I was personally more appalled at Selig's reaction to the report than Mitchell's inclusion of names.

Mitchell implored the commissioner to not impose penalties, but rather to focus on his recommendations, as I suggest also. Instead, Selig seemed to do the exact opposite!

by loyal2s dad on Dec 14, 2007 11:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

One final point

Selig and Fehr should be embracing each other in the spirit of meaningful reforms right now; instead, they are already posturing for another labor war!

Of course, both sides are awash in cash, so the public "outrage" about steroids is a media creation anyway, evidently.

I don't blame Fehr for his position - unless Selig offers immunity/amnesty for ALL transgressions, it would be irresponsible for Fehr to cooperate. If, on the other hand, Selig would do this, perhaps the two sides can act like the PARTNERS they SHOULD BE.

by loyal2s dad on Dec 14, 2007 11:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

And by the way,

where is the public outcry for Selig to resign?

Seriously, CEOs of other corporations caught in major scandals are usually held accountable, regardless of their level of involvement. At the end of the day, isn't Selig ultimately RESPONSIBLE for his industry? And if so, then why does he get to blame everybody else while virtually going blame-free himself?

Also, WHY ISN'T ANYBODY in the media taking this slant on the whole thing? Indeed, if there is a drug "culture" in MLB, the commissioner should bear some responsibility for letting the culture thrive, should he not?

by loyal2s dad on Dec 14, 2007 11:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Great point

The whole blame issue is why Selig made sure the report was mostly about names and the details of players' misdeeds. He wanted to make sure that the focus was on blaming players. If we all focus on that, then fewer people will be thinking about the responsibility or accountability of owners and MLB leadership.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Dec 14, 2007 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

He is just as complicit in all of this.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 15, 2007 9:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Steroid scandal is a waste of time.

What I want them to get to is the illegal use of pain medications by players. Or perhaps the overuse of cortizone injections. You know, things that actually are directly detrimental to the health of the players that are forced to use them.

Naw, they'll never do that. That might actually keep players OFF the field, not bringing in the fans and making the money. So what if they need knee, hip and shoulder replacements in their 40s. Or become addicted to those narcotic pain medications they are given so liberally in clubhouses and training rooms.

Why are steroids unacceptable and these other "performance enhancing" practices acceptable?

by Big Guy on Dec 14, 2007 12:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

I've made this argument a few times only to be not taken seriously.

Remember when Emmitt Smith had an injured shoulder? He couldn't hold the ball it was so bad. The Cowboys needed him though. They loaded him up with painkillers and he had a great game. Two hundred yards or something.

Painkillers can have seriously damaging effects, let alone the fact that playing with a seriously injured shoulder can have serious medical effects on a person. So why is that considered okay...in fact, it is championed - Smith is gutty and cared about his team to go through that. We applaud him for risking his health for the team.

So why isn't Barry Bonds applauded for risking his health for the good of the team?

I understand its not a perfect analogy, but there does seem to be a double standard. We want athletes to risk their health to win, but not too far!

What about using HGH to recover from injuries like Andy Pettitte did? Is that good that we can have him back on the field sooner? Or is that cheating because he used it to enhance his performance?

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Dec 15, 2007 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Quote of the year...

"We now wait anxiously for former senator George Mitchell's next exciting $40 million report: Cake is fattening."
...Joe Posnanski

by Shooter on Dec 14, 2007 7:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Here's why it matters, RoyalsReview.

The Royals are direct competitors with the Yankees. The Royals' best player's production went straight down the toilet thanks to nagging injuries. The Yankees' two best pitchers were winning World Series games in part because they knowingly took illegal substances.

I understand the philosophical argument that hey, we all knew about it, so what's the big deal. But since steroid use was against the law and, maybe more importantly, against the rules of Baseball, steroid use is an issue. Sweeney followed the rules and paid a price: he started to suck and KC fans started to boo him and blame him for all our ills. Other guys took shots in the ass every couple of weeks and led their teams to glory. That's why it matters.

On a side note, I have never understood the sabermetric/Baseball Prospectus POV (which you and most sabermetric types share) that hates virtually everything the commissioner and owners do but virtually never finds fault with anything the players do.

The Mitchell report makes pretty clear that the Union was actively protecting players it knew were doing steroids. Where does that leave Sweeney and other guys who did want to actively break federal laws and the rules of baseball? So the Union protects the guys that broke the rules, guys like Sweeney watched their careers fall apart, and the typical BP response is to make more snarky comments about Selig. I don't get it.

by Hippstar on Dec 15, 2007 5:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

In case anyone is interested...

Buster Olney has written a well-worded and fairly scathing critique of Mitchell and Selig here:

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3157032&name=olney_buster&lpos=spotlight& amp;lid=tab1pos2&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2fi ndex%3fentryID%3d3157032%26name%3dolney_buster%26lpos%3dspotlight%26lid%3dtab1pos2

For all the criticism we've leveled at ESPN for just being interested in naming names, their columnists (especially Olney and Jayson Stark) have been much more questioning of the Mitchell report than columnists at Sports Illustrated or other places.

by DarthYoshi on Dec 16, 2007 8:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs