He is the director for the Boston Red Sox and just happened to be privilaged to the Paul Byrd information. Isn't it a bit suspiscious that the information came out right before game 7?
2007-10-23 04:22:55 · 11 answers · asked by josh_huth 3 in Sports ➔ Baseball
You are right he didn't pitch, but he is a clubhouse presence because of his leadership abilities. So I am sure it was a distraction to the team when they needed to be getting loose and ready to go for the game.
2007-10-23 04:32:53 · update #1
It may have been a distraction because media flooded the Indians clubhouse hours prior to Game 7 over the issue with Byrd. And I think it was a conflict of interest and if it weren't the info had no freaking business being leaked prior to such a pivotal game. Byrd might not have been pitching that night but Byrd admitted that he spoke with all the players prior to the game that night. That is because it was the big story at the time. Right when they were preparing for the biggest game of the season. Mitchell should be emasculated - he can deny the leak but please spare us - he is GUILTY. Conflict of interest? THINK IF IT WAS YOU OR YOUR TEAM? People were screaming over Steinbrenner calling out Torre during the playoffs so why is this different?
2007-10-23 04:31:33 · answer #1 · answered by alomew_rocks 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It could have, and probably should have been handled better. There wasn't any real rhyme of reason why this story could not have broken following the series.
I would agree with what Byrd said about the timing being disappointing, but the way people are reacting, you'd think the Cleveland players were shaken to the core following a death in the family, so it'd be a real stretch to use this as either an excuse, or the creation of some simpleton conspiracy theory.
Like it was said, Paul Byrd being nabbed as a purchaser of HGH doesn't negate the areas on the field where the Indians didn't come through in order to secure the series...
Edit: Such bitterness, Doc...did Josh Beckett steal a Granola bar from you, or something?
2007-10-23 05:50:09 · answer #2 · answered by Adam 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is a conflict of interest for someone with a vested financial interest in one of the clubs to be investigating steroid usage in baseball.
I'm not saying that he had anything to do with leaking information about Paul Byrd but the very fact that people are asking about this is exactly because of the conflict of interest which exists.
People need to understand what a conflict of interst is. It doesn't mean that someone is cheating. The conflict of interest started the moment Mitchell took the position of leading the investigation. He is a part owner in a team. He should not be leading an investigation that could, possibly hurt or help his financial interest in that team.
2007-10-23 06:11:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
For the investigation to be a non-partial investigation it is a conflict of interests but for that game it should have had no impact whatsoever. I have said since the beginning of this witch hunt that Mitchell is a conflict but Bud Selig likes to have people on his investigations that are connected to him and he knows will not paint him in a bad light, he does a good enough job doing that himself. He thinks that by having the former Senator in the investigation it will keep the Congress (opposite of Progress) from doing anything to further legislate his sport but in reality they will just wait for his sham of a report and do what they want anyway.
Someone with no connection to any teams would be non-partial but this is just another Massachusetts witch hunt!
2007-10-23 04:36:19 · answer #4 · answered by bdough15 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that it would probably be better to have a third party which is not in any way associated with MLB should do the investigation but who cares when his name came out? His name coming out didn't hold up Lofton at third, his name coming out didn't give up 8 runs in the final two Boston at-bats, and his name coming out had nothing to do with the outcome of the game...just as I said when people complained about the Indians getting Beckett's ex to sing in game 5...it doesn't matter and had nothing to do with the outcome.
2007-10-23 04:45:19 · answer #5 · answered by JT-24 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really, since the teams were supposed to cooperate fully with Mitchell. Thus, he would (or should) have had access to any such information that the Red Sox, or any other team, had.
2007-10-23 05:45:33 · answer #6 · answered by JerH1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it was that bad, asked this question about an hour or so ago myself. I think it's questionable, but I don't think there was intentional wrong doing. I agree even if he doesn't pitch it still does hurt a teams concentration though. I hope not for their sake. Massachussetts already has the Patriots in trouble for being shady.
2007-10-23 04:40:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
its the same sh......., the jets accused the pats of spying , and now the redsucks release this , its supposed that the evil empire is in Ny doesnt?
in a cloe game the minimun thing or distracction cna meke the difference
2007-10-23 05:13:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Byrd didn't even pitch. How could that affect the outcome of game 7?
LOL
Excuses, excuses.
2007-10-23 04:27:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
More lack of class by a supporter of the Red Sox.... Of course it is. No doubt about it.
2007-10-23 05:54:14 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋