It is not positive that everyone listed in the Mitchell Report took steroids. It is all alledged. I really dont think Andy Pettitte took steroids. Just doesnt look it. Just an example. People are like "oh no ____ took steroids, I hate him now." It is not positive that he took them without full proof. Do you agree? Star if you do.
2007-12-13 13:44:42 · 18 answers · asked by Doc Yankee30™ 5 in Sports ➔ Baseball
The Mitchell report doesn't say that Pettite took steroids. He took HGH.
He had lots of stuff to back it up. He has testimony. If these people lied that isn't his fault, but they are reliable sources.
Yes there may only be 4 people associated with the Red Sox named but there was only 1 from the Rays. Does that mean Tampa is in on the conspiracy? No. The Orioles, Mets, Dodgers, and Yankees got the most names because they had people testify against them. Someone testified that steroids were used by Chicago Cubs in 1999, but didn't list names.
It isn't a conspiracy, it is what is available. If people from other clubs forward, then they will be called out.
2007-12-13 14:19:53 · answer #1 · answered by Chris W 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Something good came out of the report. For the first time since the whole steroids debate started, the media has begun using the word ""recover"". Did the media finally found out what steroids do? That is what they do. The recover your body. Some use it to recover from work out sessions, others use it just to get by injuries. On our own, with out the use of drugs, our body heals with time. Steroids cures what it normally would cure on its own in a much rapid phase. People who lift weights, runners and all other sorts of athletes who train to the max benefit of steroids. Instead of waiting for their body to recover, steroids will get them good to go the next day.
The whole idea and logic that you need to be strong/ripped, a specific shape to be in steroids is wrong. People who take steroids may look no different than the average person. Saying some one is fat or skinny and say they are not a steroids user shows how much you know about steroids.
Another great thing brought up today was high school kids using steroids. This not just the athletes, but all the entire campus. This story was nothing new. It was first brought up two years ago.
2007-12-13 14:21:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree! Look at Rick Ankiel for example. He never even took steroids, it was HGH and he took it for a short period of time for injuries (it was prescribed to him) which he also took BEFORE it was banned in baseball. So I'm sure a lot of the players on that list are in the same situation. So many people seem to be assuming that now that a bunch of players' names come out that they were supposedly linked to steroids, they assume that this is the worst thing every to baseball and that baseball will never be the same, and that everybody in MLB takes steroids. That is so unrealistic.
2007-12-13 15:51:04 · answer #3 · answered by St. Louis Cardinals Fan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Mitchell report section on Pettitte only references human growth hormone, which is not a steroid.
2007-12-13 13:59:37 · answer #4 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
1. THE MITCHELL REPORT CLARIFIED THIS UP FRONT, THAT ALL 30 MLB TEAMS HAD PLAYERS THAT JUICED. 2. THE SEARCH WOULD BE ENDLESS, TIME CONSUMING AND COSTLY. THIS INVESTIGATION COST MORE THAN 16 MILLION DOLLARS. 3. WHATS GLARING ABOUT THE REPORT AN HAS BEEN UNDERSCORED, TO SOME DEGREE, BUT ITS CRYSTAL CLEAR TO ME.... THE LAST 30 YEARS STEROIDS WERE WIDESPREAD IN MLB....SO THERE WAS IN FACT AN "EQUAL PLAYING FIELD" THE MLB HALLOF FAME , CAN NAME ERAS, IN THE END, THIS WILL BE TITLED THE ..."STEROID ERA" ACCEPT IT AND MOVE FORWARD NOTE: MLB MADE MONEY WITH THE FANS KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT WAS GOING ON, BEFORE, DURING AND NOW AFTER THESE EXPOSED PLAYERS. MLB: FROM 1 BILLION TO OVER 6 BILLION SPORT
2016-05-23 11:30:20 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
personally i feel the Mitchell Report is a load of garbage im not saying that none of the people listed took steroids but not all some 88 people
in the subject of Andy Pettitte i feel they jus need a big time player on a big time team to get the attention of the public (although it has nothing to do wit being a yankee makes it ok and it can be ignored) im also not saying he did or did not take steroids
2007-12-13 14:14:02 · answer #6 · answered by th3rizzkid7 1 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Jason Grimsley don't look like he took steroids but he did and he came out and said it.Steroids does not always make you look bigger but can give that extra umph on the fastball or slider to get a extra 4-7 mph on it.
2007-12-13 13:59:28 · answer #7 · answered by james p 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
listen people, mitchell would not name these poeple witout knowing the risks he takes.If McNamee is wrong and Mitchell ran with it anyway, then Clemens can sue the former Congressional leader, Major League Baseball and his drug-dealing former trainer for about a billion dollars.
This report, painstakingly investigated and detailed, may be a witch hunt to cleanse Selig's soul, but it isn't operated by fools. It’s extremely unlikely Mitchell and MLB would set itself up for such risk.
2007-12-13 14:24:49 · answer #8 · answered by damanjd1 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Stop defending ex-Yankees. Since Im a Giants fan should I start saying Bonds didnt take steroids??
I agree Petitte dosent look it, but definatley Roger Clemens. Hes a disgrace just as Bonds is.
2007-12-13 14:41:10 · answer #9 · answered by drummerBoy 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I'm sure Senator Mitchell just tossed names out there, just for the hell of it.
I'm also sure Petitte didn't use steriods, because he did a really nice interview in 1998 and wears a cross. So it must be a set up.
Grow up.
2007-12-13 14:30:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋