Mitchell is the teams Director but he insist that his findings are non biased. What do you think?
2007-12-14 05:11:47 · 25 answers · asked by "B" Bop 3 in Sports ➔ Baseball
It has nothing to do with bias - there were just no rats in the Sox clubhouse, unlike that of the New Yorkers. His information was limited, which was why the list isn't meant to be all-inclusive.
Moonchild - I called them rats for "ratting" on the players. It may come across as derogatory, but it's not meant that way. I do agree with you that it would be nice to get the drugs out of the sport, but it's sad that Selig needed someone to show him what a serious problem baseball has.
2007-12-14 05:18:57 · answer #1 · answered by Craig S 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Exactly If any of them did use Steroids they would be off the Team, and an easier Indictment by the Courts will happen, Plus Schilling and Ramirez not the report because they are helping in the Investigation, as is yeah Yankee Slugger Jason Giambi.
So they want to be playing, I think the RED SOX are WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS for one Reason because they don't use steroids and will help Mitchell on finding who did or who does use Steroids.
2007-12-14 07:08:36 · answer #2 · answered by tfoley5000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its like what they said on first take yesterday before the list came out that if there are not any current red sox players on the report then the list has little if not any credibility at all and in my opinion is that mitchell is trying to tear the other teams up so his red sox can keep on winning.
2007-12-14 06:43:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't forget that Bud Selig was a majority owner of the Milwaukee Brewers from 1970 to 1992 until he became the Commissioner of Major League Baseball and then sold the team to his daughter Wendy Selig-Prieb and President George Bush was partial owner of the Texas Rangers from 1989 to 1994. All went through the steroid era as owners.
I would have to review the report and then link players mentioned who played for these teams under the control of those mentioned above during that time. I think he was fair.
I want to see more names as the list continues to grow.
2007-12-14 06:14:53 · answer #4 · answered by rdrssuk 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is getting old, but . . .
First, Mitchell is not on the Red Sox board of directors. He is a consultant to the owners who has no voting rights, or any other rights pertaining to the organization or its operations. If you go through the names, you'll find more Mets listed than any other.
Second, the primary individual to roll over on players is from New York, so it's only logical that those players will show up more often. Also, Clemens, Pettitte and Knoblauch show up because a personal trainer for them was tied to Radomski, who was the primary supplier for the New York area.
Third, If anyone would take the time to read the report (and a few on here have), if there was one individual who comes across as a common tie to just about everyone listed, it's David Segui. Kind of like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, you know. Much of the report can be traced back to his early involvement.
2007-12-14 05:22:00 · answer #5 · answered by llk51 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
There may be no current Red Sox. Former members of the Red Sox linked to performance-enhancing drugs in the report include Roger Clemens, Mo Vaughn, Eric Gagne, Brendan Donnelly, Steve Woodard, Jose Canseco, Manny Alexander, Paxton Crawford, Jeremy Giambi, Josias Manzanillo, Chris Donnels, Mike Lansing, Kent Mercker, and Mike Stanton.
2007-12-14 05:19:15 · answer #6 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe the report. I think it is biased. If they wanted more fans to believe it, they should have gotten someone who isn't partial to any team. How am I supposed to believe a report from someone with ties to the Red Sox, a rival organization? The Red Sox could be out to get the Yankees. It could be payback for A-Rod being announced a free agent while the Red Sox were celebrating their championship.
2007-12-14 16:37:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What troubles me more than anything else about this report is that he has named names without any real concrete evidence. He may have destroyed these people's lives without blinking an eye. Talk about irresponsible! I can't believe some of the reactions from people in the website. Nothing but innuendos. This is turning out to be a real mess.
2007-12-14 14:05:02 · answer #8 · answered by The Mick 7 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The fact is, they don't know how many players used steroids. They went by someone else's word, not the players, and not any type of testing. They should test every player. This day and age it is bad they are unable to develop a test to track the use of any type of steroid by hair. That way no one would have to urinate or give blood.
2007-12-14 07:10:31 · answer #9 · answered by CommonSense 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Boston Red Sox. BRS. You can't spell BRS without BS.
And to the guy who said Jason Varitek was listed in the report: No, he was not.
2007-12-14 06:50:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋