I do believe that many of the names in the Mitchell report has done some type of performance enhancing substance, and, indeed, at least, a couple of them (Petitte and Roberts) have admitted some truth to the report (though not all). I think the investigation was necessary for the good of baseball.
However, I have such a deep distrust in politicians and lawyers (and Mitchell is both) who are highly skilled in presenting any information to the public as the "truth"(regardless of whether it is or not), that I have a hard time believing that there was no other ulterior motive or "fishiness" to this report.
I think Mitchell was a very bad choice by MLB/Selig (dumbass!) to conduct this investigation, not only because he is a politician and lawyer, but because he is now going back to work for the Red Sox! Hmmmm, can you say "conflict of interest"?
BTW, Mitchell received a 2004 WS ring from the Red Sox.
2007-12-19 09:47:08 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
regardless of senator mitchell's record and reputation (which i know very little about) mlb could have easily avoided some of this criticism by picking someone who has no connections to any team. i have a hard time believing that they couldn't find another person who was as competent and has as good of a record/reputation as senator mitchell, who did not have any ties whatsoever to another team. just another example of the "unthoughfulness" so often displayed by selig and his cronies. i think selig will go down as, perhaps, the worst commissioner in baseball history.
2007-12-19 10:16:15 · answer #1 · answered by l'il xian 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I can totally understand why people feel this way and agree to a point.
It looks like you did a bit of research on Mitchell.
Knowing what you know about him and what he has done outside of baseball on the political front, do you honestly think that he would jeopardize his reputation by protecting the Red Sox?
Just for the record, he is and has always been an unpaid Director and he took a leave while doing the report.
Again, I can agree with concern but let's not forget that Mitchell has an impeccable reputation.
2007-12-19 10:06:43 · answer #2 · answered by Boston_Irish 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I will tell you one thing I believe Mitchell's report and the book "Juiced" more than I believe some players...are you telling me you are going to believe some players who one day will say they have never taken steroids and then the next say they only took it once...to heal faster...as for Mitchell being a bad choice that is your opinion and that is fine...I think he did a good enough job and showed that there wasn't a conflict of interest...and I am getting tired of Yankee fans claiming there were no Red Sox players named when there were.
Edit:
To Sharon S who said "I believe there is a conflict of interest, too. Weren't too many red sox players named." I guess they didn't have any current members named because they didn't re-sign players like Gagne and Donnelly but how many members did you want from the 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.
2007-12-19 10:10:01 · answer #3 · answered by JT-24 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What would Mitchell (and baseball) have to gain by naming players that DIDN'T use HGH or steroids? Do you think they have a vendetta against Pettitte, Clemens, Brian Roberts, and Fernando Vina?
There were 14 former Red Sox named in the report.
Also, one of the sources was an clubhouse assistant for the Yankees. What do you expect?
Common sense isn't as common as it should be.
.
2007-12-19 10:36:09 · answer #4 · answered by Kris 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Politicians and lawyers don't lie unless they have a reason to. Simply put, Mitchell had no reason to lie in his report - he didn't get paid more (or less) for finding proof of steroid use. If anything, he had a personal interest in delivering a fair report - it's his reputation that would suffer if his report were found to be biased.
2007-12-19 11:27:49 · answer #5 · answered by JerH1 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I believe there is a conflict of interest, too. Weren't too many red sox players named. I do believe it does have some validity because since it came out more and more are admitting they used steroids or HGH. None however said I did it to keep up to compete. They all said they used it once or were hurt or on doctor's orders, etc.
2007-12-19 10:09:01 · answer #6 · answered by Sharon S 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
MLB doesn't expect anything from "You" but they do think his word will carry weight with the public. I think he's more credible than Don Fehr or Bud Selig or Barry Bonds.
2007-12-19 10:20:25 · answer #7 · answered by Edward K 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Are you a member of the commissioners office? Are you a writer? Are you a player? Are you part of the Players Association? Are you an usher?
Then you may die. Baseball doesn't CARE what you believe. You're just a fan. A silly, useless, money-filled fan. A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
2007-12-19 10:29:34 · answer #8 · answered by Sarrafzedehkhoee 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
well who else should you believe? i mean this guys a lawyer he spent years in school learning how to investigate illegal things, how to connect things together and prove stuff that happened, i mean who else should have done it?
2007-12-19 10:11:56 · answer #9 · answered by delonzajones 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Certainly they expect you to believe it.
2007-12-19 09:55:20 · answer #10 · answered by postal p 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋