The Mitchell Report: My take
posted in 2007-08 offseason, Analysis |Hey, it’s later.
In the 12 hours since Senator George Mitchell’s Report first come out, we’ve had a chance to hear from him, from MLB commissioner Bud Selig, from the Players’ Union, and from some people named in the report. A lot of people have come to the conclusion it’s a weak, useless report. Some claim it’s useful. Most agree, however, it’s important. I believe the Report must be reflected upon, and hope that it’s a call to make further progress to try to keep the sport clean.
I’ve heard ESPN and its lawyers hype the fact a lot of the peopled named in the report are based on circumstantial evidence given by a select few individuals facing prosecution and talking. That’s a good point.
At SI.com, Jon Donovon writes
When we’re considering the weight of evidence in the report, it’s probably smart to remember this: Mitchell is a former federal prosecutor and judge, and the people running these investigations — people who compelled the testimony of Bigbie, former Mets batboy Kirk Radomski and former Yankees and Blue Jays trainer Brian McNamee, all of whom gave the Mitchell report the weight that it has — are professionals. They know what constitutes solid evidence. They know what they’re doing.
Logically, that’s called appeal to authority. You expect because he’s a former prosecutor, you can trust it. He’s the authority there. But on the other hand, you really have to let the report speak for itself, and the parts I read were really mixed, some areas stronger than others.
But I’m not really going to address that. I’m more interested in the “What should happen” portion of the story. Bud Selig, in his press conference, said he’ll take it by a case-by-case basis and decide punishments. The counterargument “It wasn’t against the rules then” can’t really fly, as Mitchell says in the report (as David Pinto pointed out):
There is a widespread misconception that the use of steroids and other performance enhancing substances, such as human growth hormone, was not prohibited in Major League Baseball before the inclusion of the joint drug program in the 2002 Basic Agreement. In fact, as early as 1991 baseball’s drug policy expressly prohibited the use of “all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual … does not have a prescription.”
So, there is reason to punish players. It’s allowed I’d say. But should Selig? Mitchell says no. I agree.
For one, the report singles out the wrongdoers who happened to deal with limited sources. What about the other ones? Are future reports coming out that tells us about a Midwest steroids kingpin? Second, the evidence is not always compelling. Sometimes (Brian Roberts, for example) it’s flat out weak. Third, some are retired. You only punish the ones who have the gall to keep playing or what?
I think the punishment has to come from the public. Whether or not Selig and MLB fine someone, or take a few weeks off their upcoming season, is ultimately a short event. Rogers Clemens and his accomplishments should never be looked upon the same again, if the allegations are true (He denies them). Same with Andy Pettitte. Same with Miguel Tejada, and all the former All-Stars. The late 90s-early 2000s era was already considered tainted. Now we have better proof of that. Ultimately, how we remember these players 20, 30, 40 years from now, means more than anything Selig can do to them during the 2008 season. If we choose to forgive and forget, that’s fine, too. But it’s up to baseball fans, not baseball, to dole out punishment.
For that reason, I am ultimately against putting an asterisks by Barry Bonds’ home run record, or Clemens’ Cy Young award, or Tejada’s MVP award, or anything else. If it really is important, we’ll remember. At this point, like not following up with punishments, I feel baseball has to let history be history. Nothing can be done to change the past. Don’t drag it on.
Rather, Baseball should hopefully learn from the report. Further testing year round, unannounced, would be a great start. I like the punishment levels as they are. But you want to make sure there’s no tipping of the hand to players or teams when they might be tested.
As for the report, I feel like it didn’t tell us much new or much of importance. It was too much like gossip with innuendo stepping forward where strong ties couldn’t be made. . I don’t know that it told us anything we didn’t know. And I don’t know if it gave any recommendations anyone with half a brain couldn’t have come up with. The hope, in having a report at all, is that it carries enough weight to force both baseball executives and the players to act.
On that point, we’ll have to see. Otherwise, it could be an ugly blemish for the careers of many players and tarring of the sport in general with little good coming of it yet our puerile curiosity served.
Sphere It
Good job, Kurt. Your coverage of this has been among the best I’ve seen.
Thanks, Matt!