The Mitchell Report & Affect on MLB

[TheBearcatHimself]

Sorry, I cannot agree with that. First of all, even if you completely throw out all statistics from 2002 forward, both Clemens & Bonds would be and should be first ballot entries into the HOF. Look up their stats and just try to fashion an argument otherwise. Secondly, unless you want to revisit the drug use of all players in the HOF who played in the 60s through the end of the 90s that regularly used drugs dispensed in MLB clubhouses, your steroid argument bears no weight. It's selective discrimination, at best, fueled by media hysteria.

Exactly, this is the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Ethics Hall of Fame. I think you really have more of an argument to keep Rose out of this gentlemen's club than Bonds and Clemens because of the fact baseball ignored the steroid issue completely and didn't make any rules regarding them at all.

And yes, if you are going to paint them with a broad stroke then that stroke must cover everyone from the 40's, 50's and 60's to present. It is widely known that players took (and probly still take) greenies, or amphetamines, to get up for all 162 games. How do we view these people? This isn't exactly legal, but there is still no rule against it and if we had a "Greenie Report" I guarantee you'd have alot more names on that list than just the ones we're talking about.

My personal viewpoint is that you must presume a player was juicing during this period, regardless, which therefore nullifies any "edge". Hell, when Brian Roberts is named and then admits to juicing, who can't be?? This era will be remembered as a juiced era but no asterisks will be kept, the severity that we all see now will be forgotten and this will be just another "phase" in hindsight.

[StrykerFSU]

Exactly, this is the Baseball Hall of Fame, not the Ethics Hall of Fame.

Then why is their an integrity clause on the ballot? I'm not making this up, it's part of the voters' instructions. Until you address how Bonds or Clemens have integrity despite cheating and lying about it, I don't see how you can argue for their inclusion.

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/bbwaa.jsp

As for players already in the Hall, I don't think you can retroavtively nullify someone's enshrinement but you can certainly keep out those that we know to have cheated.

My personal viewpoint is that you must presume a player was juicing during this period, regardless, which therefore nullifies any "edge". Hell, when Brian Roberts is named and then admits to juicing, who can't be??

Really?? I don't think so at all. When I see someone like Roberts named as a user and then actually coming clean I see someone with some class and integrity who can admit to making a mistake. Now when I see someone like Bonds or Clemens repeatedly deny deny deny in the face of what can only be described as overwhelmingly compelling evidence well then I see a cheater who to this day doesn't know the difference between wrong and right. And no, it doesn't help that they are both jerks.

But again, this is just my opinion. I just happen to take cheating seriously and I'm not willing to give a pass to liars. I don't buy the argument that everyone was doing it so it was okay.

[CATLAX MAN]

[As for players already in the Hall, I don't think you can retroavtively nullify someone's enshrinement but you can certainly keep out those that we know to have cheated.

Really? I have asked this before , but then why are Gaylord Perry & Don Sutton in the HOF then? They actively cheated by breaking baseball's rules by throwing spitballs & scuffed baseballs? You seem to support double standards on many fronts. Also, you seem to ignore the fact that neither Bonds or Clemens have ever failed a drug test....at any time....not to mention the fact that they have not failed on when there was an actual rule against this in baseball. Who appointed you judge, jury & executioner?

[TheBearcatHimself]

Really?? I don't think so at all. When I see someone like Roberts named as a user and then actually coming clean I see someone with some class and integrity who can admit to making a mistake.

I totally agree, and I'm not trying to bring down Roberts' name or anyone else who admits to it. I am with you 100% it brings credibility to those who can actually admit it...but the point is who has really been falsely named?? I'm not buying it that these trainers have grudges or axes to grind, unless one of them comes out with some book deal I don't think they are doing it for the money (now they could prove me wrong).

As for the integrity clause, I was aware of it though I hadn't seen the actual wording. I would counter that interpretation of that rule can be very broad, and voters already are notorious for confusing interpretations of voting rules. There are voters out there who have never voted for black players because they feel no black athlete should be in the Hall of Fame. Soak that in, because that is the maturity level you are dealing with in some of these voters. (let me say that as Clemens and others take more heat, race will become less and less of a factor in this issue as it really only surrounds Bonds)

Basically can we really entrust the voters for the Baseball Hall of Fame of whom a very large percentage of are crusty old beat-writers with soap boxes to stand on in making poorly thought out statements in their voting ballots? My point is just that I don't think these voters should be morality police and should focus on the baseball that has been played. Will everyone agree with me? Surely not, but its my opinion.

In the end I just wanna see good baseball...if a few guys have some juice in 'em to make big bang ball go far then so be it, I'll be the stupid monkey jumping up and down cheering as they do it

[StrykerFSU]

there was an actual rule against this in baseball. Who appointed you judge, jury & executioner?

I don't care that there was no explicit rule against it. Using steroids is illegal and clearly shows a lack of integrity because it is cheating. And no one appointed me anything, I just don't think that anyone who cheats should be voted into the Hall. While Bonds may have avoided detection, there is certainly enough smoke to lead me to see the fire. We will see what comes out in the federal investigation...you know the one where he perjured himself about his steroid use.

How can we as a society condemn steroid (or any PED) use and then let guys of this ilk into a place of honor? Why don't we just let the kids in the MCLA juice? If it's okay for Bonds and Clemens it must be okay for them too. Obviously that is ridiculous but why don't we hold our professional athletes, heroes to many, to a higher standard than college athletes? I don't care what the circumstances were, if you juiced you are done in my book...end of story.

Will, I think you make some good points. I just want to watch good baseball too...but with everyone playing on a level field. I agree with you that some of the voters probably have an ax to grind against certain players...ask Jim Rice about it sometime...but that doesn't change what Clemens and Bonds (and others) have done to sully the game. If nothing else, I am glad that those two are where they belong...out of the game.

[Dan Wishengrad]

I have been following this discussion since I started this thread, and some good folks have made some good points. Let me toss in a few more cents:

American society has always shown great capacity for forgiveness, especially if a sinner "comes clean" by fully admitting his transgression and making a sincere apology and a heartfelt plea asking for mercy and forgiveness. The Japanese have a word for this, sumimasen, or "apology without end". What made Pete Rose's transgressions so awful was not just that he bet on baseball games involving his own team -- which is terrible for the integrity of the game and specifically banned by MLB as the biggest "no-no" of all for any player or manager -- but rather Rose's steadfast denials for years that the allegations just weren't true, denials that look so pathetically weak against a mountain of evidence detailed in the Dowd Report that they were absolutely true. Pete should never ever be voted into the HOF, IMHO, for both his crime and his holier-than-thou lies proclaiming his innocence. He has reaped what he has sown.

In this juicing scandal, I think McGwire, Bonds and Clemens would be much smarter to simply practice sumimasen and then move on, and that Americans might eventually be more willing to eventually forgive, if not entirely forget. The trainer who says that he personally injected Clemens "three or four times" himself has great credibility with most of us -- he made this admission under direct threat of prosecution and imprisonment for perjury. If he had an axe to grind with Clemens, he would have leaked the story years before. He only 'fessed up to Sen. Mitchell's investigators when he had no other choice but to admit the truth or go to jail himself to protect somebody else. Clemens, on the other hand, has shown both stupidity AND cowardice -- again this is just my personal opinion -- by waiting for days until conferring with his own attorney and advisors -- and then holding that public press conference (but without taking any questions) to adamantly deny that he EVER used steroids or HGH or any human growth hormones to try to gain a competitive advantage. These denials, which purportedly Roger will swear to in the 60 Minutes interview, are not going to help him at all. OJ can swear that he didn't kill his wife and her friend, but the mountain of DNA evidence says that he most certainly did, and that only clever lawyering got a jury to ignore it. We Americans, as a whole, know that OJ is guilty and will never forgive either the crime OR the lies that denied it afterward.

If Clemens chose sumimasen instead, I'd bet he would eventually get into the HOF somewhere down the line. Baseball fans have seemingly forgiven Jason Giambi already, he is hardly even booed anymore despite admitting to past steroid use. But Clemens is going to emulate Nixon ("I am not a crook!") and Clinton ("I did not have sex with that woman!") and hope everyone believes that the halo above his big head is genuine and saintly-issued. Maybe Roger should join Larry Craig ("I am not gay and I have never been gay!") on a nationwide tour of defiance and martyrdom, perhaps in a chartered bus going from town to town to tell everybody that will listen that the two of them are a couple of innocents who have been wronged by a vengeful press out to destroy their good names?

Yeah, that might work!

[CATLAX MAN]

We will see what comes out in the federal investigation...you know the one where he perjured himself about his steroid use.

I see....so you want to single out Bonds & Clemens....because you suspect that they have "cheated", but you want to give a free pass to Perry & Sutton because......why? Oh, they broke the actual rules and admit to it, but that happened many years ago. You also want to give a free pass to the legions of players that are in the HOF that regularly took illegal drugs (bennies, greenies, yellows, etc.) in MLB clubhouses dispensed by MLB trainers because.....why? Oh, that's right, it happened many years ago, so that's OK.

You seem all convinced about Bonds' alleged perjury, even though there hasn't been one whit of evidence produced publicly. Yet, at the same time, Rafael Palmeiro testified in front of Congress.....under oath, mind you......and states that he has never done steroids. Less than a month later, he tests positive for steroids. Where is the self-righteous call for perjury charges against him?

Baseball would be well advised to follow Mitchell's advice in his report and acknowledge that drugs are an issue for all involved... players, trainers, management, league administration....and focus on what to do about the problem and solve the issue going forward rather than try to point fingers and try to shift blame to individuals rather than to the game as a whole.

[StrykerFSU]

you want to give a free pass to Perry & Sutton because......why? Oh, they broke the actual rules and admit to it, but that happened many years ago. You also want to give a free pass to the legions of players that are in the HOF that regularly took illegal drugs (bennies, greenies, yellows, etc.) in MLB clubhouses dispensed by MLB trainers because.....why? Oh, that's right, it happened many years ago, so that's OK.

I never said I wanted to give anyone a pass for anything my friend. What I did say was that I tended to agree with Mike Lupica about being able to make a stand against cheaters entering the Hall now. As far as I know, Hall voting is not a court of law. There is no presumption of innocence or need to adhere to precedent. My main man Dan, summed up a lot of what I'm feeling quite well in his post though Britney Spears will get that degree from Harvard before you ever see Bond or Clemens show any humility or sincerity.

I'm no lawyer so I don't know anything about why Palmeiro isn't being pursued for lying to the Government. But I do know that there is a mountain of evidence against Bonds and Clemens and that is good enough for me...again this is not a court of law, just my opinion. I don't really see how it's being self-righteous to mention Bonds' perjury charges, seems relevant and I've certainly never found myself on the business end of a Federal Grand Jury. Though if I ever was, I think I'd tell the truth rather than let my trainer sit in jail for me.

MLB may very well take the Mitchell Report's recommendation and not sanction the players named but MLB doesn't decide who gets to be in the Hall. The voters do that and the voters are made up of a lot of people just like me who don't want to see someone who used chemicals to get bigger and stronger than their competition in a selfish effort to increase their own personal glory gain entrance to the Hall of Fame. There is a lot of responsibility to pass around regarding the Steroid Era but the buck stops with the player who made the conscious decision to use illegal drugs. It is a question of right and wrong and I challenge anyone to explain to a young kid (and me) why it was okay for a player to use steroids just because they were not against the rules.

[CATLAX MAN]

But I do know that there is a mountain of evidence against Bonds and Clemens and that is good enough for me...again this is not a court of law, just my opinion.

Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but can you point me to this mountain of evidence? It would be helpful, since the government prosecutors have spent 4 years searching for it in Bonds' case (and wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers' money), but haven't yet found it either. Also, last time I checked, Clemens hasn't even been charged with anything, more or less having evidence of any wrongdoing.

You are making some pretty serious accusations, so you must have some knowledge that the rest of the US doesn't have. I prefer to rely on our Constitution which allows that everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

I never said I wanted to give anyone a pass for anything my friend. What I did say was that I tended to agree with Mike Lupica about being able to make a stand against cheaters entering the Hall now.

So you advocate that from this point forward, all baseball players being considered for the HOF should be held to a higher standard because a bunch of basball writers say that's the way it should be, even though a lot of these guys voted for players in the past that have committed a lot of the same trangressions that you are so up in arms about now. Where's the justice there when many of these guys were doing these drugs so that they could get out on the field every day and compete so that the owners could make their money? Yeah, I guess you're right. We should hold the players accountable, but nobody else. Makes sense..........don't know why I didn't see the wisdom in that a lot sooner.

[StrykerFSU]

You are making some pretty serious accusations, so you must have some knowledge that the rest of the US doesn't have. I prefer to rely on our Constitution which allows that everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

The Constitution is irrelavant as to the worthiness of a baseball player for inclusion in the Hall of Fame is not a legal matter. However, the Mitchell Report did seem to have a lot to say about Bonds and Clemens...information available to everyone, not just me.

So you advocate that from this point forward, all baseball players being considered for the HOF should be held to a higher standard because a bunch of basball writers say that's the way it should be, even though a lot of these guys voted for players in the past that have committed a lot of the same trangressions that you are so up in arms about now.

First off, I don't know that I am up in arms though I have an opinion. An opinion shared by many. But to answer this question in a word, yes. Why shouldn't we hold the players to the highest possible standard? As I said before, this is not legal matter where the rule of precedent needs to be considered. Just because Bill Clinton had an affair does that mean I shouldn't expect subsequent Presidents to show more integrity and remain faithful to their spouses? Just because President Bush can't speak coherently does that not mean I shouldn't expect my next President to be conversant in the language? Sure, in the past some players may have used steroids, scuffed baseball, caroused, drank, cheated at cards, pet strange dogs, or whatever else and they may have been elected to the Hall. But that ship has sailed and the voters have the responisibility, in my mind, to make a stand against cheaters and drug users today. Long story short: it doesn't matter who is already in the Hall, it only matter who is on the ballot and the criteria I posted previously.

I guess we just have a difference of opinion about what integrity means. For me, integrity in this context means at best not using illegal drugs to gain a competitive advantage and at the very least having the character to admit wrongdoing. For you, it apparently means something else...fair enough. But as neither of us has a vote for the Hall of Fame we will just have to wait and see what happens five years from now. Again, Wish's analysis was spot on...Palmeiro and McGwire are pariahs now because of their ridiculous denials while the world has begun to forgive Giambi and Petite for their forthwright acceptance of responsibility. Barry and Roger have a lot to learn about what it is to be a man.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the teary eyed press conferences that are sure to come explaining that "if I offended anyone by taking steroids, I am sorry". Maybe Marion Jones will be available to offer some coaching.

On the bright side, only about 10 weeks until pitchers and catchers report...Let's Go Red Sox!

[CATLAX MAN]

You were the one that stated that Bonds perjured himself. Where is that mountain of evidence that you say is out there to support that statement?

A-Rod has been accused of womanizing many times. He was photographed out with a stripper this last season, even though he is married. Doesn't that violate your definition of integrity? Should he be kept out of the HOF? Where do you start drawing the line on what behavior violates this standard? Drugs...no good, but drunk driving, OK. PEDS...no good, but spousal abuse OK. Who gets to make these calls, you? If not you, then who? Do you begin to see the slippery slope that you are espousing?

Bill Bellichek was caught cheating this year. Perhaps he should be kept out of the Football HOF? No? Yes? Things are not cut and dried like you'd like to make them.

The bottom line is that the steroid/drug issue is a pevasive problem in baseball and other sports. Effort should be spent in finding solutions to the problem rather than try to point fingers and ascribe blame and taking a holier-than-thou attitude about the whole subject. Nothing is gained by villifying those that participated in this in the past. Whatever happened with any player in the past should be irrelevant, just like you say it should be for those already in the HOF. That was Sen. Mitchell's recommendation in his report and I agree with that whole heartedly.

[Dan Wishengrad]

You were the one that stated that Bonds perjured himself. Where is that mountain of evidence that you say is out there to support that statement?

Don't forget that Bonds has been indicted for perjury, my friend. I'll bet that the feds have a pretty solid case in order to file that indictment. There may not be a mountain of evidence in the Mitchell report, but my guess is that the government has ample evidence to gain a conviction, which has nothing to do with Mitchell's independent investigation. I'll bet the feds have BB ice-cold to go forward with a formal case against him.

[CATLAX MAN]

Do you really think that the government has a solid case against Bonds? If that were true, why did it take 4 years to even bring an indictment against him. My money is going to be on acquittal for the mere fact that there are really only 2 people that could possibly prove that he lied to the Grand Jury and that is Victor Conte and Greg Anderson. Those are the only 2 people who could refute Bonds' statement to the Grand Jury that he did "not knowingly take any steroids." Victor Conte has already pubicly stated that he has no knowledge that Bonds knowingly took steroids. That leaves them with Greg Anderson, who has already spent a year in jail for refusing to give over any testimony in this case. So what does the government have? Not a lot.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Do you really think that the government has a solid case against Bonds?

Yes -- extremely solid if not ice-cold, in fact.

If that were true, why did it take 4 years to even bring an indictment against him.

Because the government was being careful, taking its time to build a case.

My money is going to be on acquittal for the mere fact that there are really only 2 people that could possibly prove that he lied to the Grand Jury and that is Victor Conte and Greg Anderson. Those are the only 2 people who could refute Bonds' statement to the Grand Jury

Don't bet too much of it, my friend. The goverment will have some solid evidence including documents seized from the raid at BALCO showing (purportedly) that Bonds tested positive at least twice for steroids by that company's own lab, and this will prove quite damning in the obstruction of justice charge. Bonds' ex-girlfriend has given a deposition that he admitted to her he used steroids knowingly, and she can and will be called to testify to this. Maybe he should have married her when he had the chance so she wouldn't have to testify against him now? LOL. And the government will introduce many close friends and acquaintances of BB who will reportedly testify that Barry was very careful about and virtually obsessed with what he put into his own body and that there was no way he would ever take injections of "flaxseed" unknowingly. They could have continued to let Greg Anderson rot away until trial where he will be called as a hostile witness, so I'd say releasing Barry's trainer and issuing the indictment is pretty compelling that they no longer needed this testimony against his former client. Will Anderson lie on the stand or just take the 5th? Will either help his former client?

And remember that obstruction of justice is MUCH easier to prove than perjury, and Bonds could be convicted of this and sent to prison even if a jury acquits on perjury. I'd say if they feds convict on obstruction of justice and lock Bonds away for five years they will claim victory. But don't bet too heavy that they can't get a jury to convict on perjury also. Don't forget that juries are made up of human beings, and we humans are swayed by circumstantial evidence -- like photos of Barry's changing physique and hat size.

[CATLAX MAN]

Don't bet too much of it, my friend. The goverment will have some solid evidence including documents seized from the raid at BALCO showing (purportedly) that Bonds tested positive at least twice for steroids by that company's own lab, and this will prove quite damning in the obstruction of justice charge.

There is no way that these tests are going to meet the standards of evidence in a court of law. If you think the blood samples in the OJ case were mishandled by the "racist" cops, just wait until Bonds' lawyers attack this "evidence."

Bonds' ex-girlfriend has given a deposition that he admitted to her he used steroids knowingly, and she can and will be called to testify to this. Maybe he should have married her when he had the chance so she wouldn't have to testify against him now? LOL.

Hearsay testimony from a ex-girlfriend with an ax to grind with no direct knowledge one way or the other. Think Bonds' attorneys are going to have a field day with this?

They could have continued to let Greg Anderson rot away until trial where he will be called as a hostile witness, so I'd say releasing Barry's trainer and issuing the indictment is pretty compelling that they no longer needed this testimony against his former client.

Anderson was released because they had no right to continue to hold him once the indictment came down. It has nothing to do with the strength of their case. The Grand Jury has completed their function and, therefore, couldn't hold him under contempt for refusing to testify once their job was done. Without Anderson's testimony at trial, it will be impossible to prove perjury.

And remember that obstruction of justice is MUCH easier to prove than perjury, and Bonds could be convicted of this and sent to prison even if a jury acquits on perjury. I'd say if they feds convict on obstruction of justice and lock Bonds away for five years they will claim victory.

Again, remember Bonds' statement to the Grand Jury was that he did "not knowingly take steroids." Unless they can prove that statement false......which is going to be near impossible without Anderson's testimony....how are they going to hang an obstruction of justice on him? He went to the Grand Jury, he testified as was required, and turned over anything that they asked for. Where is the obstruction?

Everyone knows that he did steroids, but proving perjury and/or obstruction of justice in this case is a much different situation. He never said that he didn't do them. He said that he didn't do them knowingly. That's going to be a much bigger hurdle for the prosecution. It's not akin to OJ's trial since he denied any involvement at all.