A Dark Day Begins
Whether or not you like Bud Selig (is there anyone who is a baseball fan who actually likes him?), you have to stop and commend him for being willing to put the Ghost of Baseball Past under the microscope. Yes, he likely has motivations that tie directly to improving history's view of his legacy. Yes, the right thing to do would've been to have stood up to the union on this issue 10 years ago. But I'd like to think that a person has a shot at redemption, no matter how late it is.
The easy thing for Selig would've been to have just gone all Mark McGwire and said, "The past is the past. I want to be positive." But he didn't. Look, I've got no love for Selig and like I said, his motivation for sending Mitchell out to do the digging is certainly anything but altruistic, but at least he did something. Will it be enough to rescue his precious legacy? I don't think so. I don't think you ever truly get a mulligan on this type of thing.
In just 10 minutes or so, George Mitchell is going to raise the curtain and give us a peek behind the dark past of baseball (although to think that it's over with no test for HGH is naive). Names will be named and the question then becomes, do so many players from this generation wind up being negated in baseball history? Even if they name 80 players in this investigation, it won't include everyone from the generation who used. Mitchell had a key contact in the former Mets batboy, but he wasn't supplying for everyone in the sport. So does Roger Clemens, who is reportedly named in the report, become a non-factor when the Hall of Fame ballots are cast when he is eligible? I think he does.
I guess that I'm just not 100 percent sure that this does much for the sport without Selig stepping in and saying that he's also adding testing for HGH as well. I find it really strange that the sport supposedly has testing now for steroids, but HGH is completely overlooked when people talk about performance enhancing drugs being out of baseball.
The thing is, if you're going to pull back the curtain on the past, you might as well make sure that your present affairs are perfectly clean. And there is no way to do that until the testing policies reflect the desire to clean up the game.
It's a sad day, but I also realize it will not come close to covering the width and breadth of the issue.
0 recs |
131
comments
Read Related
Comments
Jack Cust Is Named
Jack Cust
Jack Cust is an outfielder who began his major league career with the Arizona
Diamondbacks in 2001. Since then, he has played for five teams in Major League Baseball, the Diamondbacks, Colorado Rockies, Baltimore Orioles, San Diego Padres, and Oakland Athletics.
In 2007, he played with Oakland.
At the beginning of the 2003 season, Cust and Larry Bigbie were both playing for Baltimore’s class AAA affiliate in Ottawa. Bigbie’s locker was next to Cust’s. Cust eventually asked Bigbie if he had ever tried steroids. Bigbie acknowledged he had, and Cust said that he, too, had tried steroids. Cust told Bigbie that he had a source who could procure anything he wanted, but Bigbie informed him he already had a friend who could supply him.
In order to provide Cust with information about these allegations and to give him
an opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me; he declined.
by louismg on Dec 13, 2007 11:13 AM PST 0 recs
Cust did the right thing.
I wouldn't meet with any of them either. The past is the past.
by sf drift king on
Dec 13, 2007 11:31 AM PST
up
0 recs
McGwire?
Is that you?
by Ozzz on
Dec 13, 2007 12:45 PM PST
up
0 recs
No reason not to sign bonds now...
everyone was on roids... even current players on the A's... it's now a non-unique argument to not sign bonds... we already have roid monkeys on our team so we should just sign him
by johnjahafanclub on
Dec 13, 2007 1:40 PM PST
up
0 recs
the Players Union instructed players
not to speak with Mitchell, at least not without the Union's attorneys present.
by OaklandSi on
Dec 13, 2007 11:37 AM PST
up
0 recs
And only Frank Thomas did anyway.
Nothing to hide. Good man, Hurt.
by Ozzz on
Dec 13, 2007 12:45 PM PST
up
0 recs
So because....
Larry Bigbie said so, then that makes it true? I don't know, for me I need more than a statement from Larry Bigbie before I will acknowledge it to be the truth.
by Shippee33 on
Dec 13, 2007 5:11 PM PST
up
0 recs
What does this do for Bonds??
I know he's a jerk and people dislike him for that, however it seems that the steroid controversy is the root of the hatred towards him. Now that this report comes out and names "lovable" players as steroid users (i.e. Miguel Tejada, Roger Clemmens) I can't help but wonder if Bonds will still be the center of the steroid problem.
I just feel after so many other names come out, people might lighten up on Barry Bonds and his steroid use. I mean, how can you not? I honestly can't get as upset as I used about his steroid use now that I now my beloved Miggy is in that very same crowd.
Any thoughts? Am I just trying to justify the A's signing Bonds because he would be an amazing DH?? I don't know any of that, but I do know that I am depressed.
by RollieFingersYourMom on Dec 13, 2007 11:15 AM PST 0 recs
No One . . .
. . . is going to lighten up on Barry Bonds. Remember he is thought to lie to a grand jury and let his trainer rot in jail. If Barry just took steroids etc. than he could be treated like any other user. He will not admit his usage or he will go to jail.
by jarforcefatherofforce on
Dec 13, 2007 12:44 PM PST
up
0 recs
You would think that should be the case
But I don't think ppl will lighten up on him at all. He's still the unfortunate face of steroids when it's all said and done.
Hopefully, the broadcasters and analyst who will be debating this for weeks will drive home your point and not lay all the blame squarely on Bonds' shoulders.
by sf drift king on
Dec 13, 2007 3:14 PM PST
up
0 recs
Adam Piatt Is Named
Adam Piatt
Adam Piatt played as an outfielder with two teams in Major League Baseball for portions of four seasons between 2000 and 2003, the Oakland Athletics and Tampa Bay Devil Rays. In 1999, he was the Oakland Athletics’ Minor League Player of the Year.
After Radomski’s guilty plea was publicly announced, Piatt’s lawyer contacted
us. We later interviewed Piatt, who voluntarily admitted his use of performance enhancing substances. He accepted full responsibility for his actions and said that he had learned an important life lesson as a result. Piatt should be commended for his candor, for his willingness to admit that he made a mistake, and for accepting responsibility for his actions.
Piatt was called up to Oakland from the minor leagues in 2000. He said that he knew nothing at that time about steroids or amphetamines. In 2001, Piatt contracted a viral infection and lost 24 pounds in ten days. This illness affected his strength and caused extreme stress. He tried to come back to play baseball in August, but he was unsuccessful. Piatt said that
he worked hard during the off-season to be physically prepared for 2002.
During 2002, he started considering using human growth hormone. He researched the subject extensively that year.
by louismg on Dec 13, 2007 11:17 AM PST 0 recs
it appears that
piatt snitched on miggy
by flipgatey3 on
Dec 13, 2007 11:42 AM PST
up
0 recs
there are photos of personal checks from tejada
plus like three other players have already "snitched" on miggy (raffy p).
by xbhaskarx on
Dec 13, 2007 11:45 AM PST
up
0 recs
right
but raffy p also never took steroids, period. ;)
by flipgatey3 on
Dec 13, 2007 3:38 PM PST
up
0 recs
Honestly, though
What kind of IDIOT writes a personal check for ILLEGAL DRUGS?!!?!?!?!?!
Of all that came out today, I think that may have shocked me most!!!
by baseballgirl on
Dec 13, 2007 3:44 PM PST
up
0 recs
You've never written a check for
drugs intended for use by women?
by mikeA on
Dec 13, 2007 3:51 PM PST
up
0 recs
strong enough for a man
what commercial was that?
by xbhaskarx on
Dec 13, 2007 4:34 PM PST
up
0 recs
Weight Gain 2000
by McFood on
Dec 13, 2007 4:42 PM PST
up
0 recs
listening live to Mitchell's statement
MLB's link to the actual report is here
by OaklandSi on Dec 13, 2007 11:23 AM PST 0 recs
some of his points
PED use by MLB players was widespread for at least a decade (actually, Mr Mitchell, it's been at least 2 and maybe 3 decades)
MLB's response was slow and at first ineffective (I would say that's an understatement.MLB owners and the commissioner's office turned a blind eye to the practice, since the resulting performances made lots of $$.)
Players named were found to have used at least 2 years ago and in some cases a decade ago. Mitchell feels that players should not be punished for past use, since that will keep MLB mired in the past rather than looking towards the future. He also hopes that people don't focus on the names, since these represent only a small percentage of actual users, and focus instead on the larger questions.
by OaklandSi on
Dec 13, 2007 11:30 AM PST
up
0 recs
Let There Be Light
The dark days are hopefully behind. Now that Mitchell implicated everybody, as he should have done, it's time to move on. We can only hope younger players will avoid the temptation of "everybody else is doing it" and let there abilities and work ethic make the difference. As far as letting these guys off the hook in regards to HOF eligibility, let the BBWA decide how this era is to be interpreted.
by Gerard on Dec 13, 2007 11:59 AM PST 0 recs
Tim Kurkjian
just said that if you take Clemens' and Bonds' records away, you won't have anybody else to give the records to.
Wha? How's about ... Maris? Aaron?
How about separate records for "juiciest" career home record?
by Checkswing HR on Dec 13, 2007 12:08 PM PST 0 recs
I'm officially in the *I don't care* camp
Really, I just don't care anymore.
Brian Roberts is named in the report because Larry Bigbie said that Roberts told him he took steroids once or twice.
That's enough to be named in the report? My god, let's just drop it already. It would have been easier to just do a couple of internet polls asking who people think used roids and putting that into the report.
Until the MLBPA agrees to strict (blood) testing, it's pointless to go on and on about PEDs anyway.
by mikev on Dec 13, 2007 12:18 PM PST 0 recs
+1
pretty much how I feel. 90-95% of the list report is going to be purely, 100% heresay convictions making the 5-10% real culprits look innocent by association.
by DMOAS on
Dec 13, 2007 12:23 PM PST
up
0 recs
5-10%?
Based on the anonymous steroid testing year, we know that many were using PEDs, and that's not even including the HGH crowd, which is likely significantly higher since it can't be tested for.
Quite frankly, as long as the players, via their representative association, are refusing to talk to the investigators, I'm content to assume 100% usage.
Well, 100% minus Frank Thomas, the only guy with balls in the entire MLB, it seems.
Literally?
by Ozzz on
Dec 13, 2007 12:51 PM PST
up
0 recs
it can't be tested with a urine test
but can be tested by a blood test -- which MLB isn't doing.
by OaklandSi on
Dec 13, 2007 1:15 PM PST
up
0 recs
and the pa
will never allow a blood test
by flipgatey3 on
Dec 13, 2007 3:39 PM PST
up
0 recs
Congress will.
by Ozzz on
Dec 15, 2007 11:42 PM PST
up
0 recs
Don't Care Here Either
Players like McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, etc. have significantly helped MLB earn billions of dollars over recent years. If MLB decides to give these players asterisks, then they should be willing to provide partial refunds to their advertisers and paying fans. They never will, so the hypocritical MLB should STFU already and start anew.
by socaloaktownfan on
Dec 13, 2007 1:19 PM PST
up
0 recs
class-action lawsuit time!
by monkeyball on
Dec 13, 2007 2:16 PM PST
up
0 recs
Brian Roberts
That's not the only lead on Roberts. He's also named in Grimsley's testimony. The name is redacted on the affidavit, but it was reported in the LA Times article.
by iglew on
Dec 13, 2007 3:36 PM PST
up
0 recs
and this is why the Report is b.s.
Now people are going to be adding the Report as an independent confirmation in addition to the various newspaper reports and testimony, when in fact all the Report does in many cases is repeat those very newspaper reports and testimonies.
by monkeyball on
Dec 13, 2007 4:30 PM PST
up
0 recs
Selig fan here
There are more of us too. Hes not perfect, can be a weiner at times (thinking of the MLB Extra Innings fiasco last spring and still going on) but hes done many things to help the game in his tenure and is in favor of smaller markets. I think alot of people don't like him because he comes across unpolished at times, or at least goofy.
by WiscoFan on Dec 13, 2007 12:19 PM PST 0 recs
he supported at least some small markets
namely, for the Milwaukee Brewers. that's fine...but he hasn't been so supportive of other "small' markets (Montreal Expos and Oakland Athletics are two specific targets that come to mind).
by OaklandSi on
Dec 13, 2007 12:50 PM PST
up
0 recs
Expos, ok...Twins maybe
by WiscoFan on
Dec 13, 2007 12:53 PM PST
up
0 recs
He said in a press conference in Oakland
some years back that it was a mistake for the A's ever to have come to Oakland, and that the Bay Area should only have the Giants....that's not too subtle.
by OaklandSi on
Dec 13, 2007 1:16 PM PST
up
0 recs
I detest Selig...
...but that's true. Objectively, the A's never should have been approved to move to Oakland to begin with.
by UncleLeo on
Dec 13, 2007 1:19 PM PST
up
0 recs
why? this is a big market
certainly as big as the Chicago area (which at the time had an NL and AL team, and now has an additional NL team just an hour north). Objectively speaking, there's no reason why there shouldn't have been an NL and AL team in the Bay Area.
by OaklandSi on
Dec 13, 2007 1:22 PM PST
up
0 recs
No, you're not being objective at all.
Raw population numbers are deceiving. Chicago is a huge baseball town and always has been. The bay area is (was) not.
There were other cities that had more legitimate claims to being able to support a franchise well, i.e. Dallas/Fort Worth, San Diego, Milwaukee, etc. Why create another 2-team market when so many large markets had no teams? Technically, they never should have left Kansas City, and the move was approved more to placate Charlie Finley than any real baseball business decision. The fact that the team was replaced almost immediately, and did well, proves that. The only thing Oakland had going for it was a prime (by 1968 standards) stadium in place and ready to go. Most of the other potential cities that were big enough to support a team lacked that.
by UncleLeo on
Dec 13, 2007 1:38 PM PST
up
0 recs
I'm as objective (or not) as you
anyone could argue that the A's were unfairly plucked from Kansas City (and from Philadelphia). Those who argue that moving the Dodgers from Brooklyn to Los Angeles because they weren't drawing enough fans and making enough $$ was untrue, also have a good argument.
My point was not that Kansas City wasn't dealt with unfairly. My point is that there was no objective reason why there couldn't be an AL and NL team in what was clearly a very rapidly growing urban area.
by OaklandSi on
Dec 13, 2007 1:46 PM PST
up
0 recs
I gave plenty of objective reasons...
...you just don't like them.
by UncleLeo on
Dec 13, 2007 1:51 PM PST
up
0 recs
I guess you don't like my objective reasons
c'mon, let's not try make our points by claiming we're objective and the other isn't, ok?
I tried to explain what I meant, so why not respond to that?
by OaklandSi on
Dec 13, 2007 1:53 PM PST
up
0 recs
You didnt respond to all of my points, either...
...and cherry-picked the ones that were more opinion while leaving the ones based on fact unanswered.
We disagree, and that's fine. Today I think your point of view is more valid, but back in the day I don't believe it was. If the 2007 Kansas City A's were looking to move, I seriously doubt the bay area would even be a consideration, in spite of the fact that the area is better suited to supporting two teams today.
The fact that, since 1968, BOTH teams have been under serious threat of moving out of the area more than once is not something that can be ignored, either, and doesn't speak to an area that supports two teams well. Some of these instances are relatively recent, too.
As a 30+ year A's fan, the thought that I probably would be a Giants by default had I had no other choice for a local team growing up is not something I like to think about, but the facts (attendance, open cities, other options, etc.) are there and are obvious.
by UncleLeo on
Dec 13, 2007 2:10 PM PST
up
0 recs
I Object to the Objectivity
...because this subject produced too many objectionably subjective illustrations which caused me to suffer bilateral subconjunctival hemmorhages.
by Gerard on
Dec 13, 2007 3:57 PM PST
up
0 recs
I don't find this thread
particularly objective.
-- Ayn Rand
by oblique on
Dec 13, 2007 4:35 PM PST
up
0 recs
Beane should blow up the team
< / Howard Roark >
by monkeyball on
Dec 13, 2007 4:41 PM PST
up
0 recs
Shall I call you Nostradamus then...
...or now. You're words proved prophetic...Allright, how did you know BB was trading Haren? 'fess up!
by Gerard on
Dec 14, 2007 4:19 PM PST
up
0 recs
Apparently this is the entire list of players
named.
I guess my biggest problem with the report is that this guy wasn't the only provider of roids, so why name all these names as if these are the only guilty parties?
by Blez on Dec 13, 2007 12:26 PM PST 0 recs
Oh and apparently
Adam Piatt told Mitchell that he supplied Miggy with the PEDs during the 2003 season.
by Blez on
Dec 13, 2007 12:27 PM PST
up
0 recs
snitch!
miggy should make a video like carmelo anthony
by flipgatey3 on
Dec 13, 2007 3:58 PM PST
up
0 recs
Pious was Piatt, but Pontius Pilate he was not...
so says Procula.
by McFood on
Dec 13, 2007 4:30 PM PST
up
0 recs
Yeah, I have that problem, too.
Also, relating to what mikev pointed out, above... I have a problem with listing players from pure "hearsay" cases.
by Poppy on
Dec 13, 2007 12:34 PM PST
up
0 recs
I don't.
If those players won't address the claims, I'm going to assume they have nothing good to say.
If someone accused me and I had been innocent of the charges, you couldn't wrestle me off the podium with six guys, ten foot of rope, and a packmule.
by Ozzz on
Dec 13, 2007 12:53 PM PST
up
0 recs
Boy,
I hope you tell this to the judge when you get called in for jury service.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 13, 2007 1:07 PM PST
up
0 recs
That was poorly formatted.
Not calling Oz a boy. Just a figure of speech.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 13, 2007 1:08 PM PST
up
0 recs
So you're implying that he's a girl?
by Poppy on
Dec 13, 2007 1:52 PM PST
up
0 recs
That's not hearsay
Hearsay is a statement made outside of a proceeding which is offered for its truth. Piatt's statement isn't hearsay because he is describing his conduct, i.e. "I gave Miggy drugs." Hearsay would be Piatt saying, "Miggy told me he does drugs." The first is admissible, the second would be only under limited circumstances. The first statement is not direct proof that Miggy did drugs but it is circumstantial evidence that he did. And yes I am a lawyer so feel free to hate away.
by EgolikeRickey on
Dec 13, 2007 3:22 PM PST
up
0 recs
True, but
"Cust told me he used steroids" (which is what Bigbie told Mitchell) is most definitely hearsay, n'est ce pas?
by PaulThomas on
Dec 13, 2007 3:34 PM PST
up
0 recs
That's one of the ones I was referring to
as hearsay. Not Piatt's description of his own behavior.
by Poppy on
Dec 13, 2007 5:18 PM PST
up
0 recs
The rule of law
The steroid issue always comes back to this - "you can't say he took them because there's not enough evidence to convict him..."
Yes, I CAN say he took them. I'm not a judge. I'm not the courts. I'm a guy who weighs the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, and makes a call. I'm not restricted by the need to prove my case to a jury of his peers.
If you don't cast an opinion on anything until there's enough evidence in place to win a court case, I'm guessing you have very few opinions on anything. In the world. Ever.
And let's not forget, the same 'he's never been convicted" defense was being posted at Giambi once, Bonds once, McGwire once, Boone once, Palmeiro once, Tejada once...
Basically, the guys like me who have, for years, been saying "this guy is a roidhead" and "that guy is a drug cheat" and "the problem is an epidemic" have been vindicated, across the board, almost without exception.
Nobody, that I'm aware of, who has been accused of being a roider in the last five years, has turned out to be clean.
And because I know you're going to say "you can't prove you're clean", I'll pre-empt that by saying, absolutely you can.
Blood test, lie detector test, cooperating with the Mitchell Report, taking your accuser to court to defend your name - there's four things right there, and any one of them would work for me.
by Ozzz on
Dec 14, 2007 10:21 AM PST
up
0 recs
So Giambi proved he was clean
by cooperating with the Mitchell report?
Riiiiiight. The ones who cooperated were the worst offenders.
As for the others:
Blood test-- ridiculous. These allegations are from years ago.
Lie detector test-- no one believes these anyway.
Taking accuser to court-- that's comical. Libel is virtually unwinnable in these cases, and the more circumstantial and hearsay-based the statements are, the harder it is to prove. It's precisely the fact that the stuff in the report about Cust is so obviously devoid of any value that makes a libel suit unwinnable.
So: you can't prove you're clean.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 14, 2007 10:53 AM PST
up
0 recs
Now you're just being dumb.
Thomas cooperated freely. Why nobody else?
I know it offends your tender sensibilities, but frankly, I just flat out believe the vast majority of people have used, and those that didn't are about as guilty, because they never came forward to stop it.
The only victims here are those that came before and saw their records scrubbed, the fans who bought into the lie, and the guys who should have been Major Leaguers but never were, because some junkroid was ahead of them.
Oh. And the dead kids on pitching mounds in Florida.
by Ozzz on
Dec 15, 2007 11:38 PM PST
up
0 recs
Sure... b/c that worked well in Salem.
by DMOAS on
Dec 13, 2007 1:22 PM PST
up
0 recs
Oh please.
You're telling me that if someone said, in a public report, that you use heroin, you wouldn't go to court to kick the shit out of the person that published the claims?
by Ozzz on
Dec 14, 2007 10:13 AM PST
up
0 recs
Go Google "American libel law"
Please. It will save all of us some time here.
by PaulThomas on
Dec 14, 2007 10:54 AM PST
up
0 recs
In that case:
Sue me?
<dr evil pinkie>
by Ozzz on
Dec 15, 2007 11:39 PM PST
up
0 recs
The only way we...
couldn't wrestle you off the podium with six guys, ten foot of rope, and a packmule is if you were all bulked up on steroids and HGH, like me.
BEEFCAKE!
by McFood on
Dec 13, 2007 2:09 PM PST
up
0 recs
I agree. There were other motives in play.
The accused list is obviously unsubstantiated. And incomplete. So all it really does is discredit the players that aren't on the list even more. Which is the point.
Mitchell was paid to be a credible source, beyond just a journalist (even though that's essentially the role he played) to confirm the suspicions of every fan - that steroids are the norm in major league baseball. His report takes more power and credibility from the MLBPA to help in testing/compliance negotiations. And it will probably work. Of course, it seems like it could have been done in house - but remember, both players and teams alike are heavily invested in retaining their success making cooperation unlikely. It's just too bad that anti-steroid policies couldn't materialize until the risk and consequence of being caught were publicized.
As accusations increase, one interest group I want to hear from are self-declared innocent players (e.g. Todd Helton). Pujols, ARod, or someone i


