I'm glad this day is over.  The problem is, it won't soon be forgotten.

Why is that a problem? We need to remember that so many used and that our sport needs a test for HGH. The Problem will be if (after the hoopla dies down) MLB sweeps it all under the rug.

That was sort of an absurd thing that happened today. The takeaway was that they named a more or less random group of players among the many who took PEDs based on who happened to know the sources, or who had been reported already. It's not clear what was gained by outing these people and copying their checks, etc.

Stupid.

the way I see it, can never be tarnished.

Maybe the players, the organizations, and the traditions of Major League Baseball are marred, but not the game. That's the beauty of something that's pure form.

If they cheated, they should be named, but my feeling is that naming so many prominent players just gives the impression that pretty much everyone was doing it but just didn't happen to use the same supplier.

I'm thinking that's the impression Mitchell wanted to give. Use was "widespread" in his opinion.

I am glad that in the Mitchell interview he very plainly states an HGH blood test is necessary. It might seem obvious, but applying pressure to the PA via public opinion usually requires monotonous repetition of simple points.

that names were named.

For some reason during these last few weeks of wondering if Bonds will be an Athletic, I've become somewhat of a Bonds-backer.

And it's good to see that the best pitcher and the best hitter of this generation were juicing.  Kind of evens it out for all the people hating on McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, etc.

Seriously who pays their drug dealer with checks.

I tend to lean more towards the "I don't care camp" but there is a part of me who thinks this report and the usage of these types of drugs is extremely bad for kids growing up and getting into athletics.  This is why this needs to be stopped and the distinction needs to be made that these guys were not taking drugs to be a better team player, they were taking them to save a career or make more money. AKA greed.

They didn't just single out a couple of guys.  They "singled out" about 80 guys, and it's made abundantly clear that the list isn't exclusive.  They named the ones for whom they had evidence and they specified what the evidence (hearsay or otherwise) is.  That's as it should be.

But there's one thing that's bothering about our discussions here.  I've been busy this evening, so I haven't read every thread yet, but in the ones I have read all the focus has been on the great mass of players who did use steroids.  Even if we estimate, along with Jose Canseco, that 80% of the league was using, that still means 20% weren't.

I want to think about these 20%.  Suppose you're one of the 20% and you don't want to use steroids, either because you believe in following the rules or you don't want to screw up your body or whatever.  There you are, watching all your teammates using, because of course you know about it.  Very likely you lose your position in the lineup because some guy who is juicing can do better than you can.  So here you are, following the rules, and you get screwed by someone who isn't -- but you can't complain about it either, because you don't want to be the narc. Because you're unwilling to cheat, your career goes downhill, and you have to watch silently while others who do cheat succeed.

How bad must that suck?  There must have been a lot of guys in that position, and they must have been seriously pissed off and fed up by the whole corrupt system. Today is a good day because it's a victory for those guys.

OK people lets be both realistic and reasonable. I am going to try and step out of my 'white shoes', and look at this from an outside perspective.

With regards to Jack Cust...

"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."(p159 report, p206 pdf)

This is all that is written about Cust in the report. There was also one introductory background paragraph and the usual Mitchell disclaimer...

"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."

1. Larry Bigbie is an admitted steroid user, and to many, an unreliable source. There is even word out from Cust's lawyer and others that Bigbie's locker was, in fact, not even next to Cust's. If this fact turns out to be true, then how could the rest of the paragraph be viewed as valid.

2. Many players mentioned in the report had paper trails that led the investigation to proof of their purchases of PED. However, there is no such proof when discussing Cust.

3. Jack Cust was given the opportunity to talk with the investigation in an attempt to clear his name, but Cust declined. This is the only part of the report on Cust that gives me doubt.

I don't trust Larry Bigbie as far as I could throw him, and beyond his word there is nothing linking Jack Cust to Steroids. In, fact their lockers may not have even been next to one another. However, Cust not coming forward to speak, gives me the impression that he had/has something to hide.

If I were Jack Cust and I was completely innocent of these allegations, I would sue the MLB, and Larry Bigbie to prove my innocence. If I can sit back, read the report, listen to what has been said through the media, and pick holes in this section on Cust, then imagine what a proven lawyer could do in the courtroom.

If these allegations are true, then I feel really bad for Jack Cust, the game of baseball, and all the little kids that look up to him. Theres a lot by the way, he is a local hero where he is from, and even has his own baseball center with his dad. He was a story that I, and many like me, wanted to believe was possible. A career MiLB player that finally gets a shot, and catches fire like never before.

I choose to wait to pass judgment on Cust, until I find out more specifics to his case, as well as see  his actions legally or otherwise now that he has been implicated in the report. I urge all A's fans to do the same.

On another really sad note for The Great American Pastime, I am 25 years old, and have been an A's fan all my life. I have slowly come to the realization that I have probably never seen an MLB game that wasn't somehow tainted with PEDs. I was 6 during the 88 series, my earliest baseball memories, and even then it is likely, if not certain, that I was not watching a pure game. This makes me sad beyond belief; cheated almost. The one thing that I loved the most as a kid, has now been distorted, and should most likely be discarded from all record.

I don't know yet what to think of the past, but the MLB better not screw around any more in the future. The gauntlet has been laid down, and it is their responsibility to deal with it ASAP in an open and transparent way.

Go A's!
OakFoSho

"What is done is done and cannot be changed, we can only control our future actions."

that the report was "poorly crafted and based largely on circumstantial evidence."  While Jack Cust's inclusion was based on hearsay and should never have happened, most of the other inclusions are based on corroborated testimony.  It was pretty well researched.

What isn't getting enough attention at this point is the recommendations of the report, and if/how baseball will implement them going forward.  That's without question the most important thing to focus on at this point.

Here...

I feel much the same, and am dissapointed to hear of Cust mentioned.

But it would probably suck more if I were a Cards fan, and had to hear Ankiel confirmed.