Comments on: Missing from Mitchell Recommendations: Start Prevention Earlier

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:13:50 +0000

A friend just brought to my attention Malcolm Gladwell’s blog in which there is a very interesting conversation underway about steroids and performance enhancement more generally.

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/

By: CapeMan

CapeMan — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:34:31 +0000

Agreed. Of all the things that I’ve heard from all of the “talking heads” since the report was released, Steve Phillips said that the best way to may deter steroid and HGH use is to save the test samples. There may not be a test available to detect the use of HGH and some steroids but you ahve to think that some day there will be a valid test. A player that otherwise would take HGH because there was not test might think twice if he could get caught in the future. Might not deter everyone but it was the best idea that I’ve heard up to this point.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:09:31 +0000

True. With each passing day, the report gains more validity with Andy Pettitte, Fernando Vina, Brian Roberts and others admitting to certain levels of guilt.
Pettitte’s admission has really cut the legs out from Roger Clemens. The person who named Pettitte is the same person who named Clemens so if it was true about Pettitte, is there any reason to think he didn’t speak truthfully about Clemens too ?
I hate to say it, but now it looks like Jose Canseco wasn’t as far off base as most people (certainly including myself) thought he was. Canseco may be in this to sell books and to promote himself (Pay to have dinner with Jose !! Pay to have your picture taken with Jose !!) but at least some of what he said is proving true.

By: CapeMan

CapeMan — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:10:56 +0000

I just can’t help but think, as I stated earlier, that this report has much more validity now than when originally released.

When you think that the list of players that were included in the report, by all accounts, represents only a small percentage of the players that were or are actually using, it only further supports the report. It seems that they listed only those players against whom they had significat evidence.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:36:28 +0000

You’re absolutely right, CapeMan. I heard the report about Roberts’ admission just a short time ago. I couldn’t help but wonder about many of the same things that you mentioned.
I also find it very hard to believe that some of these players only used the banned substances once or twice. Some of them, including Roberts, are saying that the moment they were injected they knew this was wrong. C’mon. Did they really give so little thought to the idea of taking steroids or HGH ? That’s hard to believe, and shame on them if they did give little thought to it. It seems like a pretty long process from the time you decide to go that route, to contacting someone, making the purchase, receiving whatever substance was used, before actually getting to the point where the substance is taken. Are we really to believe that after all that, only at the time the deed was done, did the lightbulb go off to make these guys think that what they were doing “isn’t what I stand for ?”
No one should be surprised that so many ballplayers have so little respect for baseball fans’ intelligence.

By: CapeMan

CapeMan — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:29:33 +0000

Now that Brian Roberts has admitted to using steroids, you have to wonder how Schilling; and from a CCBL perspective, Mike Roberts feels about the situation. To date, this is the closest that the Mitchell report has come to the CCBL. I could be wrong, but I believe Mr. Roberts has sponsored an annual CCBL player, optional education seminar that touched on this subject.

I applaud Schilling for backing a friend and for calling out the report for reporting what seemed to be a very weak case against Brian Roberts. In fact, I’ve heard many others, including Peter Gammons, come down very hard on the report for how Robert’s name was mentioned. However, I think what might appear as weak evidence in the report, at least in this case, is right on the money and validates the report. Based on Petitte and now Roberts admissions, you can only assume that Mitchell’s report is accurate.

Lastly, while I endorse them coming forward, both Pettite and Roberts have admitted to doing HGH and/or steroid only once or twice. I have a hard time believing that claim. It seems like they are trying to sway public opinion by admitting to their mistake while also trying to instill a public opinion of “well, they only did it once or twice” in hopes that it simply goes away. At the end of the day, they are applauded as being stand-up guys because they came forward.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:01:19 +0000

It was interesting to hear Curt Schilling speak on this issue on Boston radio station WEEI yesterday. Schilling is very upset at the mention of Brian Roberts name in the Mitchell report. He said he considers Roberts to be a close friend. He is upset that Roberts name is mentioned only in the context that Larry Bigbie told Mitchell that Roberts used steroids in 2003. I would be very upset if my name ended up in this report only because “so and so” said I used something.
In yesterday’s interview, Schilling answered a question many people have been asking. A few years ago, Schilling made a comment about steroid use being rampant in the major leagues. That comment landed him a seat at a congressional hearing. When given the opportunity, Schilling did not name names and seemingly backtracked from his earlier public comments. When asked about this yesterday, he said that he was comfortable making the statement about so many ballplayers using steroids in an interview but, when under oath, he could not say what he felt so sure of. His comment yesterday was that “in his heart of hearts” he knows of a certain level of abuse and he knows specific players who used the banned substances. However, at the congressional hearing, he could not name names under oath because he did not actually see that person use the banned substance.