We have very reasonable concern for Red Sox players: Mitchell's on the Red Sox Board of Governors.

This might not be worth the paper it's printed on. And it's being posted online.

A previous report by WNBC naming many prominent MLB players, including Albert Pujols and Roger Clemens, has been disputed by an MLB official who has seen the Mitchell Report.

Rumors have been flying all morning about the potential names that will be released, though nothing has been verified. While WNBC's reported list seems plausible, it is likely we won't know the true identities until the report is officially released at 2:00 p.m. EST.

One thing is for certain:  the MLBPA will be vilified (perhaps by the report and surely by the media) for carrying out its duties, two of which are to protect players from discipline and protect players' privacy.

Leigh, this is indisputably true and an important point to keep in mind.  I agree with you almost entirely; I do, however, think that there is something to the argument that the MLBPA should have done better by its non-users.

Apparently Pujols is in the report. That's the name that really stands out to me.

I didn't see his name in the report. Where did you see it?

You know, there are a remarkable number of former or current Toronto Blue Jays mentioned in this report. Roger Clemens, Jose Canseco, David Segui, Benito Santiago, Glenallen Hill, Jay Gibbons (before Rule 5), Gregg Zaun, Howie Clark, Troy Glaus (in passing).

The mid-'90s Jays clubhouse comes across as a steroid zone. And they still never sniffed the playoffs.

There are also a remarkable number of crappy, forgettable players. Phil Hiatt? Chad Allen? Matt Herges? Jim Parque? As has been said before, a lot of steroid users were AAAA guys trying anything they could to break through.

The only big name that caught me by surprise was Kevin Brown. Considering the natire of his late-career renaissance and injury troubles, though, it really shouldn't have.

It also needs to be said that the amount of actual reportage in this publication, versus the amount of hearsay and supposition, is appallingly low. I wouldn't try relying on this report in a court of law, and I don't think it comes close to telling the whole story about performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. We'll probably never know that.

Greg Zaun appears on page 180 of the report, while with the Royals.

Lots on Clemens from his Jays' days...from the report (page 170):

"They show a cleared check from Zaun for $500 that supposedly was used to purchase steroids when with the Royals in 2001.  That's the only "allegation of use by Zaun"."

It's not, actually, as the report makes clear on page 180.

I, for one, don't want MLB to become a drug free-for-all, and no intelligent, responsible human being should either.

Clemens will survive this a lot better than Barry Bonds will. Can't imagine what the difference could be.

Former Blue Jays Assistant GM Tim McLeary is mentioned as hiring McNamee with the Yankees and subsequently bringing him to the Blue Jays during the Clemens/Canseco years.  I expect he's getting quite a few media calls at home right now.

And Gord Ash is probably feeling more than a little uncomfortable, too.

I can't get over how many players wrote personal checks to their steroid dealers.

That's what I find baffling.  I know a lot of these guys get into professional baseball right out of high school, but leaving a paper trail like that just seems really stupid.

"The report concludes "the Commissioner’s Office announced that there was insufficient evidence of a violation of the joint program in effect at the time of the conduct in question to warrant discipline of Glaus.""

The Commissioner's Office came to that conclusion about lots of players, and it doesn't mean that they were innocent of wrongdoing, just that they weren't found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'd say, what we already know about Glaus from the SI article is pretty damaging.

Maybe A-Rod yelled "Roids!" at Clark.

Here is a full list:

Lenny Dykstra
David Segui
Larry Bigbie
Brian Roberts
Jack Cust
Tim Laker
Josias Manzanillo
Todd Hundley
Mark Carreon
Hal Morris
Matt Franco
Rondell White
Roger Clemens
Andy Pettitte
Chuck Knoblauch
Jason Grimsley
Gregg Zaunn
David Justice
F.P. Santangelo
Glenallen Hill
Mo Vaughn
Denny Neagle
Ron Villone
Ryan Franklin
Chris Donnels
Todd Williams
Phil Hiatt
Todd Pratt
Kevin Young
Mike Lansing
Cody McKay
Kent Mercker
Adam Piatt
Migeul Tejada
Jason Christiansen
Mike Stanton
Stephen Randolph
Jerry Hairston, Jr.
Paul Lo Duca
Adam Riggs
Bart Miadich
Fernando Vina
Kevin Brown
Eric Gagne
Mike Bell
Matt Herges
Gary Bennett, Jr.
Jim Parque
Brendan Donnelly
Chad Allen
Jeff Williams
Howie Clark
Exavier "Nook" Logan

Clemens will survive this a lot better than Barry Bonds will. Can't imagine what the difference could be.

Well, of course there's that difference.  But there's also the most-hallowed-record-in-baseball thing, too.  Tejada and Mo Vaughn will survive this a lot better than Barry Bonds will, as well. 

I think both Bonds and Clemens will be elected to the Hall over moderate dissent.  It appears that both men built Hall-worthy careers first, and then unnaturally replaced their decline years with career years.

I hope nobody claims to be absolved by this report.  The names here are basically limited to the Radomski ring and the McNamee ring, plus criminal proceedings like BALCO and Grimsley.  Both of these rings are surprisingly far-reaching, mind you, but it's really just two witnesses here (and corroborating evidence) plus what's publicly available.

I think both Bonds and Clemens will be elected to the Hall over moderate dissent.  It appears that both men built Hall-worthy careers first, and then unnaturally replaced their decline years with career years.

I think that's exactly right.

Remember when Rafael Palmeiro blamed Miggy Tejada for injecting him with what he thought was a simple B12 shot and turned out to be steroids?  Everyone was outraged at him throwing Tejada under the bus.

...Maybe he really is telling the truth?

And Clemens' 2 incredible, career best years in Toronto: now completely tainted, according to the information in there. Yick.

I believe that the report says that he didn't start steroids until his second year here.

I agree with Thomas.

With the rate that players change teams these days, I think the Blue Jays involvement is overstated.  Most of them were probably not Blue Jays at the time of usage anyway. 

The thing that stands out is the fact that some obvious bigger name users were not mentioned.  I'm sure they wanted to protect themselves legally, but this can only hurt the credibility and the public perception of this report.

Wells said he hoped the Mitchell report would put an end to suspicion of those not named in the report.

"All the speculation of who has done it and who hasn't, I think it will help allow that just to go away and everybody can get concentrated on the game of baseball instead of the steroid issue," he said.

While praising the current system that calls for a 50-game suspension for first-time offenders and lifetime bans for a third offence, Zaun said Mitchell's report would do little other than embarrass those named for offences that took place either before 2002, when baseball had no drug policy, or before the current penalties came into effect after the 2005 season.

"I think everybody understands the fact that there's not a whole lot they can do about it other than maybe run somebody's name through the mud," said Zaun. "How much sense does that make?"

_______________________

What's everybody's take on this? Both Wells and Zaun seem to raise good points. While Zaun surely wants to cover his own ass, he is right that not a whole lot can be done.

<i>Glenallen Hill and Roger Clemens are the only two mentioned as having started using while in Toronto.</i>

I don't see where Hill says he began in Toronto. All the Hill references are from 1998 or later.

Based on this, which I'm treating as the list, I'm seeing neither McGwire nor Sosa. Is something amiss? I would think that their absence will serve to not quash rumours about who is not on the list.

I'm seeing neither McGwire nor Sosa

McGwire is there.  I don't think Sosa is.

I find nothing redeeming about the MLBPA's position in all this.  Steroids were probably the key occupational health and safety issue for baseball players of the 1990s and 00s, and rather than educating players and participating in rule-making, the union stonewalled (perhaps reflecting the wishes of many of its members). 

I agree with you here, Mike G.  I just also agreed with Leigh that the MLBPA was acting according to its mandate and as advocates; blaming it as an entity for opposing punishment and enhanced testing is like condemning a lawyer for getting his client acquitted.

I did not mean to imply that it was right to have put these interests ahead of health/safety/integrity.  Privacy in particular is, substantively, a weak argument.  If you want to spend your life without getting tested for steroids, you're free to not play high-level competitive sports.  Privacy rights prevent unnecessary or unreasonable intrusions into a player's body or belongings.  Privacy is not a blanket licence to break the rules and the law.

Nice point here, Pistol. I wonder if Radomski had other clients who were smart enough to realize drug dealing ought to be a cash business!

Remember when Rafael Palmeiro blamed Miggy Tejada for injecting him with what he thought was a simple B12 shot and turned out to be steroids?  Everyone was outraged at him throwing Tejada under the bus.

Guess that's the price you pay for letting Miggy be your pharmacist

Hollywood, I don't care either.

I think Ron raises a ligitimate question in his Giambi / Zaun comparison.

I may be wrong as this is a pretty lengthy thread already, but I don't recall a very critical comment regarding Zaun's implication in the PED affair. Heck there were tons of posters ripping Troy Glaus when he was named toward the end of the season.

But Zaun seems to be getting a pass here. Why is that?

Good point Lefty.  Zaun looks bad in his comments today in this story:

"Is this Bud Selig's legacy? I don't know. I'm pretty sure he probably wanted his legacy in the game to be something more than a tie game at the All-Star Game in Milwaukee."

Zaun knew he was going to be named in the report so he tried to take a cheap shot at Bud, that looks bad on you Gregg.  Stand up and accept your guilt.

I hope that the Jays fans don't give Zaun or Glaus one of those big "we support you" cheers on opening day.  I hope Canadian fans are more discriminating than San Francisco fans with Bonds or Baltimore fans with Robbie Alomar were.  I for one will not be applauding either of those two players.

Perhaps I'll throw these questions out to the Batters Box community, does the Mitchell Report make you less interested in MLB now? Will you stop buying/buy less tickets/t-shirts/hats because players have taken/are taking performance enhancing drugs?

No and no.  That doesn't mean that fans don't care if players are using PEDs, it means the game's bigger than the doping problem.  I hope that it leads to stiffer punishments to balance out the risk-reward equation a little more.

I'm not trying to defend Zaun here, or his steroid use, but i totally disagree with this statement. How do you know that quote isn't part of a lengthy interview where he goes into great depth about the issue, and the author reduced it down a whole lot?

Frankly i'm sick of the whole steroids issue. I hope the MLBPA  & MLB take steps to fix the PED situation, but i don't want to read any more articles about how people feel cheated. It's a valid opinion but it's been going on for ever. Enough is enough. I don't expect this to be the case, so I'll probably pay less attention to baseball than before. For me it's not the outrage at cheating, but the intense coverage of the issue that will chase me away. It's BORING.

In relation to this helping Frank Thomas, I like that idea. I also hope that Edgar Martinez stays clear of the issue and finds his HOF case increased in the eyes of voters (if he's even still elligible. )

I could be wrong, but I think the Giambi/Zaun comparison is a little different. Giambi's big health issues came into effect in 2004, when they found the benign tumour. This probably showed the real possibility that he had taken drugs after 2002, when the no-steroid policy existed.

All the evidence we have been given pertaining to Zaun (the cheque) and the report itself leans to the fact that Zaun took steroids pre-2002 and there is no evidence I have seen that indicates they were taken afterwards. So without this, how different is Zaun using steroids pre-2002 from Hank Aaron using greenies?

He obviously took advantage of the lack of a steroid policy, but there is no evidence that he broke any MLB rules at all.

Thank goodness Cal Ripken Jr. wasn't implicated...

This is worth reading from the Providence Journal.

From that article:

"Fans, too, have been complicit in tacitly condoning such abuses, turning out in record numbers to cheer for their artificially enhanced heroes."

This strikes me as awfully naive.

Perhaps mine is an overly cynical world view, but when I see world class athletes, be they baseball players, hockey players, football players, basketball players, Olympic athletes, cyclists, wrestlers (who are athletic despite their sport being theater), ultimate fighters, whatever, I'm suspecting possible drug use. And yes, that's certainly grossly unfair to those who excel without such help. But in an age where the risk/reward tradeoff so heavily skews in favour of drug use, how can we not simply presume that large numbers of athletes do not have the capacity to resists succumbing to the temptation?

I am not defending drug use. It is certainly not honourable. But from a dispassionate, anthropological perspective, how could we expect these athletes to behave any differently than they have? Would I prefer to live in a world where character were the rule and not the exception? Absolutely. But when I receive confirmation that it is not, I am neither outraged nor surprised.

I think fans will taunt visiting players on "the list". But not their own players (sports fans being so good at jumping through hoops to concoct rationalizations where required). I don't believe this taunting will be widely reflective of genuine outrage, but rather just another weapon in their tribalism arsenal.

Perhaps I'll throw these questions out to the Batters Box community, does the Mitchell Report make you less interested in MLB now? Will you stop buying/buy less tickets/t-shirts/hats because players have taken/are taking performance enhancing drugs?

I became a little less interested in MLB after the '81 strike, and again after the '93-'94 lockout, and when interleague play began, and once the first steroid stories starting leaking out, and when A-Rod received a quarter-billion-dollar contract, and at various other points over the last 25+ years, and again yesterday. Over the years, little by little, baseball's stewards -- the owners, the players, the commissioner, the union, the executives, the media -- have been steadily eroding my enjoyment of the game, my ability to treat it as something more than just another programming option on weeknights or something else to discuss with co-workers.

Years ago, I started off, as a fan, feeling that baseball was special -- whether it was or not, that's how I felt -- and I valued it accordingly. My affection for baseball was a deep reservoir -- but now, at this point, I'm finding the tank is just about tapped dry. Without that affection -- without that ability to lower my rational guard and form a relationship with the game that overrides the sensible objections of reality -- baseball becomes not much more than just another diversion for me, and what I'm finding is that I don't have time for plain old diversions anymore. I only have time for things that really matter to me.

I'm fully aware that baseball was never a clean, saintly game -- I know baseball's history well enough to know that it's as ugly, and as beautiful, as any other human endeavour. But the beauty always seemed to edge out the ugliness; the transcendant overcame the mundane. For myself, I think that was because, by and large, baseball's stewards felt the same affection for it that I did. I cared because I felt they cared. What seems pretty inescapable to me now is that the stewards really don't care that much -- only some of them do, and not all that much, and I don't think any of them even know what stewardship means.  And as a result, I don't care all that much, either.

So that's where I'm at with baseball, and I don't think I'm the only one.

Several thoughts today:

#1. The burden of proof for being named in this report seems absurdly low. Of course, I've been defending Bonds for years for that same reason. At least Bonds gets his day in court.

#2. What a limited report this is in every way: evidence, sources, years of study......I can't help but feel that this is minimize the average fan's estimation of MLB drug culture.

#3. Still more MLB anti-marketing. It's as bad as Canadian music/video stations and actually playing videos.

#4. Selig had the audacity to talk about moving forward in his press conference at length yesterday--that this report somehow closed that proverbial door. Craptacular. After an inconclusive, limited report with scant evidence, scope, or enlightenment, all is forgiven instantaneously? Ridiculous. I haven't heard anything so stupid since Eminem claimed to be whatever we said he was. 

So that's where I'm at with baseball, and I don't think I'm the only one.

A typically incisive post, Jordan.  It would be difficult to express any more plainly, or more compellingly, the growing estrangement many of us feel towards the game.

I've never been so naive as to think there was never any cheating in baseball, or that what cheating there was was limited to the margins.  Cheating and unethical conduct is a pervasive part of our culture, and once I passed a certain age, I ceased to believe professional athletes of any stripe might possess any more character than the rest of us.

But I didn't consider myself naive to believe - although in retrospect I clearly was - that people involved in the game condoned or were untroubled by such widespread disregard for the criminal law, the integrity of the game, and the health and safety of the players.    Yesterday's news was not groundbreaking or even surprising, except in the limited sense of exposing as offenders a handful of new names, such as Gregg Zaun, who previously escaped suspicion, but it puts beyond doubt the fact that all interested stakeholders in the game were for the better part of a decade complicit in the abuse of illegal drugs by huge numbers of players, without any repercussions, without any concern for the sanctity of the game, and without any regard for the impact of such drugs on the health of the players who were using them and the careers of those who resisted the temptation to cheat.  As Jordan points out, if the stewards of the game hold baseball in such low regard, why should I invest anything in it, or them?

I will go one step further than Jordan, however, and note that I find the reaction of many baseball fans to be a further source of my growing sense of apathy towards the game.  Without question, people are free to make their own judgements about what sort of conduct troubles them, and baseball is certainly not an important enough subject to try to take any moral high ground over, but I cannot help but be further alienated from the game when so many are prepared to disregard systemic cheating and dishonourable conduct.  If the only thing that really matters is the spectacle, then perhaps I should move along to other entertainments that are honest enough to not pretend to be anything but the spectacle, and don't ask anything more of me.  

Make no mistake, the game still captivates and there will no doubt be many beautiful summer nights ahead when the promise of a well played game, a seat in the stands and a cold beer overwhelms my skepticism.  But I expect those moments to be fewer and fewer between, and more importantly, the narrative thread that connects those moments - an interest in the team, or the players, or the league as a whole that gives sports a life of its own and separates it from other isolated entertainments such as movies or concerts - will likely continue to wither.

But as Mike D. and Jordan alluded to, ever so cautiously, there is one key difference between Bonds and Clemens, and that difference will carry the day for Clemens.

I don't think Clemens is getting a pass.  Head over to primer and check out the multitude of aricles they've got ripping him to shreads.   A lot of people hate Clemens, and are glad he's going down.

The burden of proof for being named in this report seems absurdly low. Of course, I've been defending Bonds for years for that same reason. At least Bonds gets his day in court.

I agree.  Check out the evidence against Jack Cust and Brian Roberts.  Cust is a guy who is at the margins, and could have his career ruined by this (although I doubt it will happen, it is a possibility), all on some pretty flimsy evidence.

I think Zaun is getting a free pass right now because he hasn't come out and said anything.  Give it a week, if he still hides from the cameras and decides to dodge, I'll be the first to attack him.

In a way I almost feel bad for Zaun though, because I'd really like to believe that this was part of his addiction battle he faced many years ago and overcame.  If he came out, faced up and told us all the circumstances, I think he could cut himself a good deal of slack with the fans.

But I wish more people would just nut up and admit their freaking mistakes.

Fortunately, Luke is smart enough to immediately recognize that what Zaun did was dead wrong.  But that doesn't make Luke feel any better.

This is an inevitable rite of passage for a kid to go through, the realization that their public heroes (be they athletes, rock stars, actors, what have you) are often no more heroic than anyone else, and sometimes less so.

You seem to be a very caring older brother. Luke would be better served to find a hero closer to home, perhaps you, than a public figure in the sporting arena. In fact, all of us are likely better served to find our heroes in our own circles, where we can more easily, though not categorically, distinguish myth from reality.

Well you can tell him that there is no evidence that Zaun broke any MLB rule.

Owen, please don't tell your brother this.  VBF, as you know the rule was in effect since 1991 (though useless, since it was not tested or enforced), and in any event it was against the law. 

And "no evidence"?  Direct testimony saying "I personally shipped him steroids" and proof of payment in the form of a personal cheque from Zaun to Radomski is tons of evidence.  Zaun, who declined to cooperate or answer these charges, might one day undermine the credibility of these evidence, but I suspect the "no evidence" meme is one that the accused and their supporters will try to push aggressively...and from an evidentiary perspective, it's not true for Zaun.

Well you can tell him that there is no evidence that Zaun broke any MLB rule.

I've seen a lot of this lately, and I don't want to get into old arguments, but steroid use was illegal for the entire period anyone mentioned in the Mitchell report is alleged to have taken steroids.   It may not have been enforced, but all illegal drugs were against the rules of baseball.  See Steve Howe's multiple suspensions.

So much ballyhoo, so few reasonable solutions.

Undetectable drugs and false positives make any testing regime/suspension system unlikely to have meaningful or just effect.

It might just be that legalizing certain performance enhancing drugs and allowing players to have them administered by team doctors under monitored programs might be the best way to ensure player safety and competitive integrity.

Sure they'll still be the freak who goes way too far, but the competitive gap between the freak and the average player will be far less significant; by corollary the incentive to be a freak will be far less compelling.

I would only endorse such a position if it could be shown that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs could be taken under medical supervision without any significant health risk.

Thoughts/Solutions?

Several things the Commissioner should--must--do now to avoid the stain of hypocrisy.

1) Amnesty for all. It has been a great soap opera, that sounds facetious, but I'm sincere. Hollywood? Forget the writer's strike. This is the real thing. The Baseball family has to find a whole lot of forgiveness, right now.  Would I be politically incorrect by saying it is our Christian Duty?

2)Set an example by banning performance enhancing drug commercials. They are dangerous drugs, in my experience, almost 59 years old and counting. Ther comes a point to say I've been there, done that and move on.

After having read the entire report, my favorite parts were as follow. First, Roger Clemens getting injections in the butt. Next, the fear some players have of "big needles". Also where Selig having read about McGwire, went to a Milwaukee pharmacy to find out about it (Has Bud ever stepped into a clubhouse unannounced before? Is he that detached from the reality of the players?).   Last, the mountain of concern that the juiced players could be blackmailed into losing games (what a strange way to view that steroids are a problem to MLB).

What I took away from the report was that the only people with a backbone were the people cleaning the floors and lockers of the players. They properly went to people that work for the clubs with the evidence. They should have went straight to the media instead. Brian Sabean should be relieved of his duties in baseball and not invited back. If Rose can be kept out of the Hall for gambling as a manager, the players involved in steroids should have their numbers stripped if there is to be any shred of integrity left in MLB. Does anyone have a problem with Marion Jones or Ben Johnson losing their medals and records? Johnson said that he had wanted to be on an even playing field with the other juiced sprinters (IIRC). MLB didn't say they should forgive the Black Sox and just learn and move on.

Pettitte admits to using HGH.

of course not.  whatever effect steroids have is likely increasing bat speed, which gives you more time to pick up pitches, so you see the ball better despite your vision and hand-eye coordination not changing.  the old "steroids don't help because they don't improve hand-eye coordination" meme is trotted out either by people who 1) have never played baseball at a high level and so don't realize that hand-eye coordination is very secondary to bat speed - look at players that age normally like Bernie Williams - what they're losing sure ain't hand-eye coordination; or 2) are being disingenous.  it has nothing to do with hitting the ball slightly harder -- an extra bit of bat speed is the difference between hitting a long drive and fouling the ball back or popping it up - that's why players work out so hard - the speed with which you get the bat through the zone is everything. 

I do agree that it's very difficult to judge how much, if at all, steroids aid a hitter's performance.  But it's reasonable to think that the effect is by unnaturally proping up a player's batspeed, either (for young players) reaching a new high, or by slowing a player's decline.