A thought on the Mitchell listBy
Right now, a supposed list of names from the Mitchell Report is making its way around the Internet. We’ve gotten a few e-mails about it, and a few other blogs have posted it. But we’re not going to yet.
We’re not posting this list because it is pure speculation at this point. No one sending this e-mail has seen the list or the Mitchell Report, and we don’t know from where the list originated. We’re not going to smear players in advance of the publication of the report, and as The Big Lead notes, MLB is denying the accuracy of the list making the rounds. When 2 p.m. hits, we’ll have coverage for you, but not until then.
In a similar vein, as this list makes the rounds, the response seems to be some mixture of shock and outrage. But why? A few of the players that are bound to show up on the real list were named in the Jason Grimsely affidavit in 2006. It’s repackaged old news.
Meanwhile, Mitchell’s evidence is based entirely on things he heard and not things he knows. So he read the newspapers in 2006 and knows that Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens were mentioned. So he’s heard the same Miguel Tejada B-12 vitamin rumors the rest of us know. Great.
This report is an exercise in futility designed to rile the masses. In that vein, it will be a great success, but where it counts, it’s a failure tainted by biases and a non-objective stance. The sooner this is out and over with, the better off baseball will be.