I spent $20 million for a steroid report and all I got was this t-shirt

by 10 Comments

Santana talks will not die
T.J. Beam signs with Pirates

Lost in the brouhaha over this Mitchell Report and the fall-out was the price tag. According to popular belief (and, um, Marketwatch.com), the report cost $20 million. And as Depressed Fan noted, I think the $23,444.83 per pitch Carl Pavano made was a better use of money. What an astronomical price tag for such shoddy research.

Santana talks will not die
T.J. Beam signs with Pirates
  • Rob

    Joe Sheehan over at Baseball Prospectus (subscriber fee) has a similar take, comparing Mitchell to an overpriced veteran brought on to a losing team to give a great press conference. I thought that analogy was very apt. They didn’t get value for their money but they did get the press coverage they were after.

    One thing I have come to see, from Bill Rhoden in the Times. This era is rightly no longer about Bonds or about race or culture. That’s a sliver of a silver lining for me.

  • Tano

    What was shoddy about the report?

    Given the constraints he was working under (no waterboarding!), it seems to me that he uncovered about as much as he could. And he gave everyone mentioned ample opportunity to respond and refute before it went public.
    I think he did a good job.

    • http://deleted Back Bay Yankee

      Did it really take $20M to pump two guys for information, collate information from the BALCO investigation, and add in a couple hundred pages of filler and backup?

      Furthermore, I agree about the constraints he was working under, but this has been pitched to the audience as something far more thoroughgoing than it was. Essentially, the disclaimers haven’t been picked up by the MSM echo chamber.

    • Rob

      He reported “evidence” that’s as good as what the neighbors pass around about you. There was no effort to filter based on truth or not. It someone said it, it’s in there. That’s a damn shame.

  • Samples

    AP just reported that Andy admitted to using HGH while rehabbing his elbow. His quote made it sound like “it was only 2 days of use, big deal”, to which I would probably agree if that’s indeed all it was.

    • kris

      Pettitte said: “I wasn’t looking for an edge. I was looking to heal.”

      I believe him, while Steve Somers immediately called Pettitte a cheater. I understand he has a personal agenda against the Yankees. But come on, be fair. By the way, HGH was not a banned substance in 2002.

  • Yankee Fan in Chicago

    I’m sure John Henry, cadaver-in-chief for Sawx Nation, is well happy his buddy Selig ponied up that cash. After all, the report tars numerous Yankees as cheats, including the man Sawx Nation loves to hate more than any other, Rog-ah, and not one Sawx player — when in a Sawx uniform that is — was discovered by Mr. Magoo, er Mitchell.

  • Rob

    Jason Stark has a great measured analysis of the contrast between Bonds/Andersen and Clemens/McNamee. Well worth the read. His conclusion:

    “So where’s the outside corroboration of McNamee’s story? Is there any other witness? Any other proof? Any receipt, any mailing label, any tape that directly corroborates the allegation that Clemens did all the stuff McNamee told the Mitchell staff he did? Nope. Can’t find it.

    Is there a mountain of circumstantial evidence, not to mention staggering detail in the testimony of McNamee himself? Absolutely. But is there the kind of corroboration that any court in America would ask for? Haven’t seen it. Not yet, at least.

    But in Bonds’ case, there was enough evidence for a grand jury to hand down an indictment — without Anderson saying a word. Big difference.”

  • Tano

    I dont understand Back Bay’s comment.
    He complains about how it was “pitched” and that the disclaimers were not picked up by the MSM. So how is that a knock on the report? Sounds to me like a knock on the press, including blogs, for not accuratly reporting what the report actually was.

    Rob says that there was no effort to filter for truth. On what do you base that Rob? I’ve heard Mitchell describe his report and he seems to have 1) put the squealers under oath – thus subject to perjury if they lie, 2) accumulated corroborating evidence, like canceled checks and other things and 3) offered everyone named a chance to confront the charges and respond, before the report became public. What on earth more could he have done?

  • Rob

    Tano –

    1) Under oath, but receiving reduced prison terms. You tell me which you’d prefer: threat of perjury or certainty of jail?

    2) Only some of the players named had corroborating evidence. The “report” would have been much better if it were restricted to those players.

    3) They had no idea what they were to be questioned on. That’s a recipe to be blindsided. They were not allowed to see any evidence before meeting with him. Nor were they able to confront their accusers. Those are basic constitutional rights.

    What could he have done? As Stark points out, in Journalism 101 you don’t run a quote if it isn’t corroborated. Mitchell should have taken Journalism 101.