Mitchell Report and the Hall

Just got my "Save the Big Three" t-shirt
Haren and Valverde dealt in separate deals

T.R. Sullivan, reporter and one-time head of the Baseball Writers Association, looks at Roger Clemens’ Hall of Fame chances in the wake of the Mitchell Report. Some members of the media are already saying they won’t vote for him despite the flimsy nature of the evidence. Apparently, some voters have said unequivocally that they won’t vote for anyone who appears in the report no matter the context while others, such as John Hickey as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, still believe that innocent until proven guilty should rule the day. Clemens has the luxury of five years’ distance from the report before he lands on the ballot. Lucky him.

Just got my "Save the Big Three" t-shirt
Haren and Valverde dealt in separate deals
  • Steve S

    In a court of law this is nonsense. But to be honest in the court of public opinion and specifically for hall of fame voters, Clemens isnt the equivalent of Bonds and the circumstantial evidence is even more damning. I dont think this is fair and I didnt think the bonds stuff was very fair but it is what it is. Clemens has tarnished his own reputation if he cant stand up and say all of this isnt true. And the fact that Andy hasnt said anything makes it seem clear that they used this stuff. All that being said, I really dont think this is such a big deal. This steroid thing has been media driven since day one. It has no influence on fans because ultimately these players are doing things that is hurting themselves but in the end benefiting the team. And as for integrity, thats a joke. It sports, its a game, ITS NOT A RELIGION, contrary to what guys like Bob Costas would lead you to believe. The sport intentionally discriminated against several groups for an extended period of time (probably the majority of their history). Some of the greatest icons in the sport are morally repugnant. And for those who look fondly back on the pre-free agency years, they were all over the amphetamines, the players were in essence indentured servants, and the owners back then were actually making profits (so when was it more of a business).

    All that being said this report shouldnt be acknowledged especially at this type of site. The problems abound here. First there is the inherent conflicts of interest:
    (a) Mitchell is essence an emissary sent by the owners
    (b) He is employed by the Red Sox and 22 Yankees appeared on the list (by far the most)

    And its clear that regardless of how much money he spent. His investigation was in essence reading articles from sportswriters over the last 15 years and conversations with two government informants/convicted steroid dealers. Beyond the problems with veracity of the information, is the fact that in two years he couldnt find a source of information that wasnt provided to him by government authorities. Its incompetence at its highest level. And the idea of him hiding behind the failure of the players association to cooperate is a complete joke. At any point did he think active union members would betray those within their own union?

    • Ben K.

      I agree with most of what you say, Steve, but one thing: I’ve read Game of Shadows and the concrete evidence against Bonds is much, much more damning than this circumstantial evidence against Clemens.

  • steve (different one)

    And the fact that Andy hasnt said anything makes it seem clear that they used this stuff.

    i completely disagree.

    A does not follow B at all.

    it’s only been 24 hours.

  • Ben K.

    Oh, and to address the Pettitte point: Pettitte hasn’t said anything yet because he’s still an active player. He has to consult with the Union and his lawyers and the Yankees before saying anything. His statement will come. Give it time. The section on him is rather weak.

  • Kevin23

    What good could it possibly do to be the first to comment on the allegations? He’d be all over the media. I say stay out of the limelight for a while until the sensationalism dies down and common sense returns. So maybe never.

  • Steve S

    My point about Pettitte is that the kind of character he portrays to the outside world, I would expect a David Justice reaction, provide the report is untrue, from Andy. This agent/active player stuff is a little weak. And I agree that legally its probably the more prudent thing to do, but its clear that the law has no place in this document or in this situation. People are trying to mask it as the law but its far from it.

  • Steve S

    And not to beat a dead horse but I agree that the report is nonsense and irresponsible. But, while this sounds weird, it doesnt mean the allegations arent true. Unfortunately, when discussing this stuff in Court of public opinion, its pretty strong stuff.

  • LiveFromNewYork

    Pettitte’s ATTORNEY told him not to respond because he is an active player. It is NOT weak. It is what his advisors are telling him to do. He MUST check with his lawyer, the union and the Yankees before he can say anything. He cannot jeopardize his standing as an active player by spouting off. He has to go by the protocol. Andy is a very deliberate and disciplined person. He’s not going to go off about this.

    • Steve S

      I know we love Pettitte but lets be honest, the whole lawyer thing, not really legit. I can tell you with some level of expertise, that unless he actually took the stuff, if details of those descriptions in the release are untrue then Andy wouldnt have any legal impediments. I cant imagine an attorney out there who would tell his client not to shout from the roof tops if this was a fabrication. The relevancy of him being active is ridiculous, the Union can have a response to the Mitchell Report as a whole but that doesnt help Andy as an individual in this case. I dont know how he would jeopardize anything by saying this is untrue, whether its by written statement released to the press or its him in a press conference. And by the way there is no protocol for denying a so called independent report commisioned by the league to say who did steroids. This is completely unprecedented and therefore cannot have a “protocol”. We have to come to grips with the fact that these guys did this stuff. But who cares.

  • Bbig

    i wonder if roid rage had anything to do with clemens throwing that broken bat at piazza….

    • kris

      I wonder if your comment has been stuck in the pipe for 7 years before finally getting through today.

      • LiveFromNewYork

        Okay that’s funny

  • http://RiverAve.Blues Joseph M

    I have two words, Who Cares. This is professional sports not a softball game at the town picnic on the 4th of July. The history of baseball is riddled with individuals and teams trying to get a competitive edge anyway they could. What were the 51 Giants doing when they were stealing signals? What was Gaylord Perry putting on the baseball all those years. How about teams with sinker ball pitchers letting the infield grass grow high. How about the story of the veteran catcher who use to cut the ball on his shin guard and then return it to the vetan pitcher. The names of the two players, Elston Howard, Whitey Ford . Gil Hodges and the shoe polished baseball (good gosh, was he actually trying to fool the umpire).

    Petitte was trying to heal qucikly, get back and helo his team win , give him the electric chair.

  • Mike form CT

    Let’s turn this aroubd. How would these baseball writers feel if one person said that they were copying work from another writer – a sin on par with taking steroids for a journalist – and the comment of one relatively suspect person was all it took. As a result the writer would achieve some lofty milestone because of the accusation. Would these writers feel the same way as they do about Clemens and the Hall?

    I assure they would not they would see it for the BS raw deal that it is. Even the court of public opinion needs some ethical standards that define guilt and innocence.