vthokies4life 10 Report Share Posted December 12, 2007 Well, it's out. There haven't been any names to come to the public yet, but the investigation has been completed. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2007/12/11/2007-12-11_mlb_receives_mitchell_report.html What do you all think should happen to those named in the report regarding their baseball/athletic careers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Up to 80 names could be dropped today...the feces is about to hit the fan for MLB... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance 228 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 wonder how they have kept this under wraps...there have been zero leaks of who is on the list... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan4VT 4,557 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 They said the names were supposted to come out at 2 in a press confrence. ESPN will be starting a show just for this at 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_truth 10 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 AP is reporting that Roger Clemens is linked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 [ QUOTE ] AP is reporting that Roger Clemens is linked. [/ QUOTE ] good. I can not stand how he waits till mid season for someone to sign him with a lucrative contract. i hope he never plays again AND doesnt get in the hall of fame. as you can see, he is not one of my favorite people...lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie07 11 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] AP is reporting that Roger Clemens is linked. [/ QUOTE ] good. I can not stand how he waits till mid season for someone to sign him with a lucrative contract. i hope he never plays again AND doesnt get in the hall of fame. as you can see, he is not one of my favorite people...lol [/ QUOTE ] I don't like him either, but I do like that commercial of his with the cell phone and his wife. "Guys I'm back!"...lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie07 11 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 [ QUOTE ] AP is reporting that Roger Clemens is linked. [/ QUOTE ] Add Andy Pettite to the list too... not looking good for the Yankess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] AP is reporting that Roger Clemens is linked. [/ QUOTE ] good. I can not stand how he waits till mid season for someone to sign him with a lucrative contract. i hope he never plays again AND doesnt get in the hall of fame. as you can see, he is not one of my favorite people...lol [/ QUOTE ] I don't like him either, but I do like that commercial of his with the cell phone and his wife. "Guys I'm back!"...lol [/ QUOTE ] that is a really good commercial... maybe they can make one abot the mitchell report now lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beamerball 566 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grundy10 10 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Im good with the list. No "big" name current Cincinnati Reds on the list!!! The Yankees sure took a hit though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Here is a list that I've found that has listed players implicated in the report. A few surprises, and a few no-brainers: http://blogs.thesabre.com/?p=1657 One thing I can say after a cursory glance at the report: there is negligible, if any, bias in the report. I certainly cannot find any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie07 11 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Here is another link to a list I have been following for the past 30 minutes or so and is doing a good job of updating as names are coming out... http://wcbstv.com/sports/mitchell.report.list.2.610409.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_truth 10 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Go to mlb.com and you can read the entire report for yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vthokies4life 10 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 Where is McGwire and Sosa??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 [ QUOTE ] Where is McGwire and Sosa??? [/ QUOTE ] I went to http://www.espn.com and downloaded the document from the site. McGwire's name comes up plentifully. Sosa's name comes up just once, likely due to limited, if any, contacts with Kirk Radomski. Also, ESPN has just put out an updated list, of specifically where you can find the extensive list of names in the document: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3153646 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan4VT 4,557 Report Share Posted December 13, 2007 From what ive been seeing and reading it looks like all hear-say with the exception of Clemems and Pettit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 You haven't been seeing and reading much, then. Hearsay is about as far from the truth as there is in this document. Look at the players listed in the pages 150-300 range. There are checks, money orders, and even a "thank you" note from Paul Lo Duca to serve as evidence. It's much more than hearsay. Read it, and you'll see. In addition, Mitchell took 20 months in organizing his facts, and I honestly believe that he went to painstaking measures in order to insure the accuracy of his report. If he errs even on one part, he has agreed with Bud Selig to pay indeminities to the players so "slandered", if the player can definitively prove that he did not take performance-enhancing drugs. For his sake, he HAS to get it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan4VT 4,557 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 Im just stating what Roger Cossack was saying and he is ESPNs legal analysis guy. So idk. And quite frankly idc. I hate baseball. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 ESPN has really went far out of the way to cast quite a bit of doubt and suspicion on the Mitchell Report. In my mind, ESPN has went so far as to give me founded suspicions that they have an alterior motive in reporting. Every single analyst I've heard, from Jayson Stark (who appears to want to tear Mitchell limb from limb with his bare hands) to Roger Cossack, has done this. They ignore common sense. Three things: 1. Mitchell and his crew examined over 111,000 pages of documents leading to this report. That's an almost unfathomable number. This many documents exist pertaining to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Honestly, do you think that there wouldn't be any facts in those 111,000+ pages? 2. There is cold, hard proof that major leaguers wrote checks, money orders, and even a thank you to Kirk Radomski on behalf of his providing supplements. The amounts on the checks are not small (some as high as $3,500); this would correspond to the cost of the illegal substances. 3. As part of an arbitration hearing with regards to this report, Mitchell has agreed with Bud Selig to pay indemnities if a lawsuit arises from the report. This means, if one player can factually dispute any of the evidence he was false. Mitchell, as the author here, has a high demand to make exactly sure what he's talking about is 100% signed-sealed-delivered correct. His paycheck depends on it. 4. Mitchell has also had a distinguished career, notably his ability to help formulate a cease-fire in the Northern Ireland conflict. Why would he jeopardize his future by putting out false information, or "hearsay"? Doesn't make sense! 5. Kirk Radomski agreed to testify before the Mitchell committee in order to lighten his own federal sentence. If Radomski provided false information, he would be sent down the river on perjury charges. For his own self-interest, he has incentive to tell the truth. This is easily ignored. 6. People make a fuss about the fact that Mitchell has such few names, and how he couldn't talk to many players. Baseball is a fraternity: if someone turned tail, then the whole community would look down on them. That's why just 2 of 80 players cooperated with Mitchell. Simple as that. I give the ESPN analysts a solid F in their "objective" reporting of the Mitchell Report. This, honestly, is some of the worst coverage I have ever seen outside the Bluefield Daily Telegraph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted December 14, 2007 [ QUOTE ] ESPN has really went far out of the way to cast quite a bit of doubt and suspicion on the Mitchell Report. In my mind, ESPN has went so far as to give me founded suspicions that they have an alterior motive in reporting. Every single analyst I've heard, from Jayson Stark (who appears to want to tear Mitchell limb from limb with his bare hands) to Roger Cossack, has done this. They ignore common sense. Three things: 1. Mitchell and his crew examined over 111,000 pages of documents leading to this report. That's an almost unfathomable number. This many documents exist pertaining to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Honestly, do you think that there wouldn't be any facts in those 111,000+ pages? 2. There is cold, hard proof that major leaguers wrote checks, money orders, and even a thank you to Kirk Radomski on behalf of his providing supplements. The amounts on the checks are not small (some as high as $3,500); this would correspond to the cost of the illegal substances. 3. As part of an arbitration hearing with regards to this report, Mitchell has agreed with Bud Selig to pay indemnities if a lawsuit arises from the report. This means, if one player can factually dispute any of the evidence he was false. Mitchell, as the author here, has a high demand to make exactly sure what he's talking about is 100% signed-sealed-delivered correct. His paycheck depends on it. 4. Mitchell has also had a distinguished career, notably his ability to help formulate a cease-fire in the Northern Ireland conflict. Why would he jeopardize his future by putting out false information, or "hearsay"? Doesn't make sense! 5. Kirk Radomski agreed to testify before the Mitchell committee in order to lighten his own federal sentence. If Radomski provided false information, he would be sent down the river on perjury charges. For his own self-interest, he has incentive to tell the truth. This is easily ignored. 6. People make a fuss about the fact that Mitchell has such few names, and how he couldn't talk to many players. Baseball is a fraternity: if someone turned tail, then the whole community would look down on them. That's why just 2 of 80 players cooperated with Mitchell. Simple as that. I give the ESPN analysts a solid F in their "objective" reporting of the Mitchell Report. This, honestly, is some of the worst coverage I have ever seen outside the Bluefield Daily Telegraph. [/ QUOTE ] ESPN is to sports news what CNN is to regular news...biased and untrustworthy...they tell you what they want you to hear... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.