The Mitchell Report was released earlier today on the steroid issue affecting the MLB for the past few years.
Rumors were rampant prior to the release of the report, with big names floating around such as Pujols, Ortiz, or Arod. But neither of those three were listed in the report. Instead, we recieved names of average to below-average players, many of which were from previously known lists. The only big names were Clemens, Petite and Tejada.
So, was this report a hit? Or a miss?
I would have to go with the latter. After reading through the report, the content pretty much just summarized the BALCO investigation, the New York Met attendant case, and a case against the trainer for Clemens. Without piggybacking on the investigations by the feds, the report would have been pretty short.
The report was also limited in scope. With only access to the aforementioned cases, the players listed were only limited to the Bay Area and New York teams. Since the report was so bias toward the New York Yankees, there is a cloud of suspicion over Mitchell's credibility. Mitchell is part of the board of directors which govern over the Boston Red Sox.
With the finality this report brings, is this the end of the investigations? Are these reported names going to become the poster boys of the steroid era? I, for one, would want to know ALL the players who cheated rather than a select few.
The Mitchell Report can be found here:
RE: The Mitchell Report: Hit or Miss?
As Bay Area sports fans, our interpretation of the report would likely differ from the rest of the nation. We've been more or less at the epic center of the issue for the last few years.
My initial reaction to the Mitchell report was surprise from the list of athletes. No, not Roger Clemens or Tejada. More along the lines of "Who the hell are these scrubs?"
Stephen Randolph? Tim Laker? Ron Villone?
If these dudes are using a performance enhancing substance, they should bring it back and demand a refund.
Post new comment