 |
"Yesterday, December 13, 2007 - a date which will live in infamy - the great American pastime, baseball, was suddenly and deliberately exposed to the scrutiny and criticism of the world.”
The Mitchell Report, the long-awaited “independent investigation into the illegal use of steroids and other performance enhancing substances by players in Major League Baseball” has arrived. To no surprise, the report has already weathered its share of praise, detest, and confusion. But what effect will the Mitchell Report have on baseball? Only time will tell. This is what we can gather so far:
The Good
Major League Baseball should not test players for performance enhancing substances – instead, such tests should be performed by an independent entity unaffiliated with the sport. This was George Mitchell’s recommendation, and it looks as if it might actually happen. Baseball Commissioner, Bud Selig reacts to pressure (e.g. Selig’s reluctant attendance at Barry Bond’s home run record chase). Former Senator George Mitchell’s recommendation to separate drug-testing from the MLB enterprise, in conjunction with a court of public opinion, will almost certainly force Selig to enact such measures prior to his announced 2009 resignation. This will be good for baseball.
The Bad
Unfortunately, The Mitchell Report is built on a foundation of heresay and conjecture. Yes, certain names that have appeared in the report have confirmed the public’s suspicions, but should these findings actually be viewed as a confirmation? If anything, the Mitchell Report only confirms that MLB insiders are subject to the same wild rumors and speculation that circulate amongst the fans.
Secondly, The Mitchell Report is far from extensive. The majority of players directly implicated by the report were named by two individuals, Kirk Radomski and Brian McNamee, whose cooperation with Mitchell was facilitated by the risk of federal prosecution. But how many other trainer/prescription-writers like Radomski and McNamee exist? Probably dozens. And you can bet that hundreds of non-implicated steroid-user/players are breathing a collective sigh of relief.
The Ugly
Suspensions and ballots. Can Bud Selig use data other than failed drug tests to levy suspensions? He already has – suspending both Jay Gibbons and Jose Guillen. But will the Player’s Union stand for this? (Guillen has already appealed his suspension). It will be impossible for Selig to establish a precedent of who should or shouldn’t be suspended without the support of hard evidence. Serious discord between the Player’s Union and MLB officials is inevitable.
Is Roger Clemens a Hall of Fame pitcher? This past Monday, the 7-time Cy Young Award winner was a lock – today, maybe not. In the case of Clemens, McNamee’s testimony was particularly damning – having admitted to injecting Clemens with Winstrol in 1998. The lingering question - how will all-time great players be viewed in upcoming Hall of Fame ballots? Rest assured, this is going to get ugly.
The Grey
What is the definition of a performance-enhancing drug? Where should the game draw the line? Is rehabilitation a legitimate reason to use a steroid? What differentiates HGH usage from a cortisone shot? Who will be the judge?
Should players receive punishments for actions that occurred prior to substance bans and testing in baseball? If a substance abuse issue violated a law, but not a baseball rule, how should the infraction be treated?
The Mitchell Report has created more questions that it has answered – and the repercussions of the report will be felt for years to come. Former Senator George Mitchell just spilled juice all over the hot stove.
 | ||||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
||||
| ||||||
.jpg)
