Both guys could well find themselves on an opening day roster somewhere. Or provide solid injury cover. Which has a value and could have gotten us a decent lower level minor leaguer at least.

It will be interesting to see what happens to Karstens, he falls into the same company. Perhaps he will take his game to another level this year after the Olympics.

– I “fancy” myself? LMAO, wow, OK.

Great job with the name calling by the way. It hurts more that it’s coming from a guy named after a woman’s hair accessory.

__________________________________________________

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3142722

__________________________________________________

What if Mitchell is wrong and names a player who never used drugs?

If a player, with some help from the union, could show that Mitchell was wrong, it would be a legal and public relations disaster for Mitchell and Major League Baseball. A single blunder would cast doubt on the entire report. Even the most egregious evidence of drug use would become dubious. And the player would be in court seeking money damages for the defaming of his character and integrity. His lawsuit would be embarrassing and expensive. It would be embarrassing for Mitchell and expensive for MLB. Selig has promised Mitchell that MLB would pay liabilities that result from Mitchell’s work. It’s called an “indemnification” agreement, and it would require MLB to pay lawyers to defend Mitchell’s work and pay judgments that result from mistakes.

“The ethical canon requires a lawyer to recuse himself at the mere appearance of a conflict of interest, regardless of whether one exists or not.”

I’m not saying that there isn’t some type of conflict given Mitchell’s connection to the Sox, but I’m not sure it’s governed by the Canons of Legal Ethics.
Lawyers are directed to “avoid” even the appearance of impropriety, and, separately to avoid real or potential conflicts of interest. The word “avoid” leaves open many paths. Most, not all, legal conflicts of interest can be waived by a client after disclosure.

Assuming Mitchell is acting as a lawyer in this engagement, who is the client? Not the Yankees or Sox, but more likely MLB, an entity with a separate legal identity and existence from any of the individual teams and whose decision-maker is the Commissioner, Bud Selig. Thus, Mitchell’s connection to the Sox may be a conflict from the Yankees’ perspective, but neither they nor the Sox are Mitchell’s clients.

Selig, the client, doesn’t think his lawyer has a conflict of interest that might lead Mitchell to do other than zealously champion the rights of his client, MLB, and ethically do his job. For all we know Selig has explicitly waived any disclosed conflict in a document he gave to Mitchell.

But maybe Mitchell isn’t acting as a lawyer in this case at all, and not giving any legal advice or rendering any legal opinions. Rather he is working as an investigator hired to make findings and recommendations to MLB. A conflict under those circumstances is not as easily defined or remedied.

Didn’t Sheffield say unless you injected it, it was not steroids and he didn’t inject “nothin” ?

I really can’t believe people are sitting here writing they “hope” someone’s name turns up on the list. I find it hard to wish hardship on anyone, even if in the end, the person brought his own suffering on himself.

The PEDs were accepted. They were accepted by the players – even the players who chose not to dabble themselves did not call out those who did; they were accepted by coaches/managerstrainers who either knew of and ignored or actively or passively encouraged their use; they were accepted by ownership, who surely welcomed the financial gain that was the side dish; they were accepted by MLB and the Players Association because the bottom line was, is and always will be MONEY.

There are many good things about free agency; but I think the unfortunate collateral damage was the competition for the money to be had out there if you could hit more homeruns, stay healthy, pitch more innings, throw harder. The sky was the limit. And if a player knew that player A was cheating (using PEDs) and being paid handsomely as a result, then that player certainly would be tempted to do the same. For the life of me, I do not and will not ever, ever understand why non-cheating players condoned the whole thing.

Anyway, it’s a sad day. And the sour taste will remain in baseball for a long time.

I really don’t know why names have to be named. If you want to solve things going forward, then go forward. The focus is not going to be on making the necessary testing changes; the focus is going to be on the players who are rightly or wrongly accused here. And my gut feeling is the guys who people like, who are perceived as having been good teammates and “good guys” will get a pass, while those that were never liked anyway will bear the brunt of the storm.