The LoHud Yankees Blog

A New York Yankees blog by Chad Jennings and the staff of The Journal News


Vote in the poll: Did Clemens use steroids?

Posted by: Peter Abraham - Posted in Misc on Dec 19, 2007 Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

rogerclemens1992.jpgThe people have spoken and they love Andy Pettitte.

A record total of 2,312 people voted in our latest LoHud Yankees Blog poll and 1,822 of them said they forgive Pettitte for using human growth hormone. Only 72 thought the big lefty was a cheater while 418 said they forgive him but lost some respect for him.

Now … what of our old friend Roger Clemens. Senator George “Hey Coco, can you sign this?” Mitchell says Clemens was a juicer. The Rocket vehemently says he didn’t so it.

So our next poll is simple: Do you think Clemens used steroids, yes or no? Vote over to the right.

Comments

comments

 
 

Advertisement

307 Responses to “Vote in the poll: Did Clemens use steroids?”

  1. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:20 am

    Hey, Pete! No fair. That picture’s propoganda!

    I think the more relevant question is, “Does Roger Clemens make it into the Hall of Fame?”

  2. henner December 19th, 2007 at 2:23 am

    he obviously used

  3. Ryan December 19th, 2007 at 2:27 am

    http://cache.deadspin.com/asse.....xshirt.jpg

    The shirt is proof enough.

  4. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:27 am

    2 more yes votes would make the results the same as the Celtics record. I don’t know what’s more depressing. Clemens being exposed or the thought that the Celtics might win the whole thing this year.

  5. BigYank1 December 19th, 2007 at 2:50 am

    I believe Roger used PED’s. Having said that, I still think Mitchell’s report was TOTALLY unfair to those who were named because so MANY were left off(especially Red Sox players).

    I hope Sox fans don’t really think that NONE of their players used or are using. That is ludicrous if they really believe that. Its funny how Mitchell overlooked his OWN TEAM, questionable ethics to say the least.

  6. Faiaz (Chamberlain & the mound-hunks) December 19th, 2007 at 2:54 am

    Guess who are the happiest guys right now? Shilling & Johnson.

  7. GetReal December 19th, 2007 at 3:17 am

    What a tool that Mitchell is! He put his long career as a U.S. Congressman, Senate majority leader, judge, prosecutor, global peace negotiator, and Supreme Court candidate all on the line so he could cozy up to a baseball team! Yeah, everyone can see it. I mean, haven’t you read the embarrassing communications in the report between Theo and the scout concerning Gagne? Of course it was just a ruse to make Yankee fans believe he was hard on the Red Sox too. Nice trick there Georgie boy! And forget about the fact that it was the feds who nabbed the NY dealers, not Georgie boy. Or that they were caught BEFORE Georgie was even appointed by Selig. We all know Mitchell is hiding the other dealers that could expose the Boston cheats. Yup. That must be it. Has to be. Can’t be any other explanation.

  8. drakescakes December 19th, 2007 at 3:44 am

    “We all know Mitchell is hiding the other dealers that could expose the Boston cheats.”

    The scary thing is that the Mitchell-bashers that you are making fun of probably do actually believe that statement.

  9. Karma December 19th, 2007 at 4:03 am

    One of the poll answers should be – “I don’t care”

  10. Karma December 19th, 2007 at 4:03 am

    future poll question: was George Mitchell’s report biased?

  11. Jake December 19th, 2007 at 4:05 am

    http://www.bustedcoverage.com/?page_id=1124

    That a sports site, that is holding a blog contest with some big blogs. You basically vote from a grid formed like a NCAA Tourney. I just saw it, and I’m astonished, this blog is getting killed by a blog about the Golden State Warriors, WTF.

    And I don’t think its Mitchell’s fault this report came out like this, he basically had no other choice.

  12. dana December 19th, 2007 at 4:43 am

    I don’t think the Mitchell Report is wrong perse but I do believe it is incomplete (very much so).

  13. Tailgunner Joe December 19th, 2007 at 6:02 am

    “Mr Clemens, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?”

    Alberto Gonzales is still at large and Congress has nothing better to do then whinne about the Empire.

  14. I am Cano (if only) December 19th, 2007 at 6:32 am

    Yes but I still think he’s HOF material.

  15. Doreen December 19th, 2007 at 7:08 am

    I still believe in Santa Clause…

  16. Laura December 19th, 2007 at 7:19 am

    Roger cheated, but the things he accomplished before he started juicing are still enough to get him into the Hall. Now, maybe he doesn’t get it on the first go round as a penalty, but he’s got to get in that second time.

  17. sunny615 December 19th, 2007 at 7:27 am

    Until I get some facts (i.e., Book of Shadows to Bonds type facts), I’ll withhold judgement of Clemens. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. I guess I’m just one of those “old testament” types – “He who is without sin…” blah blah blah…

  18. KoolKoreanKid23 December 19th, 2007 at 7:50 am

    I believe Roger Clemens. He did NOT take steroids.

  19. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 7:56 am

    What I would prefer to see is a reporter with the cojones to write and print an article about the despicable practice of other journalists and in particular sports writers who stalk athletes in place like family settings such as churches where they take pictures, take notes of sermons, harass parishioners for comments and track fathers to elementary schools where athletes go to pick up their children. I realize this is a waste of typing because it will never happen. No journalist is going to drop the hammer on another journalist.

  20. stan December 19th, 2007 at 8:14 am

    NO, he did not use!

  21. TurnTwo December 19th, 2007 at 8:27 am

    My common sense tells me he used, but legally I think he’s pretty safe from a true conviction.

    Either way, he’s still a HoF pitcher, same as Bonds.

  22. Ray December 19th, 2007 at 8:31 am

    I don’t believe he did. (Against all odds!!!) He does get in HOF 1st ballot.

  23. Ranting Guy December 19th, 2007 at 8:34 am

    Innocent until proven guilty is the way it’s supposed to be approached, but yeah CLemens probably did. If he did, I wish he wouldn’t deny it in a big way because he’d come out looking more like Rafael Palmiero when the truth surfaces.

    But he’s still HOF-worthy. There are already lots of guys in the HOF who helped create the color line, have done illegal stuff, played on amphetamines, corked bats, scuffed balls, and cheated at the game in other ways.

    If the report leads to more info from more guys being prodded into opening up, we’ll probably find a much bigger number of guys who did it. When you put Clemens in context of that (just assuming it’s true for sake of argument) maybe he’s cheated about as much as some guys who are already in.

    Guys who gambled on the game are in, even guys who gambled on their own teams too. On a side note to that – Pete Rose is an exception because he got caught. Even if he really only bet on his team to win. I’ve said before I think Pete should be in, strictly as a player.

    In an ideal world, the HOF would enshrine only good sportsmen with respectable moral standards. But the reality is that hasn’t been limited to such players. Because of that, not letting Clemens or Rose in now would be hypocritical. Same goes for Bonds, even though I really dislike his public persona and I think he juiced a much as anyone.

    Maybe confirmed ‘roid guys should have something on their plaques noting they ‘played in the steroid era’ rather than specifically saying ‘he used steroids’ … and people can judge them accordingly.

  24. murphydog December 19th, 2007 at 8:35 am

    Yankees fire traveling secretary
    Szen pleads guilty to tax fraud, awaits sentencing.

    Let’s see… Szen is an IRS Federal tax case worth maybe a total of $100G for not reporting tips/gratuities from players coaches. Seems light for the US Attorney’s Office to green light a prosecution, but… BALCO was an IRS money laundering case. Is there a connection? Hmmmm…

    How do you find out about things such as traveling secretaries not reporting tips? An audit suggested by something or someone. The Yankees would have just fired the guy if they were upset by his antics, not turn him over to IRS. So was that someone McNamee? Radomski? Or did Szen do something stupid that caught the IRS’ eye?

    But once an audit is undertaken, does it stop with Szen’s books? Not necessarily. Financial records for players and coaches who may have tipped Szen might get subpoenaed and those players or coaches might be interviewed about their tips to Szen. Or their financial records might reveal other things of interest to IRS. In looking over those financial records, can IRS make a referral to NYS Tax about a certain shortstop because he might have been very generous to a clubbie or traveling secretary? Yup. (Domicile doesn’t matter to the feds, it’s a state tax issue). Are the feds looking into every traveling secretary and clubbie for unreported income? If not, then why just the Yankees? I can’t believe that any clubbies or traveling secretaries report tips. Maybe the IRS is not done with baseball.

  25. James December 19th, 2007 at 8:36 am

    I think your poll is missing an “I don’t know” option. Or maybe a “Doesn’t matter”.

  26. rbj December 19th, 2007 at 8:37 am

    I vote yes. After Rafael and Marion Jones etc., etc., etc., I unfortunately cannot believe any denial. Sad state that we are in. I do think Roger & Barry have done enough pre-steroids to be in the HoF. And the Mitchell report was woefully incomplete, it is somewhat unfair to list some names while there are so many other out there unnamed.

  27. NO HYPE December 19th, 2007 at 8:40 am

    C) Who gives a crap

  28. Jim December 19th, 2007 at 8:40 am

    I thought in this country we were presumed innocent until proven guilty. I see no proof that he took PED’s in that report except for one (questionable) person’s statement. Until he either admits it or there is some proof of it, my vote is no.

  29. Juke Early December 19th, 2007 at 8:42 am

    Seems no matter what the focal point of many baseball stories are, the NYY are attacked? This country may be the greatest in the world, but that’s a pathetic, by default status. While there are few excuses accepted by authority for law breaking, it is often overlooked, the same fallible species who break laws, make the laws. They change them too, when it suits them. AND they bend them, every day in very way.

    Develop an accurate test for the banned substance(s). Administer it uniformly and establish a firm penalty to proven offenders. And execute it. Or STFU. Yesterday.

  30. Juke Early December 19th, 2007 at 8:46 am

    No wonder I don’t have a proofreader gig…..

  31. Jim December 19th, 2007 at 8:47 am

    We could actually take it a step further and say that ARod did steroids too, just because Canseco says he did. Until there is some more evidence or Clemens admits it, I don’t think it’s fair to throw anyone under the bus.

  32. Mike from CT December 19th, 2007 at 8:49 am

    The Yes/No dichotomy is too restrictive. Do any of know anything for sure? My name isn’t McNamee, so I cannot claim to have fueled the Rocket’s buttock. Couldn’t you have added more categories?

    1) Probably, but I don’t care.
    2) Probably, and he should be run out of town on a rail.

  33. Brian (Red Sox Fan) December 19th, 2007 at 8:51 am

    Jim ….. you’re using the standard of proof used in criminal law (“innocent until proven guilty”). The Clemens situation has produced enough facts and factoids for people to hold an informed opinion.

  34. Jim Clark December 19th, 2007 at 8:54 am

    Is HGH considered a steroid? We use “steroid” to cover all kinds of illegal chemicals but aren’t they technically a subset? In any case I believe Clemens used them as well as HGH.
    David Wells, on the other hand, is a legal juicer..86 proof only (I think). Anyone remember a few years ago Bob Klapisch writing that Clemens and his posse were very pleased Wells had a back injury with the White Sox? Wells didn’t take care of himself like Clemens did. Wells has some issues but he and Mussina and Rivera are looking strong (as far as we know).

  35. willis December 19th, 2007 at 8:55 am

    Not saying I believe Roger but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Imagine having your whole lifes work ruined because one guy said you did something because he wanted to stay out of jail. The whole report is a joke. Mitchell was the wrong man to run it period. Someone should ask him if he got a World Series Ring from the Sux. Paid or not he is a life long Red Sox homer and by default one would have to conclude a Yankee/Clemens hater.

  36. Boogie Down December 19th, 2007 at 8:56 am

    I agree Jake!!! How are we allowing this to happen? This site is losing to a Golden State Warriors blog. Are you kidding me??

    People…get out and vote.

    http://www.bustedcoverage.com/?page_id=1124

  37. Jim December 19th, 2007 at 9:02 am

    Brian, please show me these facts. I would love to see them.

    I’m not saying he didn’t do steroids, I’m just saying until I see either some proof or an admission I’m not jumping to any conclusions.

  38. Grant December 19th, 2007 at 9:14 am

    It may be naive, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt until more damning evidence comes out.

  39. Matt December 19th, 2007 at 9:20 am

    Willis :

    It shouldn’t come as a surprise if Mitchell and Gammons both get WS rings presented to them by Socks owner John Henry.
    Let’s see if Gammons has the nerve to wear his on camera with ESPN.

  40. Doreen December 19th, 2007 at 9:25 am

    I think we’ve become a nation of skeptics. Is there any surprise as to why?

    Years ago, a lot of issues were swept under the rug, and kept there by professional courtesy. And people actually believed in the purity of, say, President Kennedy. But Watergate opened the floodgates (no pun intended). Investigative journalism took on a new life, and now everything is exposed – even overexposed, at times.

    We have heard all manner of politicians and celebrities being charged with behaviors, criminal or just plain unsavory, and been given the blanket pleas of innocence only to find out the lies. It’s been rare when allegations of misconduct have been found to be untrue.

    So, that makes the Clemens situation very much characteristic of the typical modern day morality play. First, rumors of misconduct by a certain Hero; hero is charged with something bad; hero denies vehemently and defends his honor; smoking gun is found; hero hangs head in shame and tearfully apologizes to disappointed hordes.

    Although I want desperately to believe that Clemens is telling the truth, history tells me he probably is not. But I will still hang on in naivete until the smoking gun is found.

  41. Pat December 19th, 2007 at 9:33 am

    You shouldn’t make the choices so cut and dry. They should be more along the lines of if we think he took them but forgive him as well. I could never hate on the guy who threw a bat at Mike Piazza

  42. Mayor Quinby December 19th, 2007 at 9:38 am

    Doreen-

    I don’t think it’s a big deal, one way or another. What’s worse – Bobby Thompson stealing signals on “the shot heard around the world”; broad based use of greenies, cortisone, and pain killers; or HGH?

    ps vote Quinby!!

  43. willis December 19th, 2007 at 9:42 am

    Matt

    I think some sports reporter should dig into this and find out, does Mitchell have a Red Sox World Series ring?

  44. willis December 19th, 2007 at 9:46 am

    Mayor Quinby

    How about pitchers who put foreign substances on baseballs?

  45. willis December 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am

    Doreen

    You are sure on to something there. After Watergate, almost every mainstream reporter wanted to “save the world”. They believe it is their job to “steer” the American public into
    the right way of thinking. sorry rant!

  46. Don Capone December 19th, 2007 at 9:54 am

    I really want to believe Roger. Why should we believe the word of some trainer we never heard of over Clemens? But I’m cynical, and I know everyone lies, no matter how strongly they deny something. Palmiero lied to Congress, Clinton lied about Monica, Bush lied about WMDs. So I shouldn’t believe Roger. But I do.

  47. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 9:54 am

    Yankee fans are so pathetic trying to shoot down the messenger. Their state of denial is amazing. I guess it’s like the SF fans who continued to cheer Bonds right on up till the end.

  48. Don Capone December 19th, 2007 at 9:58 am

    I don’t think Mitchell was protecting the Red Sox. It just happened that the two guys who spilled their guts were connected to the NY teams. Really, there should be further investigations.

  49. willis December 19th, 2007 at 9:59 am

    Carl

    If you res this blog, you will find more people here criticizing the Mitchell Report then defending Clemens.
    Go look at the poll!
    Maybe you should go back to a sux forum and preach to the choir.

  50. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 10:03 am

    Carl
    December 19th, 2007 at 9:54 am
    Yankee fans are so pathetic trying to shoot down the messenger. Their state of denial is amazing. I guess it’s like the SF fans who continued to cheer Bonds right on up till the end.

    ____________________________________________________
    Or, like Red Sox fans who continue to say Mitchell had no conflict of interest and the Sox had nothing to hide.

  51. willis December 19th, 2007 at 10:03 am

    Don

    You have to admit that having Michell run the investigation was a bad move. Especially when the report names so many Yankees. Imagine if Randy Levine ran this thing and used mostly Boston sources to name names…

  52. Steve Balboni December 19th, 2007 at 10:06 am

    So Mitchel was right (so far, by admission) about F.P. Santagelo, Andy Pettitte, Brian Roberts, Fernando Vina, Ricky Bones, Larry Bigbie, Tim Laker, Josias Manzanillo, Chris Donnels, Adam Piatt, Chad Allen and Dan Naulty, but was wrong about wrong about Roger Clemens….

    ….right……

  53. Artie A December 19th, 2007 at 10:08 am

    Roger throwing the bat at Piazza…hmmmm..you don’t think he was crazed on Roids?

    The only Roger I want in the all fame right now is Roger Maris..the true single season home run champ. Two time league MVP. At least his asterisk is drug free.

  54. willis December 19th, 2007 at 10:10 am

    Steve Balboni

    Just playing the devils advocate here…
    Do you think there is a chance he named a name that didn’t use PED’s?
    Most here seem more upset set in an incomplete investigation naming names. The general public thinks all other players are clean, especially those choir boys in Bassston..

  55. Florida Yank December 19th, 2007 at 10:10 am

    The Mitchell Report is getting more ludicrous by the day. Just a typical government style report full of holes and inconsistencies to make it controversial for years to come.
    For a report that [supposedly] took two years to complete and cost millions, it was ill prepared with conflict of interest. The thought process never entered the picture as evidenced by the aftermath.

  56. Don Capone December 19th, 2007 at 10:11 am

    Yeah, having Mitchell run the investigation while being tied to the Sox wasn’t the brightest move by Selig. But Selig was commisioner while owning the Brewers, so what does he know? And hell, Katherine Harris was hired to decide the 2000 presidential election, even though she was Bush’s campaign co-chair in Florida! Talk about conflict of interest.

  57. KoolKoreanKid23 December 19th, 2007 at 10:12 am

    Carl, you do realize that there’s not even a lick of physical proof at all that connects Clemens to ped’s.

  58. KoolKoreanKid23 December 19th, 2007 at 10:14 am

    I agree with Don Cappone. I don’t agree with the hiring of Mitchell, but by no means will I say the report is incredible just because he’s a red sox employee.

  59. raymagnetic December 19th, 2007 at 10:14 am

    “Jim ….. you’re using the standard of proof used in criminal law (”innocent until proven guilty”). The Clemens situation has produced enough facts and factoids for people to hold an informed opinion.”

    What facts have been produced in the Clemens situation? Please list them to me.

    As for factoid, I have no idea what that is, a fact on steroids?

  60. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 10:17 am

    hey it’s that old love it or leave it mentality rearing it’s ugly head again..how could you not lose a little respect for andy? i mean just a little, he let you down, didn’t he or does he get away scott free. i guess it’s all a game anyway, a popularity contest, an escape from reality.
    curious as to what the age breakdown on that poll was? i’m in my 50′s and i have to admit when mickey was exposed for the drunk he was, i was hurt and disappointed and lost some respect for my idol. just trying to be honest here. we all still love andy.

  61. Kill-Schill(ing) December 19th, 2007 at 10:21 am

    Without a doubt, Roger Clemens is a member of the Communist party and in all likelihood, a Witch.

    Want to know how he has managed to maintain his dominance for so long? Isn’t it obvious, like Faust, Roger signed a pack with the Devil.

    After all, he was Red Sox for 13 years– notice the number.

  62. Dave December 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am

    The poll on the right is always buried several pages down below the actual post when it’s at the top of the page. If the polls are topical you might want to have them bump it higher up, maybe above some of the links.

    I always thought he did, but I don’t really care. He is one of those guys who worked his butt off either way. I don’t mind steroid use unless it’s by kids or people who are too lazy to do the work on their own. Roger was neither.

  63. Steve Balboni December 19th, 2007 at 10:26 am

    –willis

    Its certainly possible that Radomski and McNamee gave incorrect information to Mitchell. However, what would be the motive? They gave a ton of names along with documentary evidence on many users, so its not like they needed additional guys to implicate to curry favor with the government. In addition, those they have named seem accurate, as players named (who have spoken) have overwhelmingly announced their guilt. And one of McNamee biggest supporters was Clemens. I seriously doubt that he would then turn around a implicate Clemens out of some desire to name additional names.

    That being said, there is certainly the possibility that Clemens didn’t do anything. But to some here – maybe most – they wouldn’t believe he did anything unless they injected him themself.

  64. Anthony December 19th, 2007 at 10:27 am

    So, with Clemens’ fall from grace, the Simpsons curse continues. How long before we find out some dirt on Wade Boggs and Ozzie Smith? They’re the only ones left who haven’t been effected yet.

  65. pounder December 19th, 2007 at 10:30 am

    I believe Clemens was using,hell,he probably still is using,but Mitchells report was biased.How can a respected prosecutor such as he,stand by a report that would be laughed out of court,if he did not have an ulterior motive to do so.Why besmirch his own legacy,by his own hand no less,if he were not following somebody else’s script.All of you pundits who say that a man of his stature would never ever,not in a million years allow himself to be used this way are being very naive.In short, the man is a pimp.

  66. MarkK December 19th, 2007 at 10:30 am

    I do not believe the pathological liar George Mitchell. Period. I do not believe the twits who threw together the report which bears Mitchell’s name.

    After that’s said, I’ve always suspect that Rocket just might use PEDs, but only because I could not get in that kind of shape no matter what I lifted, kicked, pushed, pulled, or ingested.

    No, the vehemence of Rocket’s denial did it for me. Hey, Mitchell — PROVE IT!

  67. Sparky O December 19th, 2007 at 10:33 am

    Does anyone think Ripken did it the way or with help?
    Just asking..If yes you think he was protected in this investigation?

  68. Ray December 19th, 2007 at 10:34 am

    Sounds like the Mitchell report is just the tip of the iceberg. I saw on SI that there is an international drug sting for steroids & HGH from China & its market in USA. With it comes the dealers lists of names of users. Also, Congress is going to have hearings of the players as well. Can anyone say Mark McGwire or espanol for Sammy Sosa? (No Speaka de English!)

    Wow! Maybe Clemens will get his stage! This could really be a who’s Who in sports.

  69. Sparky O December 19th, 2007 at 10:35 am

    wee need an edit button…I meant to say the right way

  70. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 10:35 am

    willis — by shooting the messenger, you are defending Clemens. Plus, there are enough people on this page defending Clemens directly to make your statement sound baseless.

    GreenBeret — It is up to the public to decide whether Mitchells’ relationship with the Red Sox was such that it posed a conflict of interest. Selig and MLB didn’t think so. The public for the most part doesn’t think so. It’s mostly Yankee fans. Hmmmm. No surprise.

    As for reasonable doubt, this is NOT a court of law. It is the court of public opinion. Clemens is losing badly in this court. And Yankee fans are losing too.

    As for evidence, there is direct testimony by Grimsley, Radomski/McNamee, and Canseco. Their testimony is not hearsay and would be admissible in a court of law. Moreover Pettitte and others would be called to testify as well if it were ever a real trial. Then it would be up to the jury to decide if that evidence is credible enough. I think they would.

  71. Lori December 19th, 2007 at 10:35 am

    This is exactly the problem with a report like this. A person is named based on someone’s say-so (here, a person who was otherwise facing criminal prosecution) and yet we choose to believe that person over Clemens’ denial. Why one over the other? Can’t be the credibility factor (felon vs. likely HOF pitcher). Is it only because Mitchell wrote it in his report? And I do not believe Mitchell had an axe to grind with the Yankees given his Red Sox loyalties. BUT, he did have limited sources and limited access. He seems to be reporting what he has been told. IMHO, the fact that Mitchell is reporting the hearsay (and uncorraborated) statement of another person does not make it any more believable.

    So, do I think Clemens used? Probably not. Am I convinced 100% of that – no. But it is very hard to prove a negative. The fact that his name has been tarnished by someone looking to avoid criminal prosecution has now unfortunately forever left him with a cloud over his head.

  72. whozat December 19th, 2007 at 10:36 am

    “so its not like they needed additional guys to implicate to curry favor with the government.”

    I disagree. The report needed shock value. Tejada wouldn’t provide that, as we’ve already heard that name. Pettitte’s use was so minimal that it didn’t give the report that punch.

    Getting Clemens got the report media attention. The whole point of this report is to create the appearance that Selig’s getting tough on PEDs, not to actually change anything. Without Clemens, no one really pays attention.

  73. Ray December 19th, 2007 at 10:40 am

    With Clemens he may have or may not have used. When dealing with a liar like his trainer is you never know. His trainer stated for the record that Clemens was not a user. Later after he was fired by Clemens due to the BALCO investigation & after the Date Rape thing he decideds to confess that Clemens is a user. Of course, the FEDs would prefer to have a big name as well, because they knew some big names were users & not just the wantabees.

    It should get intersting when the Congressional hearings take place.

  74. Grant December 19th, 2007 at 10:43 am

    “…I don’t know if I ever take the steroids, I guess that’s why they call me Big Pappi…”

  75. willis December 19th, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Maye Pete can find out if Sen. Mitchell has recieved or will receive a Red Sox World Series Ring…

  76. Yanksrule57 December 19th, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Way too soon to try and make a definitive statement. Based on what I’ve read I think Clemens does deserve the benefit of the doubt until there is more proof than McNamee’s word.
    You people that are shooting your mouths off over this may want to remember a case about a year ago.
    It was called the Duke Lacrosse case. Those players were tried and convicted in the blogs and media. Look who was the one who wound up in jail.

    All I’m saying is, this isn’t an OJ kind of thing where there is blood everywhere. There is circumstantial evidence and there is testimony from someone who may have other reasons for saying what he did. Be patient and it will all come out. In the mean-time try to be reasonable and let Clemens have his say.

  77. FS654 December 19th, 2007 at 10:45 am

    Doreen -

    You are right that Clemens is probably not telling the truth. I also hope that he never used PEDs, but feel that he probably did. But you are also right to hold on to your hope that he didn’t until there’s some proof.

    We need to remember that not all accusations are true. Remember those lacrosse players from Duke University who were accused of rape? That certainly looked bad when it was first alleged, and they turned out to be completely innocent!

  78. Stew Collins December 19th, 2007 at 10:45 am

    By looking at his numbers with his last years as a Bo’Sox and then his 6-6 start his 1st year with the Jays to zoom the rest of the year to 14-0, in an era where teams are afraid to sign a pitcher to more than 4 years, I’d have to say he did. with that said I still admire the guy, no one lives in a vacuum and you still have to work hard for that sh*t to work. You just don’t inject yourself and turn into Popeye after wolfin’ down some spinach. Play dominating baseball for an additional 10 years or go home and play Mr. Mom, what would you do? I know my answer and I’m brave enough to admit it, especially with everyone else doing the same thing and MLB looking the other way. You’d have to be a complete moron to not now what McGwire was doing at the time, but I come from a high school football team in central Jersey where at least a dozen guys were juicing. It’s been a part of sports culture for a loooong time and for everyone to act so shocked now is completely absurd. wake up!!

  79. Yanksrule57 December 19th, 2007 at 10:46 am

    BTW, Ray brings up a point about McNamee, why isn’t this date rape thing getting more media play? I guess it’s just more fun to try and take down a superstar, huh?

  80. rb15 December 19th, 2007 at 10:47 am

    Carl, I think you’re wrong – a lot of people think Mitchell shouldn’t have headed the investigation. I google-newsed ["mitchell report" "conflict of interest"] and the first three hits that came up were articles to that effect from the la times, the san francisco chronicle, and si.com. Also, plenty of Red Sox fans I know DO think it’s a conflict of interest. And as a lawyer, I can tell you that Mitchell heading up the investigation, if it wasn’t a conflict of interest, was close enough to one to suggest that there might be a better candidate out there.

    Also, re: standard of proof in a lawsuit. Because this would be a civil suit, you all are correct in that it requires a lower standard of proof – preponderance of the evidence, and not beyond a reasonable doubt. But at the same time, none of the players named in the report have had any chance to tell their sides of the story. If we’re going to parallel the report to an actual lawsuit, we should give both sides their “day in court.”

    The end of the story is, the Mitchell Report wasn’t meant to parallel a civil suit – Mitchell served as the detective, lawyer, judge, and jury. I’d like to think that Roger didn’t take PEDs, but I suspect he did. But, the Mitchell Report’s accuracy doesnt justify its methods – it gave the players absolutely no recourse, and in my mind, that’s unfair.

  81. Rebecca--Optimist Prime--Save the Three Musketeers! December 19th, 2007 at 10:48 am

    Hey guys:

    Tonight, on the SportstalkNY webcast that I cover the Yanks for, one of our guests is former pitcher Mark Littell–the guy that gave up the Chambliss home run in ’76.

    You should all tune in.
    http://ustream.tv/channel/sportstalkny

    9 PM Eastern.

    If you’ve got any questions for Littell, email me and I’ll see what I can do =D

    (/shameless self promotion is now over)

  82. whozat December 19th, 2007 at 10:49 am

    “The public for the most part doesn’t think so. ”

    The public for the most part probably doesn’t even know Mitchell is on the Sox BoD.

    Also, the Clemens and Pettitte were NOT mentioned in the Grimsley affidavit. That “leak” was debunked by an official involved in the investigation.

    Also, Radomski said that he felt McNamee had implied he was selling PEDs to Clemens and Pettitte. The names never came up.

    So…it’s McNamee’s word against Clemens.

  83. KevinKM December 19th, 2007 at 10:53 am

    Look at how big his thumb is, he is clearly juicing

  84. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 10:54 am

    Carl, about the only public that thinks Mitchell doesn’t have a conflict of interest contains Selig, Mitchell and Boston fans. Talk about conflict of interest..Selig’s interference in the sale of the Red Sox and his backdoor dealings with Loria and Henry.

  85. J-Dawg December 19th, 2007 at 10:54 am

    I may be copping out here, but I will just try to keep from passing judgement until the real truth comes out about Clemens. Even with the reported steroid use in 1998, Clemens is a definite Hall of Famer. His numbers from 1984-1997 speak for themselves. He is a surefire Hall of Famer just because of what he did back then. The Cy Young awards, the MVP, the strikeouts, and his reputation as an intimidator (the Oh No! factor) all help to cement the fact that he will be in Cooperstown.

    As a baseball fan in general, it’s kind of disturbing to me that there are doubts over whether he is a Hall of Famer. Even before steroids, there is no doubt in my mind that he is a Hall of Famer.

  86. Lori December 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am

    And in any so-called trial everyone is talking about, Mitchell doesn’t testify as to McNamee’s statements. Only McNamee does. And he is subject to cross-examination – about anything that affects his credibility. That includes his prior denials, his arrest, his “deal,” etc. And so whozat, you are absolutely right: it is McNamee’s word against Clemens. Then who do you believe?

  87. On D Ball December 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am

    I here-by stipulate to the following:

    George Mitchell is a honest man.

    He investigated and found all illegal drug users.

    No Boston Red Sox player of note used any illegal substance.

    Also, it does not rain or snow in Boston.

  88. Don Capone December 19th, 2007 at 11:01 am

    Hey Rebecca,

    More shameless self promotion. My short story “The Chambliss Tapes” is a time travel story that involves the famous homerun. I sent Chambliss a copy of the book but never heard from him. : (

    http://www.amazon.com/Rebellio.....038;sr=1-1

  89. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 11:03 am

    rb 15 — I know a lot of fans who root for many teams and very few think it was a conflict of interest. Most of the people I’ve talked with believe as I do — that a person of Mitchell’s reputation which is unassailable would never risk it for something so trivial (relatively speaking) as a sports investigation. We’re not taking nuclear arms here. Or Middle East peace. Or even the economy. Just baseball players. Further, as an ex-judge and prosecutor, he knows enough about conflicts of interest that he would recuse himself if he felt unable to render a fair and impartial decision.

    But bottom line is that the viewpoint of Yankee fans is in the minority here and is very similar to the denial Giants fans have been in for the last 4-6 years.

    Moreover, cite a source at least. Give me the name of a respected national or regional journalist who categorically states that there was a conflict of interest to the extent the report could not be rendered fairly. Give links. For every journalist/analyst you find who believes there was a serious conflict of interest, I’ll find you 3 or 4 who don’t think so. Or will say there may have been the appearance of one, but it didn’t dent the reliability of his findings.

  90. joe b December 19th, 2007 at 11:03 am

    NO HYDE…Right on the money

  91. joe b December 19th, 2007 at 11:07 am

    Ray…Where do you get your info from. You should have been on the committee. You seem to have all the inside stuff….A REAL YANKEE FAN

  92. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 11:09 am

    GreenBeret — I think you’re wrong. Every poll I’ve seen has concluded Clemens is guilty. Sure a portion of the public think there was a conflict – mostly Yankee fans, those who were named in the report and their friends and families, many baseball players, and Donald Fehr. ; )

    Most think there was none.

  93. raymagnetic December 19th, 2007 at 11:10 am

    “By looking at his numbers with his last years as a Bo’Sox and then his 6-6 start his 1st year with the Jays to zoom the rest of the year to 14-0, in an era where teams are afraid to sign a pitcher to more than 4 years, I’d have to say he did. ”

    The funny thing is when you look at his numbers you will see that in 1996, his last year with the Red Sox he pitched great. He pitched to an ERA+ of 139, pitching 242 IP’s and striking out 257. Was he doping during his last year with the Sox then? When McNamee wasn’t his trainer?

    Another thing is when you look at his numbers, he was never that good with the Yankees. Never.

    He was better his last year with the Sox, his two years with the Blue Jays, and his years with the Astros.

    This makes me wonder, if he was using all that time how come he was never really great during his time with the Yankees? Even in the year when he won the Cy Young he wasn’t as good as he was statistically his last year with the Sox.

    Did his alleged steroids just not work as good during his time with the Yankees?

  94. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 11:12 am

    Lori — Clemens would be subject to cross examination too. Players who he talked with about steroids, or who he was with when he talked about PEDs, would also be called to testify. It works both ways.

    If Clemens is so innocent, let him bring a lawsuit. He’s rich enough that he can afford excellent lawyers. But you’ll never see one. Because he’s guilty.

  95. joe b December 19th, 2007 at 11:17 am

    OUCH with an **************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

  96. JGNYC December 19th, 2007 at 11:20 am

    Yanks finally added Hawkins to the 40 man roster, which now totals 41 players on Yankees.com. I wonder who’s coming off???

  97. Lori December 19th, 2007 at 11:22 am

    Carl – Yes, Clemens absolutely would be subject to cross examination. And all the potential witnesses you list could be called to testify. But my point for now is that we don’t have any names, evidence right now EXCEPT for McNamee. If Mitchell had more evidence, where is it?

    As for whether Clemens will bring a lawsuit — there are lots of reasons why people don’t bring lawsuits and it is had nothing to do with whether they are guilty or not. (in the interest of full disclosure: I defend lawsuits for a living, so I’m very happy when people bring them). First, in a slander/libel trial, there are a whole lot of questions besides whether or not Clemens used steroids. As has been discussed in this blog, public figures have much more difficulty in winning these things whether or not the statement made is true or false. But even putting that aside, there is a significant emotional toll involved and a lot of time, effort and investment made. If Clemens is in fact retiring, I can’t imagine he wants to spend time on this lawsuit.

    Our society is way too litigious already.

  98. rb15 December 19th, 2007 at 11:22 am

    Carl, you wrote that for the most part, the general public doesn’t think it was a conflict of interest. I pointed out that a good segment of the public – at least enough to warrant the issue being raised in two major newspapers and on si.com – does. I gave you the exact search I used to find those sources – I think that’s good enough to prove they exist. I can’t prove that the general public thinks its a conflict any more than you can prove that the general public doesn’t think its a conflict. That’s why, a week later, we’re still all debating whether there’s a conflict.

    And frankly, while Sen. Mitchell is a very accomplished and experienced man, I don’t think it was appropriate for him to conduct this investigation. If MLB wanted the imprimatur of a senator/judge on the report, then it should have allowed a full bipartisan congressional investigation – with subpoena power – from the outset.

    I’m disturbed by the line that’s been tiptoed around here: that Senator Mitchell was a proper choice because of all his previous experience in the federal government, but that any shortcomings in the report should be excused because, in part Senator Mitchell was acting as a private citizen that didn’t have the power of the federal government behind him. I think this strange dichotomy hits the report’s critics from both sides, and at the same time gives its supporters a safe harbor.

  99. Keith December 19th, 2007 at 11:24 am

    Many will remember that Curt “Table for One” Schilling sat at the Congressional Hearings along with Palmiero, Sosa, and McGwire. Why was he there ?
    He certainly wasn’t there for his love of Dunkin’ Donuts.

  100. rb15 December 19th, 2007 at 11:26 am

    Also, Carl, to refocus: I suspect that Clemens did use PEDs, if only because the report’s been accurate so far. My problem with the report is that, because of what some people perceive as a conflict of interest, there will always be a question of what information Mitchell could have included but didn’t, or what clubbie he could have interviewed but didn’t. That elephant’s not going anywhere soon.

  101. Born in da Bronx December 19th, 2007 at 11:27 am

    After all this, I have come to the conclusion that it would be an excellent idea for politicians to actually take PED’s. Maybe we would actually get something done in Congress. Or perhaps politicos should be tested for booze or other drugs. Get rid of the junkies and alcoholics in congress, etc.

  102. willis December 19th, 2007 at 11:30 am

    Wouldn’t it be nice if TV/Newspapers would start using a picture of Roger in a Blue Jays uniform instead of a Yankees uniform, after all the report does say he started using in Toronto…

  103. Nick L. December 19th, 2007 at 11:37 am

    Should this entire fiasco see it’s way to litagation, Radomski and McNamee should be subjected to a lie detector test and have it admissible as evidence that they were coherced in some form and without any guesswork. As it’s Chief, Don Fehr sould do no worse than suggest such action to protect the players he represents.

  104. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 11:39 am

    RB15, congress and baseball already has the perfect person to run that investigation. He’s not overly concerned about ruffling feathers. Try Senator Jim Bunning, Kentucky. HOF pitcher. He’s being trying to get things going for years and Selig ignors it.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn.....id=3160210

    Tuesday, U.S. Senator and Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Bunning said players accused in Mitchell’s report deserve a chance to clear their names. Bunning said MLB owes it to the players to set up judicial hearings so their sides can be heard.

    Bunning said that without such hearings, the accused players will be convicted “in the court of public opinion,” which he said isn’t fair. The Kentucky Republican doesn’t want to protect those who used such drugs. He said those players should be “called out” as users.

  105. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 11:40 am

    rb 15 — OK. You refused to cite credible sources. So I googled just as you suggested and got:

    1) Someone’s personal blog. Big deal

    2) An article making no such claims but instead presented both sides of the issue

    3) A forum such as this.

    Sorry, but you’ll have to do better than that. The first three hits did not produce what you said they would.

    As I said, for every credentialed and credible journalist you can find that says categorically it was a conflict of interest that undermined the report to the extent it is not believable, I can find you 3 or 4 who don’t have a problem with Mitchell’s qualifications.

    There will always be debate on almost every controversial issue such as steroids and PEDs in baseball. That doesn’t mean that there was some weakness in the investigator, the investigation, or its conclusions to the extent it would render the findings unreliable. That is the only thing that matters. Not whether there is a question. But whether it rises to the level that would render an endeavor invalid. The public has spoken. They said no. Overwhelmingly, the verdict on Mitchell and his report does not question his integrity in this matter.

  106. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 11:45 am

    rb 15 — You either believe Mitchell or you don’t. I have no reason to think he lied when he said he reported what he could find. Wherever his investigation led him. Because he had no legal power to enforce compliance, he could not do an investigation where he took the lead. He let the federal government do it for him. If you have an issue with the sources he did get, talk to the feds. They are the ones who really defined the scope of the Mitchell report. So either you believe Mitchell and believe he didn’t hide anything … or you think he is a liar.

  107. whozat December 19th, 2007 at 11:45 am

    “First, in a slander/libel trial, there are a whole lot of questions besides whether or not Clemens used steroids.”

    In order to win a lawsuit, he’d have to prove that the lies (if they are lies) are malicious. That’s basically impossible to prove, which is why there’ll be no lawsuit.

  108. raymagnetic December 19th, 2007 at 11:47 am

    “Should this entire fiasco see it’s way to litagation, Radomski and McNamee should be subjected to a lie detector test and have it admissible as evidence ”

    This would be great except for one thing, lie detector test results are inadmissible as evidence in most states. They are very unreliable as well.

  109. Myles Standish December 19th, 2007 at 11:48 am

    Maybe a clean and sober man like Senator Ted Kennedy with no skeletons in his closet and no Boston ties would have convinced Red Sox fans and the entire nation that an impartial report can be done but no, they had to go out and procure somebody to botch up a report that was a Director of a baseball team no less.

  110. Tom December 19th, 2007 at 11:48 am

    You left a choice out pete – “HOW WOULD I KNOW??????”

  111. Tom December 19th, 2007 at 11:50 am

    Whozat – Slander is a civil matter, it’s not hard to “prove” things in cases such as that.

  112. whozat December 19th, 2007 at 11:50 am

    “So either you believe Mitchell and believe he didn’t hide anything … or you think he is a liar.”

    Bull. I can believe that he didn’t look very hard for more drug users. You REALLY think Radomski only had one “sub-dealer”? I don’t buy that for a second. However, once they had Roger, they had their big name and didn’t need to do any more looking to make sure the report would get attention.

  113. ----- December 19th, 2007 at 11:51 am

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3142651

    I think if you google “mitchell report conflict of interest” you will find more than enough “credible” journalists writing on the topic.

  114. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 11:53 am

    Lori, that is not true. We have Grimsley, Canseco, and McNamee. I also believe Radomski would testify that McNamee mentioned Clemens as a user. But at any rate there are at least 3.

    And that’s a bunch of croc about the lawsuit. Clemens has nothing to lose. If he’s innocent, a valiant fight to defend his name in court — even if he loses — will get him back some credibility. He made $18 million freakin dollars pitching like crap for the Yankees this summer so don’t tell me about a big investment. As for the emotional toll, what could be worse than having to live your whole rep being slandered and jeopardizing your chances to get into the HOF, without putting up a fight? Money is not an issue with him. Let’s see him put it where his fat mouth is.

  115. whozat December 19th, 2007 at 11:54 am

    “Whozat – Slander is a civil matter, it’s not hard to “prove” things in cases such as that.”

    I know slander is civil. But, given that legal folks have weighed in saying that he’d have to prove the libel (which is the right term, my fault) was malicious and that this would be tough:

    http://mlb.mlb.com/news/articl.....8;c_id=mlb

    I don’t see him suing.

  116. West Coast Fan December 19th, 2007 at 11:54 am

    To those who continue to play the morals card, what does taking performance enhancing drugs have to with morals?

  117. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 11:56 am

    whozat — did you even read the report? Mitchell didn’t find Radomski or McNamee. The feds did. Then they deposited them in his lap. If you have a gripe, then talk to the feds.

  118. whozat December 19th, 2007 at 11:57 am

    “We have Grimsley, Canseco, and McNamee. I also believe Radomski would testify that McNamee mentioned Clemens as a user. But at any rate there are at least 3.”

    I already addressed this…if you READ the report, you’ll see that McNamee never mentioned Clemens to Radomski. Radomski said he felt that McNamee implied that he was selling to Clemens, but that’s speculation.

    Also, the leak of the Grimsley report contained significant inaccuracies, including the names:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=2610878

    And Canseco’s been accusing ARod too. I don’t believe him for a minute, given how desperate he is for attention.

  119. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 11:58 am

    whozat — even though the burden of proof would be on Clemens, he would at least partly repair his image if he sued. If he doesn’t, the public will only conclude it’s because he was guilty. And money is not an issue with him. It’s your money in a sense, lol. Yankee fans helped pay him.

  120. Tim NJ December 19th, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    I believe Selig and Mitchell targeted NY trainers, so they could just get dirt on the Yanks.

    Roger is innocent till proven guilty, I would like to see the evidence.

    All the Sux fans on the forum, go blank yourself.

  121. whozat December 19th, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    “whozat — did you even read the report? ”

    Yep, I did.

    I know the feds handed him those two guys. I also know the feds helped him lean on them for names. I also know that he didn’t get any more names of other dealers from them. I also know that he didn’t go exploring other guys in similar positions with other clubs. He talked to managers, coaches, front office guys…but no other clubbies. Why not? Am I to believe that these are the only two clubbies in baseball with shady pasts? Bull.

  122. Hello December 19th, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    I believe Clemens took steroids

  123. whozat December 19th, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    “whozat — even though the burden of proof would be on Clemens, he would at least partly repair his image if he sued.”

    How would starting a lawsuit that he cannot win help repair his reputation? You think headlines of “Clemens loses steroid lawsuit,” even if it’s just because he couldn’t prove malice, would help his cause? You think the media wouldn’t create headlines this sensationalist?

    If you do, you’re completely naive. America loves drama, and it loves to tear down larger-than-life figures. I don’t know if he’s innocent or guilty, but I do know that issuing a lawsuit that he can’t win wouldn’t help him any.

  124. Comedy Central December 19th, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    Like the blind leading the blind. A Commissioner and former owner of a baseball team (Milwaukee Brewers) that eventually turned the team over to his daughter (no conflict of interest ?) and she finally divests interest of said team.
    The Commissioner hires a former Senator from a bordering state that he happens to be a director of a baseball team for conduct an investigation and report on something he blindly didn’t do long ago when he knew it was in existence.

  125. Rebecca--Optimist Prime--Save the Three Musketeers! December 19th, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    About Clemens, I think two things:

    1) Clemens did use steroids

    2) The Mitchell Report did not prove it by a preponderance of the evidence or anything of that sort.

    As i n so many things, it’s not the reality that matters, it’s the perception

  126. rb15 December 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    Carl, the first hit on my search is from the Salt Lake Tribune. That’s not really “someone’s blog.” I know Salt Lake is westa Wista, but seriously. It’s a big web out there, and sometimes Google comes up with slightly different results. It would be ridiculous, though, for you to say with a straight face that nobody besides Yankees fans sees a conflict of interest. But if you seriously want to try to prove that, I’m game – I’ll be checking back in all day. Good luck reading every newspaper, magazine, website, law review article and legal newsletter in the country.

  127. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    whozat — that’s why I hedged on Radomski. But at any rate you have Grimsley, McNamee and Canseco. As much as many hate Canseco, no one has been able to punch holes in his first book in which he named Clemens. That will be important in any legal proceeding. As for Grimsley, the article you cited is more than a year old and the prosecutor did not say the Clemens and Pettitte part of Grimsley’s statement was wrong. Just that there were inaccuracies in the reports. The feds have stated that after he named names, he then clammed up and backtracked. But at any rate in a legal proceeding he would be called to testify as would the investigators who were there in the room when he named both Pettitte and Clemens.

  128. Lori December 19th, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    Here’s the question I have for folks: Did you believe Clemens used steroids before the Mitchell report came out? If so, based on what evidence? If not, if McNamee had simply stated publicly that Clemens had used steroids, would you have thought Clemens had used steroids? If not, what is it about the Mitchell reports that changes your view?

    Consider this jury research. I’m always intrigued about how unsupported public allegations become reality that all of a sudden the accused is put in the position of disproving.

  129. Mo December 19th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    Carl, he said he google-newsed it. You just googled it, or else forums and such would not have come up. Google-news it, and there are scores of articles from major sites questioning the impropriety.

  130. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    “I don’t think it’s a big deal, one way or another. What’s worse – Bobby Thompson stealing signals on “the shot heard around the world”; broad based use of greenies, cortisone, and pain killers; or HGH?”
    “How about pitchers who put foreign substances on baseballs?”

    -

    Hmm, this should be a poll ;)

    And I’d vote for number 2, the widespread usage of greenies/cortisone/pain killers, as they’re also self-destructive, in addition to ‘cheating’ the game
    After all, greenies are a schedule III controlled substance, so they’re illegal without prescription and more importantly run the risk of addiction (which would be why they’re a controlled substance in the first place…)
    Don’t know much about cortisone
    Pain killers also run the nasty risk of addiction

  131. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    rb 15 — this is the first hit I got. Doesn’t seem like a credentialed journalist to me:

    http://baseball.suite101.com/a.....report_out

    At any rate, it’s up to you to prove that there is considerable doubt from reputable people as to the fairness of the report due to a conflict of interest. I say there is not. I can’t prove a negative.

    Just give 1 or 2 sources. I’m game. I’ll be checking back in too. Good luck sifting for that needle in a haystack.

  132. SAndMan December 19th, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    I think Clemens took steroids and unlike Bonds,Pete Rose, and our cheating boy Andy Pettitte…theres no paper trail,no failed drug test or admissions.Clemens unless he admits it will go to the hall of fame.

  133. Bonds is a cheater and so is Clemens! December 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pm

    The next POLL question

    WILL YOU VOTE BONDS & CLEMENS into HOF?

  134. Bonds is a cheater and so is Clemens! December 19th, 2007 at 12:18 pm

    Either both of them go into HOF or neither of them go into HOF. It’s that simple.

  135. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 12:19 pm

    Although I should clarify my response:
    In terms of HOF validity, they’re all the same to me
    If Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton can get in, then Roger should be able to go in to the HOF, regardless of steroids or HGH

  136. Bonds is a cheater and so is Clemens! December 19th, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    Either both of them will go to HOF or neither of them will be in HOF. It’s that simple.

  137. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    Carl, the only reason Mitchell couldn’t find any “proof” on his own was because he and his gumshoes never left NY to find any. He was waiting for them to waltz in the door and say, “Here I am.”

  138. rb15 December 19th, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    Mo – thanks. But I’m a girl.

    Carl – no, actually, the burden’s on you. We’ve already linked to an ESPN article, for example. You came on here and made a blanket statement: that nobody besides Yankees fans sees a conflict of interest. It’s not my job to prove you wrong – it’s your job to prove yourself right. The fact that your job’s hard because you said something stupid isn’t my problem.

  139. Bonds is a cheater and so is Clemens! December 19th, 2007 at 12:21 pm

    If Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton can get in, then Roger should be able to go in to the HOF, regardless of steroids or HGH

    If Bonds gets in Clemens gets in. It’s that simple.

  140. Marc December 19th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    Mussina will be in the hall and Clemens won’t. Fact.

  141. S.o.S.27 December 19th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    Question for pete. Why did you put a picture of Clemens as a Red Sox and not a Yankee. Are you trying to tell us something? Like he’s a cheat and is now affiliated with them than us? I think I know where you stand on this.

    Hey guys what do you think of getting Blalock to play first base for us? He is on the trading block can come cheap.Has pop and would be an upgrade over whoever is there now. I know he doesnt walk alot but neither did phillips.

  142. Doreen December 19th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    Here’s an interesting thing. It’s certainly looking like 2007 is the final playing year for both Bonds and Clemens. So they will both be on the HOF Ballot for the first time at the same time.

  143. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 12:26 pm

    SoS27, Blalock isn’t going to come cheap, and he’s a 1 year rental.

  144. winfield killed my seagull December 19th, 2007 at 12:26 pm

    This confirms it, Pete’s a journalist. Pretty trashy…..

  145. kd December 19th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    My mind tells me he did, my heart wants to believe that superhuman feats can be done with talent and a rock solid work ethic. For example, I want to believe that Roger never would sit around when he’s supposed to be working posting on this blog.

    I would like to make one point about steroids and HGH. They are controlled substances. That means it is illegal to use them for unintended purposes. So regardless of what mlb says, Pettitte was breaking the law when he took HGH, a drug approved for very specific uses.

  146. S.o.S.27 December 19th, 2007 at 12:28 pm

    The next POLL question

    WILL YOU VOTE BONDS & CLEMENS into HOF?

    I think they all should get in the h.o.f. Before this is all over we will see many more names linked to PED. As Schilling I believe stated a few years back that there was about 70% of players taking them. Therefore these players that have these hall numbers didnt really have an advantage if it was a level playing field.

    Now should all the players in the late 80′s till now have an asterisk or be placed in a different place in the Hall.
    YES..

  147. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    kd,, HGH is not yet a controlled substance.

  148. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    Yes, Schilling should know. He’s one of them.

  149. S.o.S.27 December 19th, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    GreenBeret7

    Blaylock is comming off of an a season he was injured. He is also owed around 5 million. I see him as a player that has to prove that he can perform at a high level again. So would other teams. I cant immagine he would cost us that much. Its not like hes comming of an all star year.

    If not him,how about Crede. Has he been released yet? He wouldnt cost us any players. Hes worth the risk as well.

  150. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    rb 15 — you’re either a ***LIAR or a BAD READER .*** Ok, so I did a search on Google News. (I had never heard google-newsed used as a verb before and did not catch what you were talking about originally.) These are the first 3 hits:

    1) Wow, did you misfire here. Thomas is talking about a conflict of interest on the part of HOF voters who may eventually have to vote on Clemens!!!

    2) Strike two. Joe Matthews of the LA Times does not question Mitchell’s fairness himself. He does not say it was a conflict of interest. He merely quotes others who have bought up the issue and gives **BOTH** sides of the issue.

    3) Strike three. — Ray Ratto – Are you kidding me? Go back to his writings over the years and you’ll see he’s the biggest apologist for Bonds in the media. Bar none. So of course he’s going to bash the investigation. If he didn’t, he’d sound like a racist hypocrite. But … surprise surprise, he doesn’t even bring up conflict of interest on the part of Mitchell. The main thrust of his piece was actually bashing the Giants and A’s.

    Next time do your homework before you make such a statement. You’ve struck out here.

  151. jennifer- Hip Hip Jorge December 19th, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    GreenBeret7
    You are so right. I find it disgusting that they are hanging outside his church. As I said the other day any paper that is harassing Andy and his family should have their credentials pulled.

    murphydog

    Maybe the players were declaring it on their tax returns.

  152. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Woah, I’m rereading the scheduling of controlled substances and finally noticed the amendments section…
    ( http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/csa/812.htm#c is the schedules; amendments toward the bottom )

    Anabolic steroids were added to schedule III in the 1990 amendment. It’s not mentioned elsewhere in that section, so I’ll assume that means that anabolic steroids were technically not a controlled substance before 1990?

    No mention of amphetamines in the amendments, so I’ll assume that amphetamines have been a schedule III controlled substance since 1970 (time of the first version of the CSA).

    So…
    Pete: Your thoughts on greenies/amphetamine usage in MLB between 1970 and 2006?

  153. rb15 December 19th, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    Carl, how’s that massive review of every word written about the Mitchell Review so far going? Having fun proving your own ridiculous blanket statement yet?

    Meanwhile, I found this article in the Baltimore Sun:
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/sp.....1034.story

    It talks extensively about how Mitchell’s involvement in the investigation raises the spectre of a conflict of interest, which should have been enough for him to not take it on. That’s what I said originally.

    That’s Baltimore, another AL East team.

    Here’s another one, from Canada (Canada!! Bonjour!):

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....columnists

    “… former U.S. senator George Mitchell got the job, despite his clear conflict of interest as a member of the Boston Red Sox ownership group.”

    Wow, Canada, you went there. You went there. Vive les Blue Jays!

    Carl, anything yet?

  154. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    And no, RB 15, the burden is on you. You’re the one claiming considerable doubt as to the Mitchell’s integrity outside of those who drink the pinstriped koolaid. It’s up to you to prove it. I can’t prove a negative.

    And I did follow the first 3 links you mentioned. None of them were from a credentialed jouralist/analyst/columnist questioning the integrity of Mitchell themselves. 2 didn’t even bring up the issue at all.

  155. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    GreenBeret — What do you mean by HGH is not a controlled substance? It is illegal to use it unless prescribed by a bona fide physician and unless it is used for a very limited number of purposed. Rehabilitation of sports injuries is NOT one of the allowed uses.

  156. rb15 December 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    Carl, you’re repeating yourself, and you’re just wrong each time. The burden’s on you – you said it, you prove it. The end. You said nobody besides Yankees fans sees a conflict of interest. You prove it. The end.

    And not to get petty, Carl, but I find your last post a personal attack. I know you’re getting frustrated, but you need to remember that this is just a blog.

  157. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    Carl: HGH (or somatotropin) cannot be found in the Controlled Substances Act

  158. mel December 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    Hello all,

    Still arguing about the Mitchell, huh? The only one who said he did it was his trainer. The Grimsley report did not contain a reference to Clemens per the prosecutor. Canseco is not on record as saying Clemens did it (how would he know?) so stop using him as a “reference”. Although one ESPN analyst (Scoop Jackson) was going to break a story re: Clemens 2 years ago and was asked to sit on it.

    Nobody’s brought up Pete Rose? Looks like he’s stumping to get into the HOF, “I never thought anybody would make me look like an altar boy”

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3160548

  159. ----- December 19th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    Dude, Carl – why don’t you just relax…you know as well as anyone that searches pull up different site every time they are run. I searched for “mitchell report conflict of interest” on google news and got 9 pages of results – the changes pretty much each time you run the search. And I would say a fair amount had to do with a conflict of interest vis-a-vis the Red Sox or baseball “self-policing”.

    Getting nasty just diminishes your argument and makes you unreadable.

  160. READY TO MOVE ON December 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    WHO CARE? BASEBALL WILL GET OVER THIS. I ONLY HOPE WE DONT SPEND THE WHOLE WINTER TALKING ABOUT THIS CRAP. THE MORE PEOPLE WE FIND OUT THAT USE THIS STUFF, THE MORE THE PLAYING FIELD GET LEVEL. PLEASE LETS MOVE ON. AGAIN, WE ALL LOVE THE YANKS BEFORE THIS REPORT, AND WE STILL DO

  161. Ken December 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    Innocent until proven guilty…I guess i’m old fashion.

    100 to 1 Says they can’t prove it.

    I deal with criminals for a living.Most will say what they have to say to get out from under the bus…If that means tossing someone else under it so be it…..Fact is..Radomski and Mcnamee are both criminals…And cant be trusted.

  162. MarkK December 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    Whitey Ford is in the HOF, and Jim Bouton reports that he and Ford used to shoot themselves up with bovine (cow) medication when no one knew what it would do to humans.

    Does Whitey Ford belong in the HOF? Of course. As dies Rocket.

    George Mitchell is a minority owner of the Boston Red Sox. (For the source, follow THIS LINK to the 2001 New York Times story. The Mitchell/BoSox report is not gospel truth. George Mitchell is not an honest man at all times.

    There is no peace in Northern Ireland.

    We have to move past Mitchell/BoSox and… PLAY BALL!

  163. rb15 December 19th, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    Meanwhile, I found this article in the Baltimore Sun:
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/sp.....1034.story

    It talks extensively about how Mitchell’s involvement in the investigation raises the spectre of a conflict of interest, which should have been enough for him to not take it on. That’s what I said originally.

    That’s Baltimore, another AL East team.

    Here’s another one, from Canada (Canada!! Bonjour!):

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com.....columnists

    “… former U.S. senator George Mitchell got the job, despite his clear conflict of interest as a member of the Boston Red Sox ownership group.”

    Wow, Canada, you went there. You went there. Vive les Blue Jays!

    Carl, anything yet?

  164. Lori December 19th, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    Carl – To clarify, it is not illegal to use a drug for a non-approved indication. Once a drug is approved, it may be prescribed by a physician for any purpose — whether or not it is the one for which it is approved. (But, yes, it is illegal to use prescription drugs not prescribed for the user.)

  165. rb15 December 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pm

    I found two articles, one from the Baltimore Sun and one from the Globe and Mail (Canada). I posted links, but the post is awaiting moderation (PS Pete, I’m loyal, honest and true!).

    For the sake of the blog, I’m done with this. I don’t know why Sox fans come on here, say ridiculous things and then expect nothing less than our full support. Take that drivel to the Mets blogs, boys. They’re kind of jealous of the Yankees, too.

  166. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    rb15, sorry but it’s your burden to prove. It’s impossible to prove a negative. You’re the one who said doubt as to his integrity in this matter is widespread. If it is, it should be easy to find. Prove it. Your first attempt backfired terribly. And I never said doubt was limited to Yankee fans. I’m starting to think it’s your reading skills that’s the problem or you’re just too lazy to read what someone else has written.

  167. Mo December 19th, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    Carl, the fact that there are various articles against the conflict of interest idea suggests that there were some credible people claiming conflict of interest. Whether there was actually bias and impropriety is almost irrelevant. As long as there was an appearance of bias, the report should have been run by someone else.

  168. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 1:00 pm

    Jennifer, they also stalked Clemens on Monday when he went to the elementary school to pick up his on. That was the main reason for the outburst that was reported. The police were there to move the reporters out. That’s taking things too far, when they start involving the kids and family.

  169. ET90210 December 19th, 2007 at 1:00 pm

    Yeah, he used. No question in my mind at least.

    Not sure if you guys have seen this yet. Latest from Rosenthal. Not much related to Yanks (except Prior), but some decent stuff.

    http://mlbfleecefactor.com/200.....al-wisdom/

  170. mel December 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    rb,

    If you post 2 or more links, that’s instant moderation. Try putting them in separate links.

    btw, we believe you. :)

  171. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    Lori — It is illegal to use HGH without a prescription from a real physician. There is no evidence that players like Pettitte, Ankiel and all those other fools who would have you believe they used it just for “healing” had a legal prescription.

  172. rb15 December 19th, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Carl, the first paragraph of my first post on this thread:

    “Carl, I think you’re wrong – a lot of people think Mitchell shouldn’t have headed the investigation. I google-newsed [”mitchell report” “conflict of interest”] and the first three hits that came up were articles to that effect from the la times, the san francisco chronicle, and si.com. Also, plenty of Red Sox fans I know DO think it’s a conflict of interest. And as a lawyer, I can tell you that Mitchell heading up the investigation, if it wasn’t a conflict of interest, was close enough to one to suggest that there might be a better candidate out there.”

    I’ve given you several links and cites to articles that express the same concerns that we all have on this blog – that Senator Mitchell, either through his involvement with the Red Sox or his involvement with baseball in general, shouldn’t have headed up this investigation.

    Now, part of your post at 10:35 this morning:

    “GreenBeret — It is up to the public to decide whether Mitchells’ relationship with the Red Sox was such that it posed a conflict of interest. Selig and MLB didn’t think so. The public for the most part doesn’t think so. It’s mostly Yankee fans. Hmmmm. No surprise.”

    So there we are. So far, I’ve proven my statement, and you haven’t. Who’s the lazy one?

  173. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    “Lori — It is illegal to use HGH without a prescription from a real physician.”

    Carl: I’d like to know where this is found
    It’s not in the CSA

  174. rb15 December 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm

    thanks mel.

    Guys, I’m leaving for now – fight the power! And go Yankees!

  175. winfield killed my seagull December 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    if we’re going to talk about drugs, lets talk about getting stoned with David Cone, not this stupid HGH trash.

  176. jennifer- Hip Hip Jorge December 19th, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    GreenBeret7 What outburst are you referring to? I heard one of the papers what a picture of Andy and his son walking into church. I mean come on, leave the man alone!! You want to interview him in the clubhouse that is one thing. It is the off season, and he is with his son, leave him alone!!

  177. mel December 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    You mean to tell me that the Yankee fans are the only one pointing out the conflict of interest?

    No media guys? No Mets fans? Huh, must’ve been my imagination that I saw the venerable Senator Mitchell run from the stage before he even finished answering that last question re: conflict of interest.

    BOTTOM LINE: Selig could’ve chosen someone else. There are other independent “firms” that could’ve done the job. But Selig ran the risk of not being able to control the outcome (which were basically recommendations that had for the most part already been put into place). He also ran the risk of MLB being ripped for not only enabling and hiding the problem for years, but from benefitting from it. Any real audit by an independent party would’ve come to that conclusion.

  178. kd December 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    My point is that it it illegal to purchase and use HGH or any other FDA approved drug from anything other than a pharmacy and use it for anything other than the intended purpose. While it is true that physicians prescribe drugs for non-approved purposes, it’s not strictly legal. This is why it’s illegal for kids to take vicodin and anyone to take Wistrol unless you have asthma and can’t breath without it.

    A clubbie selling HGH is illegal. If you bought it and used it, you broke the law. That being said, I’m not ready to thrown Pettitte under the bus. Or Clemens, Giambi, or Bonds for that matter. The Mitchell report was very New York centric. If Mitchell had caught a Cardinal’s clubbie, it would have been midwest centric.

  179. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    Sorry, Carl, but, as has been stated, you are wrong about HGH being a controlled substance. It is not as of right now. There is a bill before congress to make it one.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3159935
    http://www.kansascity.com/485/story/409239.html

    The bill by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., would classify HGH as a “Schedule III” substance, equating it legally with anabolic steroids and bringing it under the watch of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

    That would mean that possession of HGH, a naturally occurring hormone approved by the FDA for treatment of some medical conditions, would be illegal without a current, valid prescription. Penalty for possession could be as high as three years in prison and even higher for illegal manufacture or distribution.

    A second proposal by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, would make it illegal to sell dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) to anyone under 18. DHEA is a naturally occurring precursor to testosterone and a dietary supplement that some athletes are using as an alternative to illegal anabolic steroids, Grassley said.

    These were tough to find. It took 45 seconds.

  180. joe b December 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    Blargh..Are you kidding me about Bobby Ts shot heard round the world. Players steal signs all the time in sports. Every Sport ae: Spygate. Runners on 2nd base are always looking to steal signs for the batter. That’s part of the game. Why do catchers call for pitchouts ? Bobby T had to hit the ball and hit it far enough to be a HR. The pitch wasn’t even in the strike zone. It was almost over his head. Most of the fans at the Polo Grounds irked when Thomson swung at that pitch, it was so high. Maybe he knew what the pitch was. But hitting it is a little different. As Ted Williams said the hardest thing to do in sports is hit a round ball with a round bat. But, then again,maybe thomson was on HGH. Who knows ???

  181. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 1:16 pm

    Ok, according to these sources, prescribing HGH for off-label use is illegal.

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/515665

  182. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Here’s another article saying off-label usage is not approved by the FDA:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/spo.....hgh-2.html

    I’m posting links separately so they don’t get held up.

  183. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    And this:

    “It is illegal to use HGH without a valid prescription. Performance enhancement is not an approved use of the drug.”

    http://blog.cleveland.com/spor.....n_hgh.html

  184. mel December 19th, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    Carl,

    Who’s your team and what’s your point?

  185. Brandon (Proud supporter of "ALEX BEING ALEX") & dammit SAVE HUGHES !!! December 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    Miranda to AAA, E.Duncan still a Yankee, the next big arms to be ready

    “We anticipate him starting at Triple-A,” Newman said. “With he and Duncan alternating first base and DH.”

    It makes sense, given Miranda’s age and numbers

  186. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    joe b: By worse, I meant that in addition to cheating a game, it’s also physically bad for you.
    Stealing signals, doctoring the ball, that kind of stuff is ‘simply’ cheating the game. But it won’t threaten your life.

    Now in terms of strictly the game, they’re all the same to me; players going for an edge/cheating.

    Another post will come up as I dig up more info on Vicodin
    There’s something about vicodin that gets it into the CSA

  187. NYY1903 December 19th, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    I would just like to point everybody’s attention to critical essay about the Mitchell Report on thenation.com. Really hits the nail on the head. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071231/zirin

  188. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    Jennifer, here are three links and excerpts.

    http://www.kansascity.com/485/story/409239.html

    Clemens, prior to issuing his lame steroid/HGH denial, lost his temper yesterday while delivering his youngest son to elementary school when intercepted by inquiring minds of the Texas media.

    “I’m not talking to y’all about it,” a defiant Rocket raged. “We’ll handle this our way. I would appreciate you not being here.”

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3158304

    On Monday, Clemens, when approached by reporters staking out his son’s elementary school in the Houston area, declined to talk about the Mitchell report.

    “I’m not talking to y’all about it,” he said , according to the New York Daily News. “We’ll handle this our way.”

    Asked how he was doing, Clemens said, “I feel great.” But as he walked to his car, he added “I would appreciate you not being here,” the Daily News reported.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/spo....._mitc.html

    I’m not talking to y’all about it,” the husky right-hander told reporters outside his son’s elementary school in Piney Point village, close to Houston.

    “We’ll handle this our way,” said the Rocket, who has had local cops shooing reporters away from his multimillion-dollar mansion.

    Asked how he was doing, Clemens, wearing a sports shirt and chinos in the warm sunshine, said, “I feel great.” But as he walked to his white BMW, he growled, “I would appreciate you not being here.”

  189. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    Carl, you can post all the links you want. None support your claim that HGH is a controlled substance, yet.

  190. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    GreenBeret — I never said it was a controlled substance. I asked you what you meant by saying it wasn’t because I wasn’t sure if you were using it in the narrow legal sense.

    I did say it was illegal to use it without a prescription. And it was not approved by the FDA for rehabbing sports injuries. My links were for that, in case you didn’t understand, and for the benefit of others.

  191. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    mel, my point is steroids and HGH are cheating. That Mitchell’s integrity on this matter is unassailable. And people laugh at Yankee fans for shooting the messenger. That most of you are in denial. You all really look bad. Well, not all of you. A few comments sprinkled in show it’s possible to be both a Yankee fan and objective.

  192. DC December 19th, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    Human enhancement via steroids/human growth hormones, gene manipulation, customizing hereditary traits, organ farming, etc. – welcome to the future and embrace them folks; it’s all for the bettering of the species!

  193. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    Hmm, my lack of familiarty with medicine doesn’t help here…
    Anyway…

    Ok, a Vicodin tablet contains 5 milligrams of hydrocodone bitartrate and 500 milligrams of acetaminophen (think Tylenol) ( http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/hydrocod.htm )
    Hydrocodone, or dihydrocodeinone, is a opiate derivative
    So it could be that part that makes Vicodin a controlled substance
    OR…one of these clauses from the CSA:
    “(3) Not more than 300 milligrams of dihydrocodeinone per 100 milliliters or not more than 15 milligrams per dosage unit, with a fourfold or greater quantity of an isoquinoline alkaloid of opium.

    (4) Not more than 300 milligrams of dihydrocodeinone per 100 milliliters or not more than 15 milligrams per dosage unit, with one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients in recognized therapeutic amounts.

    (5) Not more than 1.8 grams of dihydrocodeine per 100 milliliters or not more than 90 milligrams per dosage unit, with one or more active, nonnarcotic ingredients in recognized therapeutic amounts.”

    The 5 mg of dihydrocodeine out of a total 505 mg beats this clause in schedule V: “(2) Not more than 100 milligrams of dihydrocodeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams.”
    So I assume that if it’s too much for schedule V but under the limit for schedule III, it’d be a schedule III

    If I made any mistakes, by all means, correct me.

    Now, I have to sign up for an account with Medscape so I can actually read that article.

  194. mel December 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    O.K. so we all agree that what Andy and, most likely, Roger did was wrong, right?

    So what happens now? As fans we’ll rally around Andy. Hope that Roger can make a case. Continue to hate on Sheffield. Support Jason in ’08 and then wish him luck wherever he goes. Not even think about the other guys because they’re out of the game.

    Hypocrytical? Yes. Wrong? Yes. And any fan from, let’s just say Boston, that says they wouldn’t do the same if Schilling, Beckett, Ortiz, and Youkilis were named in the report is lying.

  195. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    You Yankee fans are funny with the lengths you go to in order to apologize for Pettitte and Clemens. But it’s sad really. Because you feel the need to condone cheaters and liars because they are on the team you root for.

  196. Jeremy December 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    Mitchell’s integrity is unassailable? Are you kidding?

    How can you decry “Yankee fans’” objectivity when making such a blindly subjective statement yourself?

  197. Fernando Alejandro December 19th, 2007 at 1:49 pm

    Carl, stop. You are incredibly narrow-minded if you can’t see why people would have an issue with Mitchell running this report. It has nothing to do with Mitchell’s character. It has everything to do with his ties to RED SOX OWNERSHIP. For the record I don’t think the report is biased. I beleive Mitchell got ahold of two New York clubbies, and they ratted out New York players. If he had gotten ahold of a Boston clubbie the report would have been very different. Nonetheless, he was not the right person to run this investigation.

    And you say that no credible source has questioned this? Did you not watch Mitchell’s live interview where they asked him the exact same question of bias you’re claiming hasn’t been brought up?

  198. baseball expert December 19th, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    C.) I SUPPORT ROIDS

  199. ----- December 19th, 2007 at 1:52 pm

    Carl – as you have been asked above…what is your team? who do you root for? (and do they not have a blog where you can spend the day discussing these things?)

    I think it take a lot of gall to come to what is admittedly a Yankee site and start generalizing about Yankee fans – if we knew who your “team” was (though I have some suspicions) we may be able to return the favor.

  200. Jake December 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Carl,

    You rape small woodland creatures.

    No one on here is denying that HGH and Steroids are banned substances. If the fools are looking for a website that says “Human Growth Horomone” is only legally used for medical purposes as prescribed by Doctors,” you won’t find it.

    Yankees fans are not in denial man. I know what Pettitte did was wrong, but I give him credit for manning up and confessing.

    Clemens-wise, I hate to burst your bubble, but I am going to have to see some more evidence than the “he said, she said” Bull$hit that is emanating from McNamee’s mouth. With Bonds, they wouldn’t be indicting the guy if they don’t have SOMETHING. Let Clemens speak to congress and let congress show some legit evidence before you throw the guy under the bus.

  201. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    I would agree that there probably is a significant portion of the fan base of every team that will staunchly defend their players short of them being rapists and killers. It just seems that the apologists among Yankee fans now are unusually high in numbers and unusually illogical in their arguments.

    I mean, to suggest that Mitchell is hiding other evidence is just so warped and delusional.

  202. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Carl
    December 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
    GreenBeret — What do you mean by HGH is not a controlled substance? It is illegal to use it unless prescribed by a bona fide physician and unless it is used for a very limited number of purposed. Rehabilitation of sports injuries is NOT one of the allowed uses
    ________________________________________________-
    Is that not you questioning why I said HGH wasn’t a controlled substance, and you attempting to explain why it is?

  203. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    Fernando, of course I can see where some would have a gripe with Mitchell’s background. My point is that for the most part, the whiners who want to shoot the messenger have their own conflict of interest in rendering judgment on Mitchell. For the vast majority of baseball fans out there, Mitchell’s background is not a sufficient reason to cast doubt on the validity of his report.

  204. Jake December 19th, 2007 at 1:58 pm

    I highly doubt Mitchell is withholding any evidence in this report. But does this report contain ANY substantial evidence?

    This is the whole problem with the report. The US dumped $50 million into a report and this is what we get?

    Is it so hard to consider the possibility that McNamee and Radowski (or whatever his name is) are throwing out names for the sake of lowering their prison sentences?

    I am not saying Clemens is innocent, but I am lost not willng to say he is guilty until I see something legit. Same for Bonds (and I HATE THAT GUY).

  205. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    Hmm, the medscape article refers to the FDCA…
    ( http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm )

    Well, bugger, this won’t be quick to look through (my stance on the legality of HGH will be on hold until I can read through enough of this act)

  206. jennifer- Hip Hip Jorge December 19th, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    Carl

    Get off your horse already. If someone on the board headed the report and only had a source from the red sox clubhouse and they implicated 20 current and former red soxs, with one Yankee named (and that one Yankee being a utlity player), you’d be saying the same exact things.

  207. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    Carl,

    HGH and steroids is cheating. Yes.

    The Mitchell Report is NOT unassailable.

    Yankee fans reacted the way they have because of human nature. And we are not in denial and we don’t care how we look here. It’s anonymous.

    Turn the tables for a minute. What if the report was written by, let’s say, Rudy Giuliani. And we kept saying well of course he’s unimpeachable because he shepherded the city of New York through the 911 crisis. And the bulk of the testimony and names came from 2 guys. Beckett’s trainer and one clubbie from the Red Sox. And the only Yankees in the report were marginal players who retired or were playing for other teams.

    Would not the fans of that fair city be up in arms? Wouldn’t those fans claim the report as biased and unfair?

    Be real.

  208. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pm

    GreenBeret — No. That was my questioning why you said it wasn’t a controlled substance … and my giving reasons for why there are illegalities surrounding its current usage by players regardless.

  209. jennifer- Hip Hip Jorge December 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    Mel, you know what they say, great minds.

  210. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    The report has no validity because it’s incomplete. In the military, if I had turned in an investigative report that sloppily done, I would have been court-martialed, and rightly so. All Mitchell and his boys did was do google searches for nanes that had been made public before and filled it in with reports from 2 on-going federal investigations. There’s nothing to coroberate more than 2/3rds of the names except for two guys facing long jail terms and a book written by a guy who has an axe to grind for putting him out of baseball.

  211. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    **corroborate**

  212. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    Also, while I’m struggling to go through the act (the legal text, it makes me eyes bleed!), for the record, I’m not an apologist. I think that at least half of the league cheats/has cheated/has broken some law regarding drugs
    Again, greenies/amphetamines, illegal without prescription since 1970

  213. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pm

    Jake … I read $20 million. And the U.S. didn’t pay for it. MLB did. Further, I hate to tell you, but since the Yankees pay so much in revenue sharing and luxury taxes, you all helped pay for it in essence. Feel better? :0

    And if McNamee and Radomski are lying, no problem. Sue them. Clemens is so rich money isn’t an issue. And go before congress willingly, don’t plead the fifth, look the nation in the eye, and tell millions how you were wronged and totally innocent. The nation is waiting to hear from Clemens personally.

  214. Jake December 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    Carl,

    Mitchell confirmed this afternoon that you like to stroke the undercarriage of miniature datsuns.

    Do you deny these allegations?

  215. jennifer- Hip Hip Jorge December 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    Carl, why do you refuse to say what team you root for? You’ve been asked quite a number of times, yet you ignore the question. WHy don’t you just go on sosh, and talk about all Yankee fans do is bitch and moan.

  216. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    Jennifer, if you scroll back to my 1:24 pm post, I linked and pasted parts of three articles on the Clemens blowup at his son’s school on Monday.

  217. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pm

    I agree with GB7. The report is incomplete because it did not do enough to investigate the breadth and the depth of PEDs in baseball. Yes you have 80 some odd names. Yes a good portion of those were Yankees. But do you mean to tell me that the only big names from ALL of baseball that did steroids are Pettitte, Clemens, Giambi, Sheffield, Bonds, Canseco, and Tejada? And with the exception of Pettitte, did you really need a report that cost $20M-$50M to tell you that?

  218. Ray December 19th, 2007 at 2:10 pm

    I believe in due process. I also think Clemens looks like a user because he is large & aggressive. Not to mention the Mitchel Report & ties to the Balco trainer.

    On the other hand, men seem to gain weight when they age. Also, when working with weights the muscles really get cut as we age over our youth from 25 & below. Weight training doesn’t mean weight loss.

  219. Jake December 19th, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    Carl,

    Furthermore, Mitchell plans to indict you for gerbil racing.

    The nation is waiting to hear from you personally.

    Wait a minute…is this Carl Pavano?

  220. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    GreenBeret — In the military, you would have the ability to compel people to testify, no? Well Mitchell didn’t have that. What he did have is the U.S. government lending him their resources, their clout, their sources, and their assistance in putting out a credible report.

    You may not think it is complete enough. But the public thinks enough of it to have rendered a verdict for the players named: GUILTY. The failure to catch all cheaters does not mean what they have on the cheaters they did find is weak.

  221. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:12 pm

    Jennifer,

    Believe it or not. Some are not fans of teams. They cheer for baseball and its integrity. And they come to here to “talk” baseball. :)

  222. Jake December 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    Jennifer,

    It doesn’t matter what team he roots for, but I’ll give you three guesses.

  223. Peter Rabbit December 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    I hate this. Ever since the Mitchell Report dropped last week, there’s been no hot stove talk. And I’m itching for talk about the 2008 Yanks with Girardi at the helm. ITCHING!

  224. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    mel — the only big names the Mitchell report really unveiled were Pettitte and Clemens. All those others you named were caught up in BALCO or other previous investigations.

  225. Ray December 19th, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    It seems the more attention people give to those that are here to flame the more they enjoy it. Perhaps a bit of shunning could go a long way toward a more enjoyable discussion.

  226. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pm

    Carl, the lack of cooperation should not have kept Mitchell’s gang from visiting 27 other clubhouses in two years to get information. They never left NY, except for photo ops at Fenway.

  227. S.o.S.27 December 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    jennifer- Hip Hip Jorge
    December 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
    Carl, why do you refuse to say what team you root for? You’ve been asked quite a number of times, yet you ignore the question. WHy don’t you just go on sosh, and talk about all Yankee fans do is bitch and moan.

    Because if he did we wouldnt still be feeding him all this.
    Seriously guys, stop responding to him. Any fan would think the same thing if their hated rival was doing the investigation.

    Carl go back to your Mass blog and let us be. Your not convincing anyone here.

  228. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    Carl,

    I know that. Please re-read my post. The only “surprise” was Pettitte.

    So, I repeat. They’re the only big names in the last 20 years that this “comprehensive” investigation were able to catch? And they didn’t even catch them? We needed a $20M summary?

  229. Jake December 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    I am kind of inclined to say “who cares.”

    I care for the integrity of the sport very much…more than most. Pettitte admitted what he did, it is wrong, no way around that, but it will blow over faster than most think.

    In the way of Clemens, the Yankees aren’t going to lose their Championship rings from 99 and 2000 and if you ask me, Clemens will always be a Red Sux. He’ll go to the Hall in a Red Sux uniform and all these whining little bit*ches from Boston can take that for what it is worth.

    He was an HOFer before the years he is being implicated for use.

    Personally, I am just looking forward to 2008 and beyond when stricter testing policies and a fair playing field should be in place.

  230. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    With a fourth of the names on this list being Yankees, what do you think a majority of people are going to say. Sounds like the investigation stayed in NY and the surveys were everywhere else in the country.

  231. Jake December 19th, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    How do you all feel about the resignation of Bud Selig?

    Seems like the guy should step down. Should the biggest finger be pointed at him for allowing this crap to prevail for the sake rejuvenating the image of baseball post-strike in 94?

  232. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    mel — I never said the report itself was unassailable. I said Mitchell’s integrity in this matter is. As for Guiliani, his background is not nearly as distinguished as Mitchell’s. But if he did a report like this naming only Schilling and Beckett, and I knew his sources were supplied by the government (IOW, he didn’t find them; they found him) then I wouldn’t question his fairness. I certainly wouldn’t say such ludicrous things as he’s hiding the guilt of some Yankees. I’d accept his findings, be saddened by the whole thing, and move on. Of course I’d give Schill and Beckett every opportunity to explain themselves before the public and congress. And I would expect Schilling to sue if he were innocent.

  233. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    Jake: Yep, I place most of the blame on him
    A little bit on the players for doing the cheating (but I’m sympathetic to them in general, as it’s human nature)
    And a little bit on management in general for REWARDING cheating
    And a little bit on us, the consumer, for eating this up
    But mostly the commissioner as he’s ultimately the final responsible one

  234. jennifer- Hip Hip Jorge December 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    Thanks GreenBeret7

  235. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    Carl,

    Uncle!

    You win. You are righteous. You are a better man than most.

    Mele Kalikimaka!!

  236. Jake December 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    Blargh,

    Well put.

  237. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    GreenBeret: You are absolutely wrong. They contacted all 30 clubs, begged players and execs from all clubs to come talk to them. Few were willing to do so. Even club execs weren’t very cooperative. They had no power to compel anyone to talk to them. If not for the federal government, the report would have been a failure.

  238. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    My pleasure, Jennifer

  239. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    BTW, Carl.

    Many of have said that Mitchell is a good man. But this report was awful. Nobody made personal attacks on Mitchell. The big jokes here in descending order are:

    1. Laptops
    2. “But he brokered peace in Ireland”
    3. Clown hair.

    We only joke about Ireland because people keep coming here and saying that Mitchell would never do anything like sandbag a report because “he brokered peace in Ireland”. It’s funny because it’s illogical. He brokered peace in Ireland, therefore he’s incapable of being biased. A thesis like that in a logic course would garner a BIG FAT ‘F’.

  240. Vince December 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    Mitchell underestimated the knowledge of baseball fans throughout the country. This is the information and knowledge age and virtually anything can be found out on the internet if pursued.
    With ESPN and other outlets, Mitchell has been seen and mentioned by anaylsts during Boston games and the Mitchell Report was synonymous with his face. Fans reserved judgement of his position as a Director of the Red Sox until he slightly opened the door at the end of his press conference by somewhat defending his position and in doing so, has seen the door opening even more. The rest has taken care of itself by the less than adequate report.

  241. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 2:38 pm

    mel — I would disagree. They caught Clemens. Of course they did! Are you kidding? All we had before were the words of Grimsley which he retracted when he realized what he had just done. And Canseco merely said he discussed steroids with Clemens. You had nothing else. Now we have his ex-trainer saying he injected him in the butt! For a few years. All of a sudden, the case against Clemens is strong. With Pettitte, all you had were Grimsley’s words. He too has now been caught.

    Plus they caught about 50 others. I think it was money well spent. Because I’m pretty sure there will be stricter testing and stiffer penalties coming out of this. There will be further congressional scrutiny and hearings. I’m all for it. As you can see I’m really against PEDs in sports. That’s why I’d accept a report like this even if it got two of the big guys on my team.

  242. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    Carl,

    You won. You won’t get anymore argument from me.

  243. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    Hmm, gah, last post didn’t make it through?

    Anyway, does anybody here have a JAMA subscription (Journal of the American Medical Association)?

    I’d like someone to summarize http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/c.....94/16/2086
    (the excerpt tells me nothing substantial)

  244. ray December 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    Mel,
    You know from earlier discussions that I agree that selecting Mitchell to lead this investigation was a poor choice because of at the least the appearance of a bias with his association with the Red Sox.

    With that being said many of the posts on here are not accurate. Mitchell makes no claims about the report being exhaustive. He just had the results printed that he was able to gain. No where does it state that the absence of Ortiz, Sosa, and others in the report means that they are steroid free so to speak.

    There were federal investigators present at every single interview and besides that the investigation team included at least twenty people. If Mitchell gave a biased report wouldn’t that be apparent to all of these people? I don’t think the federal investigators had ties with the Red Sox, and call me naive but I think if Mitchell was solely responsible for the report it could have been biased but he was not the only person involved. Are people alleging that the whole group of twenty and the federal investigators had a bias?

  245. Jake December 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    Carl, you are pointing out the very flaws in the report.

    Thank you.

  246. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    Yes, Carl. What person in teir right mind would go to an investigator without knowing the charges? The players had no guarantees of anything. It was apparent that this was a smoke screen to take the jheat off of Selig for allowing the drug problem to go on for 10 years…not only allow it, but, profit by it. He still won’t admit that he did nothing wrong. The fact is, he did nothing.

    The players were threatened with punishment if they came forward and admitted to something, unlike the criminals who get reduced sentences. Not only that, but, they weren’t even given a list of charges or information so they could show falsehoods in dates or have explainations for what evidence there was. Even in a court of law that Mitchell claims to uphold, the accused is at least told the charges.

  247. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    I take that back, you got me really going. So the government/MLB didn’t want to bury Clemens when Grimsley ratted him out, so the prosecutor allowed Grimsley to retract the biggest fish that could put that prosecutor’s name on the map, leading to a possible future as a governor/senator/president? But now they decided it’s the time to expose Clemens? (I’m not arguing his innocence).

    Also, all the alleged steroids cases were not brought to light. For instance, why not investigate further the Boston batboy/clubbie incident?

  248. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    mel — many of you were saying that Mitchell would knowingly hide evidence that was incriminating to the Red Sox. That he would selectively target a few teams. How is that not attacking him personally???? That’s attacking his integrity.

    And no, it’s not just because he brokered peace in northern ireland that he has so much respect. It’s because he’s also been a judge, a prosecutor, a senate majority leader and distinguished congressman, and a candidate for the supreme court. He’s led his life without any big scandals which is hard to do when you’re a politician in Washington. It’s all these things that give him credibility. Not just Ireland.

    You may think the report was weak. But the value of the report lies in not just the players who were named. I think it was a landmark report. And, as Ian O’Connor said, it was one of the best days in baseball.

  249. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    ray,

    I don’t even want to talk to you. I’m pissed about your Celtics. They need to be investigated for PEDs.

    Seriously, ray, Sox fans (not you, you’re cool) need to stop coming here with their righteous crap.

    Put yourselves in Yankee fans’ shoes before getting all high and mighty.

    http://yankees.lhblogs.com/200.....ent-231986

  250. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pm

    Ray, it’s apparent that their was a conflict of interest everywhere except in Boston and Bud Selig’s mind. Do you honestly think that Mitchell’s staff is going to complain about the 2 year gravy train they road. They aren’t going to dispute the guy they work for.

  251. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pm

    **Are people alleging that the whole group of twenty and the federal investigators had a bias?**

    That’s exactly what many are saying here. Either they have no objectivity or they don’t understand just how much involved and instrumental the federal government was in this. And I doubt guys like Novitsky are Red Sox fans. He’s probably a Giants fan.

  252. mel December 19th, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    Carl,

    You’ve made your point and you’ve made it very well. Without resorting to using words like “stupid”, “idiot”, and “moron”.

    You can join ray in the very exclusive “Okay with the Blog Sox Fans”.

  253. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    I don’t know where you guys get the energy…

  254. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pm

    GreenBeret – If the players had nothing to hide, why not speak with investigators? Not only were they allowed to bring lawyers if they wished, but they had the option to speak anonymously if they wanted to, and they also were not under oath when they spoke. The only ones who were under pressure to tell the truth were a few like Radomsky, Bigbie, and McNamee.

  255. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    mel — are you Hawaiian? Or do you just like that song?

  256. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    Carl, the jobs he held doesn’t mean he had integrity. Johnson, Nixon and Clinton were presidents. Hoover was head of the FBI, Dulles of the CIA, Big Jim Thompson was governor of Illinois, Anton Czermak was mayor of Chicago, Roy Bean was a judge, Ted Kennedy and his father, Joe. There’s not an ounce of integrity in any of them.

  257. Ray December 19th, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    What I find interesting is what is legal and what is allowed! Wade Boggs had Lasik eye surgery to correct his vision to 20/10. This is legal. Someone could inject a pint of blood into their system before a game & that would be legal (or not illegal) and it would greatly benefit the player in strength & conditioning for the game itself. (Note, could even use their own blood.)

    Can use most prescription drugs but not certain ones. Can missuse prescription drugs as long as you have a prescription for it except the ones banned.

    Can use some stimulants from GNC not banned ones that may be less powerful.

    Can use spitballs, greaseballs, sandpaper, etc unless you get caught. Can cut grass real short or roll the dirt to harden surface to speed up play or the reverse to slow balls down to help or hurt a speedier team.

    Can signal stolen signs, but can’t use binoculars to steal them. (See Yogi!) Can look back at signs from catcher but may be beaned but it isn’t illegal.

    Can cork bats if you don’t get caught. Can freeze the baseballs if you want to reduce the power from team. Can change the humidity in a domed field to allow more or less homeruns.

    Can use knowledge of steroid investigation to release a player or bring it up during the Playoffs in an untimely manner to get an edge. Can keep one prospective owner from getting a team while another may get it for much less $$. Can have collusion if you don’t get caught. Can blackball a player like Dave Kingman if you desire.

    Can wear jewelry or white that hides the ball or distracts sometimes & not others. Can have people sit in CF on some stadiums and not others. Can pipe in noise sometimes. Can dim lights or brighten or even have dark spots that home team knows. Can slope field to prevent bunts from staying fair.

    Now which of these is fair & which aren’t?

  258. Blargh December 19th, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    Does anybody here have a JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) subscription?
    I’d like a review/summary of this article:
    http:// jama.ama-assn.org/ cgi/ content/ full/294/16/2086

    I put the spaces in because for some reason, the filter was eating up my last 3 posts containing the url

  259. ray December 19th, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    Mel,
    I’ve always enjoyed and respected both your spirit and sense of fairness! Just so you know that I am not attempting to unload some “righteous crap”, lol, as a Sox fan I have long suspected certain Sox players of getting into the juice so I for one am fully cognizant of the fact that the steroid issue is not limited to the Yankees even though not many Sox players were mentioned in the report.

  260. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    Carl, would you go to see the head of an investigation without knowing why, knowing that the investigation was a sham to begin with. As far as integrity, where was Mitchell’s when he refused to provide a copy to the player’s union until 1 hour ahead of the release of the report. Selig had it for 3 days, and, still hadn’t read it. Mitchell’s BS excuse was because the union didn’t help him. Sounds more like a petulant child to me.

  261. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    GreenBeret — Most of the others you named underwent considerable controversies during their careers that severely undermined their standing with the public. Uh, ever hear of watergate? Ok, just kidding. But you get what I mean. Mitchell has had no such controversies.

  262. Ray December 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    I’m a different Ray!! LOL! I am a Yankee Fan. The other appears to be a BoSox one.

    There is no way a thinking man (George Mitchell) would ever put themselves in a position possible prejudice w/o excusing himself, unless he or someone else had an agenda.

    If it looks like a setup, smell like a setup & reads like a setup, then one might not be paranoid if they say it is a setup.

  263. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    Let’s make steroids mandatory. This would create a level playing field. The fans would love it, more homeruns etc…
    It wouldn’t be cheating because it’s out in the open. Let their be a steroid commish who would allocate an equal amount to all teams with each team having an administrator
    to distribute accordingly to each player at their disgression.

  264. mel December 19th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    Carl,

    Not a drop of Hawaiian blood, but I do use ‘Aloha’ in my correspondences.

  265. mel December 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    Carl,

    Hate the song.

  266. ray December 19th, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    Hey Ray!
    I usually post with the lower case “ray” so hopefully there will be no confusion.

  267. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    GreenBeret — If there were an investigation headed by someone with the high integrity of Mitchell, and I knew I was innocent, I’d go speak to him. Definitely. I might bring a lawyer, but I’d go.

    You do know, I hope,that a player did go to Mitchell to find out what they had, said he was innocent, and Mitchell said parts of his story checked out. Therefore, Mitchell said he left him out of the report. See what honesty can do for you if you’re innocent?

  268. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    How about Mitchell’s big money lobbyists with the tobacco industry?

  269. GreenBeret7 December 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    I’m not saying you’re full of it, Carl, but, you’re full of something. Politicians and journalists and adding integrity are not words I would use in the same sentence.

  270. Ray December 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    ray
    Welcome! I saw that! Thanks! I respect fans of all teams, even Red Sox fans! LOL! I wonder what would happen if Randy Levine were doing the investigation & no Yankees were outed, but 16 Red Sox were? That kind of result skews the results to make them at least seem partial at best.

    I have been a proponent of having a real commisioner for many years. The one we have is like our President saying we are in Iraq because of the WMDs that caused us to go there.

  271. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    joltin joe — if they made PEDs mandatory, it would also make their heads big, shrink their nuts, give them acne, give them roid rage, and put their bodies at risk for long-term health complications.

    This is precisely why it wasn’t a level playing field. If players wanted to keep up, they had to subject their bodies to such horrendous risks. This is not fair.

  272. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    Does anyone believe that Clemens comes off smelling like a Rose, Pete, that is, on this? He seems guilty as sin and like Pete, originally, is in denial. If Selig takes it personally, Roger could meet the same fate as Pete. No Hall for you!

  273. ray December 19th, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    GreenBeret,
    What are you talking in reference to Mitchell’s big money tobacco lobbyists?

  274. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 3:17 pm

    Carl,

    If each team had equal amounts of steroids it could be disclosed by the PA , with the line-ups, who is using and how much.

  275. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 3:19 pm

    …and who isn;t using that day.

  276. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pm

    GreenBeret — working as a lobbyist in Washington is perfectly legal. There have been no scandals involving Mitchell and his lobbying activities. From what I gather, he is a smoker too.

  277. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    I honestly don’t think the fans care and have spoken to some who would rather see them play on steroids to “juice” up the game, so to speak.

  278. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pm

    Fire Isiah!

  279. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    Can I say that in here?

  280. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    mel, I’ve spent a few christmasses in Hawaii. I love the place. I thought perhaps you were from there. I gather you have visited there as well and are as similarly smitten with the islands. It’s a paradise. At least those portions not heavily infested with tourists.

  281. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    Or will Dolan take away my sign?

  282. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    Or fire me like he did Marv?

  283. mel December 19th, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    Carl,

    Without getting too specific,
    I’m somewhere in the Pacific.

  284. ray December 19th, 2007 at 3:39 pm

    Mel,
    A Yankee fan, a Laker fan, and a Patriot fan! One of these days I would be interested in hearing how you came up with that combination.

  285. mel December 19th, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    ray,

    No pro teams here. Lakers are big here, though. Got my free choice of baseball and football.

    Yankees are the best franchise in the history sports (I know you beg to differ) and I appreciate their professionalism.

    As for the Patriots? What’s not to like. And Tom Brady is so dreamy. j/k.

  286. joltin joe December 19th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    mel
    are you a secret agent?

  287. james December 19th, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    Clemens and all these players may have taken some joiuce but maybe not—however are we really to trust government officials—or maybe their are weapons of mass destruction and maybe Clinton did not inhale either–hmm

  288. Old Yanks Fan December 19th, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    For Carl: Just ran across this.
    First and foremost, George Mitchell had, and still has, a blatant conflict of interest. As an executive of the Red Sox [..and partial owner], his interests in making Boston a successful, profitable team are in direct conflict with his role of allegedly rooting out steroid users. One can only imagine what Red Sox management did when Mitchell uncovered the name of a Boston player.

    Many prominent people agree that Mitchell’s conflict should have barred him from conducting the investigation. John Dowd, who investigated Pete Rose’s gambling problems in the late 1980s, said: “Mitchell doesn’t have a great track record with me. It doesn’t look like he’s independent.”

    Senator Jim Bunning, a Kentucky Republican and baseball Hall of Famer, echoed Dowd’s concerns: “While George Mitchell is certainly a man of great integrity, I believe that baseball would have been wiser to pick someone who is not as close to the game and may be able to take a more objective look into the facts.”

  289. Old Yanks Fan December 19th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    Carl ————
    From an NPR article:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....d=17181436
    Tom Donaldson, an ethics specialist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, says Mitchell was too much of a Major League Baseball insider to be a truly independent investigator.

    “When a supposedly independent investigator is a part of what’s being investigated, it’s Conflict of Interest 101,” Donaldson says.

    For starters, Mitchell is director of the Boston Red Sox. It’s a paid position — though Mitchell wasn’t compensated by the team during the investigation. Up until a year ago, Mitchell was chairman of the Walt Disney Company, which owns ESPN — which paid $2.4 billion to televise major league games through 2013.

    USA Today
    “I side with those who would think it’s questionable,” said professor Deborah L. Rhode, director of the Stanford Center on Ethics at Stanford University, adding it’s important to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest in investigations of this nature.

    “Is this somebody that has sufficient distance from individuals and the institution being investigated? Can we count on him to lead an impartial investigation?” she said. “The more ties, the harder that becomes.”

    Baltimore Sun
    Law and public policy professors who deal with ethics issues say Mitchell’s business connections at least raise potential questions for the public about his objectivity.

    “There is no question that there could be findings that he has uncovered in his steroid investigation that would, if publicly revealed, be damaging to the interests of either or both the Red Sox and/or Disney,” Gary R. Roberts, dean of the Indiana University School of Law, wrote in an e-mail.

    That took me 5 minutes. There’s plenty more.

  290. barry bonds December 19th, 2007 at 5:11 pm

    I believe you roger!!!

  291. Casper December 19th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

    2007 Sports Blog of the Year Tournament (NCAA Tourney-style).

    GO VOTE FOR PETE ABE. ROUND-1 VOTING CLOSES TONIGHT AT MIDNIGHT AND HE’S LOSING THUS FAR.

    http://www.bustedcoverage.com/?page_id=1124

    (38*itches was getting beaten badly, then he posted about it on his blog and he’s cruising. Go represent for Pete and the Yankees blogs out there.)

  292. ryanloghry December 19th, 2007 at 5:55 pm

    I believe Roger. For a long time now I’ve been reading bloggers who say “He’s never denied it, it’s all lawyer talk.” Well, he isn’t hedging anymore. He’s telling the truth. Just as Andy did.

  293. Old Yanks Fan December 19th, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    Carl -
    Get off your high horse. First off, since the ONLY TWO sources of this investigation were from NY, are you surprised that a lot of NY players were named? And since Mitchell is on the Sox BoD AND is a partial owner, are you surprised that fewer Sox were named? Really dude. Get a grip.

    The truth is somewhere between 10%-50% of MLB players over the last 15 years have used Steroids or HGH. Probably hundreds, or maybe over 1,000 players. I’m sure they span the country and reside on every team.

    Also, I’m a Yankee fan. Clemens is a Red Sox who played in Toronto, Houston and NY. He was an a**hole when he played for the Sox, and is still one now… although, PEDs or not, I have tremendous respect for his worksout and dedication to the game.

    It’s not clear, but most of the reading I’ve done says HGH has little, IF ANY, performance enhancing qualities. This is stated in the Mitchell report itself. It does seem to have some healing and general ‘feel good’ qualities.

    Is it cheating to use HGH? Yeah, I guess it is. However, when you consider doctoring the ball, stealing signals, corked bats, various other minor crimes, AND ESPECIALLY GREENIES, it’s my guess that more then 50% of players since the ’50s cheated. So lets STFU with all this santimonious talk.

    My only concern, and most fans concerns, are players that did Steroids to the extent that they markedly improved their statistics. Bonds? BigMac? Sosa? Palmeiro? Roger? All maybes. Other guys too? I’m sure.

    You want to play preacher and hassle guys who basically ‘tasted’ this stuff for a very short period of time, and basically had NO effect on their careers? Knock yourself out.

    It’s stupid for you and others here to argue minor facts. Taking about ‘cheating’ and ‘illegal practices’ in the face of GREENIES and the entire history of cheating in baseball is childish. Wanna go all moralistic on us? Studies have shown that approx, 80% of married folk have had extramarital affairs. Wanna throw that in the soup too?

    The only real issue here is whose numbers have been enhanced due to PEDs? Anything else is just bullsh*t.

    One of the problems with this report is that in naming names, people think players UNnamed are clean. Not the case. I’m sure the Sox have as many cheaters as all the other teams.

    If Roger truly enhanced his numbers, like Bonds, the level of his real talent will always be questioned. He posted HOF numbers before this. Whether we want to punish proven players, and UNproven players like BigMac, by keeping them out of the HOF is another debate.

  294. ORORO December 19th, 2007 at 6:52 pm

    Excercise and diet alone could not have changed his body so dramatically. NO way!!.

  295. Chag December 19th, 2007 at 7:19 pm

    I know Roger Clemens workout routine is legendary. But on the other hand, you have your “best friend” coming out of the wood line –among other players– admitting use of PEDs. You are guilty in my eyes, there is no reason for McNamee to lie. Instead of “Tough all Day”, it should be “PEDs all Day”.

  296. Carl December 19th, 2007 at 8:05 pm

    Old Yanks Fan –

    You get off YOUR high horse. And take off your blinders while you’re at it. And, no. I’m not surprised that a lot of NY players were named. No one should be since Radomski is from NY. That in and of itself has no bearing on the integrity of Mitchell and his endeavor. All of you seem to be missing the point: Mitchell did not find Radomski. The feds did. They then proceeded to drop him in Mitchell’s lap.

    And while you’re getting off that horse, try reading up on the facts. Mitchell is NOT a partial owner of the Sox. He’s on their board. Really dude, get a grip. It’s bad enough that some Yankee fans are impugning his integrity to a ridiculous degree, but you don’t have to make things up.

    HGH in conjunction with steroids is said to improve the impact of steroids alone. Clemens took both. During the same time period. He cheated plain and simple. If you want to still admire him that’s your choice. I won’t.

    And stop the non-sensical comparison of steroids and HGH with greenies and corked bats. Those methods have been around for ages yet never resulted in the type of performance enhancement that we’ve seen with steroids and other recent chemicals. It’s retarded to even suggest they are on the same level.

    And NO, I don’t want to play preacher and hassle the guys who only tasted the stuff. But I want to ream the big cheaters like Clemens and perhaps even Pettitte whom many don’t believe for a second only “tasted” the stuff. Now there’s your phony preacher for you. His crocodile tear-filled apology seemed somewhat half-hearted and disingenuous.

    What I find stupid are people like you who continue to give a pass to the cheaters and ignorantly try to compare today’s cheats with corkers and spitters of the past. Night and day.

    One of the problems with defensive Yankee fans is they think other people think that those not named in the report are innocent. That’s naive. That’s stupid. People don’t think that. What many do think however is if there is no evidence, the player should be given the benefit of the doubt. If not, then I can start pointing fingers at Rivera and Jeter too. Even Posada. But no one has fingered them. So if there is no evidence, they deserve to be considered clean. If you think otherwise, then you are simply condemning everyone, which is asinine.

    While Clemens might have made the HOF without roids, it’s not clear. His last 150 wins were obtained during a period of time in which he clearly cheated.

    I’m not going to tell you to STFU or despise cheats like Clemens. You can continue to worship at the shrine of the needle for all I care. There are enough of us in this country that have been thoroughly disgusted by Clemens and his cheating that one more Yankee fan in denial won’t make a difference. Roger’s legacy has been ruined — just as it should be.

  297. Ranting Guy December 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    Carl -
    Is your last name Pavano?

  298. DT December 19th, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    Yes

  299. Don Capone December 19th, 2007 at 10:36 pm

    The NY Post is reporting that both Radomski and McNamee are now trying to get book deals. No takers so far:

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/12.....445257.htm

  300. ORORO December 20th, 2007 at 12:15 am

    Mitchell, his integrity, and his endeavor are as suspect as Clemens. The decision to recklessly name some players as opposed to a more comprehensive list of users is troubling.

  301. susan mullen December 20th, 2007 at 12:22 am

    I admit–I was fooled. The 2007 ALDS Gm 4 winning pitcher openly kept his HGH and paraphenalia in some clubhouse fridges.(AP story yesterday). Yet the mass media has written and screamed constantly, slammed and defamed Andy Pettitte 24 hours a day for the past week, dissected and second guessed every moment of his life. He’s listed as the #1 biggest loser today in a national sports publication. Until yesterday, I had completely forgotten about Paul Byrd, hadn’t known he kept his PED’s in more than 1 clubhoiuse fridge and even came up with the story that “MLB knew about it” (same AP story) about which so far they haven’t publicly agreed. If any behavior called for the stripping of a team record, it’s Game 4 of the 2007 ALDS, Paul Byrd the winning pitcher against the Yankees. He did not come forward on his own. He did not go to see Mitchell or MLB til this week. He did not confess. His name was leaked by the SF Chronicle during the World Series with enough documentation that he couldn’t deny it. And he said it was for a dental problem. Yet no 24 hour a day ranting on all radio, newspaper, internet for the past week about what a fraud he is. His use is a tad bit obvious, he has a recent controversial win about which no one has objected, and he lied about why he took it. The only thing I can think of is …the mysterious timing of his “outing” seems to have accomplished 3 things:
    1. Kept him completely out of the past week’s defamatory and irreversible slander, libel and innuendo. 2. Kept his outing from positively helping the Yankees. 3. Allowed the media to focus mainly on Andy-which they’ve done. Paul Byrd also has expressed strong religious beliefs–that would be great fodder too. Miraculously, somehow, some way, the mysterious timing of Paul Byrd’s “outing” has had devastating effects. But not for Paul Byrd. It’s been heaven for him.

  302. Annie Savoy December 20th, 2007 at 8:06 am

    It’s been good that all this broke after the season was over and the players et.al. could not hide out with their enablers in the clubhouse, but had to face the court of public opinion.

    Can you imagine the children of these players saying “Daddy, how could you??”

    Of course records, trophies, awards, and salary should be taken back – let’s apply the Marion Jones’ punishment to all these cheaters.

    I hope Congress will also subpeona other members of MLB as well. We need to hear from the Managers, General Managers, coaches, owners etc. They are all culpable.

  303. String Beanfellow December 20th, 2007 at 9:30 am

    I think Carl is Mitchell trying to prop up his failing reputation.

  304. Jeter's Future Wife December 20th, 2007 at 11:26 am

    did anyone hear Curt Schilling’s comment from his blog? That Clemens’ Cy Youngs should be taken away if he can’t clear his name!

    Then when “they” figure out that teammates of Schilling were using while winning the Series with Arizona and Boston, they should take away his World Series ring too? This is just getting out of hand. Like Bob Costas said, the way to handle all of this is to put the record holders into the Hall of Fame based on performance, however, at the beginning of the book, or first stop in Cooperstown, state that there was a “steroids era” from mid 90′s to the turn of the century, and it is believed that a good number of the players used and to take that into consideration when giving players recognition on their Hall of Fame status

  305. judge schmels December 20th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

    carl- of all the posts that I have read over the last week, yours makes the most sense. By the way I am a Colorado Rockies fan.

  306. Cowhide Rug December 25th, 2009 at 5:05 am

    I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the great work Look forward to reading more from you in the future.

  307. Efren Utsey March 7th, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    Nice introduce!I just now have new choice to ordering Vacuum equipment.I have new car and I wanted high speedvacuum toolsto consider clean my car.

Leave a comment below


Sponsored by:
 

Search

    Advertisement

    Follow

    Mobile

    Read The LoHud Yankees Blog on the go by navigating to the blog on your smartphone or mobile device's browser. No apps or downloads are required.

Advertisement

Place an ad

Call (914) 694-3581