More Questions Than Answers

The Mitchell Report, which, in some instances, mentioned players solely as the result of one witnesses’ testimony, circumstantial evidence and even hearsay, could scar some of the included players’ images forever. And with a number of mere, simple allegations, merited or not, included in the lengthy report, did Mitchell really prove anything that eye-popping?

George Mitchell (Associated Press)

So the Mitchell Report has finally come and gone.

But I can’t keep from asking myself, is this what Bud Selig had in mind when he decided to hire the former Senator to begin his investigation a year-and-a-half ago?

First off, Mitchell was certainly not easy on the Commissioner, or any other owners for that matter, either. Considering Selig's signature will appear on Mitchell’s paycheck for his diligent work, there has been great skepticism about the potential conflict of interest resulting from their relationship. But he certainly did not give anyone a pass, even calling out Selig for denying that he had any idea about drug use prior to the historic home run chase back in 1998.

But more disappointing, in my opinion, however, the report did nothing to satisfy the common sports fans’ quench for the real truth or help restore any faith, to me at least, in Major League Baseball. Perhaps tragically, Mitchell’s team did nothing to provide any closure to the steroid era. All his discoveries did, with some shaky information included (such as a few flaky interviews to unfortunately impeach the morals of a few players; Jack Cust, Todd Hundley, Brian Roberts) was add uncertainty and question marks to how people will view the past 15 years of the nation’s pastime in future generations. The naming of players from all skill levels, present and past – small infielders like Chuck Knoblauch to a vast number of forgettable pitchers – may change the way some fans view the steroid era. But to me, dragging someone like former Philadelphia Phillies' spark plug Lenny Dykstra through the mud does not derive any real benefit.

One thing is certain, though. The report showed that a couple of individuals, more than backed into a corner, were willing to testify against their former colleagues, such as former New York Mets’ clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski, the key to Mitchell’s entire investigation.

The mentioning of certain names in this report, in some cases solely as the result of one witnesses’ testimony, in concrete evidence and even hearsay, could scar some of the included players’ images forever. Roberts, a former American League All-Star is the perfect example. With a number of mere, simple allegations, merited or not, included in the lengthy report, did Mitchell really prove anything that eye-popping?

Take Roberts’ situation, which was borderline absurd, by the way. Mitchell’s decision to include the Baltimore Orioles’ infielder in the report, after obtaining information about his involvement with performance-enhancing drugs solely through a vague past account by former outfielder and his roommate, Larry Bigbie (which does not pass the laugh test), only improves any argument for someone trying to shoot down the credibility of the report. We all knew steroid use has been rampant in Major League Baseball, especially after the release of The Game of Shadows and Jose Canseco’s telling account in his book Juiced, for a long time now.Did we really need a former Democratic politician from Maine, noble or not, to tell us all that?

It has also been clear, for some time, the solution to this issue will only result from improved steroid testing policies, featuring far harsher penalties for offenders. Stricter guidelines implemented over the past have already proved this, reducing the prevalence of certain performance-enhancing drugs in the game during the last two seasons. And to address the problem even more drastically, fully restoring the integrity of the sport (as much as possible) in the process, has more to do with discovering new, enhanced ways to test for performance-enhancing drugs. Coming up with a urine test for HGH, most notably, is perhaps the true guiding force behind the eradication of performance-enhancing drugs from the game. With these potential solutions well-known long before Mitchell began his research, was looking back at the past, especially using such circumstantial evidence, really necessary?

Sure, some of the recommendations made by the Senator and his staff could help alleviate the problem facing baseball today. But the Mitchell Report is now just going to ignite a firestorm between the Player’s Association and Selig in the coming months. We knew this may happen, too, as well as Mitchell’s struggles of getting players to cooperate, which have been well documented for the entire duration of his efforts; with no law enforcement or real threats, why would a member of the baseball brethren rat out a former teammate? The findings in his report, scamp if you exclude Radomski and some of his associate’s willingness to talk, only enhanced that notion.

As Senator Mitchell mentioned himself in his press conference earlier this afternoon, without the cooperation of more players, there is absolutely no way to uncover the actual truth of which players were and were not clean from 1990 on, fair or not. It is more likely for Hillary Clinton to become an advocate for “Reagonomics” as the solution for how to improve the United States economy than the possibility that a good portion of big leaguers will ever testify against their fellow players in the future. This means that it is only going to become exceedingly difficult to objectively judge a player’s accolades from the 1990s. From earned run averages to home run totals, VORP to OPS, how can a baseball fan distinguish what numbers are actually legit?

When thinking about a player’s attributes for entering the Hall of Fame, such as Roger Clemens, who, along with workout partner Andy Pettitte, was one of the most high profile players mentioned in the report, how big of a role should his alleged steroid use play in a voter’s decision to grant him permission into Cooperstown?

The fact of the matter is, we will never know to the full extent the full implications of steroid use in the past era, but the users known to the public “did not act in a vacuum,” as Mitchell adamantly stated, period. This means that any future Hall Candidate who hit more than 40 homers from 1988 on, and perhaps unfairly, will be looked at with strict scrutiny when they are eligible for the Hall. But if it was so common to use steroids, then, when voters consider electing a Clemens or someone like Mark McGwire, players who were head and shoulders statistics-wise above the rest of the players of their era (those who took steroids and did not), is it really beneficial to punish them that greatly? In the future, undoubtedly, a Hall of Fame-caliber player and drug user who never tested positive, yet simply avoided getting caught for steroid use, will get elected to baseball’s most prestigious residence, to the justified ignorance of the voter’s committee. And if they will not be penalized, other than the fact that future generations will look down on them solely because they played in the steroid era, where do you draw the line?

Due to the lack of proof, with the players’ refusal to testify expected to last forever, let the war begin. Instead of getting the closure Selig hoped for, his decision to hire Mitchell may have just prompted a lengthy battle between the immensely-skilled lawyers working for the player’s association and Major League Baseball, which could rage on for some time. Personally, my previous opinions on steroids were not really altered, and depending on how one judges what factors determine whether or not Mitchell’s work was a success, I can safely say that some Major League Baseball executives probably have some regrets on how this played out. Moving forward, as Mitchell and Selig both believe as the true goal of the release of the report, with too much information unsaid, will be more difficult than they might think.