"Roger (Clemens) has been repeatedly tested for these substances and he has never tested positive," Clemens' attorney, Rusty Hardin, said in a statement. "There has never been one shred of tangible evidence that he ever used these substances and yet he is being slandered today."Well, Rusty (can I call you Rusty?), if it's slander, I would fully expect that a lawsuit is forthcoming, correct?
I won't hold my breath.
Mitchell's conclusions, well-documented all over the media and blogosphere, are pretty simple.
1. Baseball has a serious problem
2. The commissioner's office and players' union stuck their heads in the sand and ignored warning signs.
3. If the game is ever going to be cleaned up, it has to start now, and it will take cooperation to make it happen.
I hate to oversimplify, but this is pretty much what those 400-plus pages were all about. The naming of names was a necessary step, but it does nothing more than to add a soap-opera quality to this story. People wanted to hear names, and people wanted to know who was (allegedly) involved.
I'm not here to convict Roger Clemens. Not Andy Pettitte, either. For that matter, I'm not trying to throw F.P. Santangelo under the bus.
I just want to be able to watch baseball without wondering if the guy on the mound, the guy at the plate, or the guy selling hot dogs is on steroids. Probably an idealist thing at this point, but I'm still hopeful.
Overall, the Mitchell Report can only be a jumping-off point. From here, Senator Mitchell can do nothing. It's now up to Bud Selig and Donald Fehr. And even though it was 12 years ago, these are the guys who are reponsible for the cancellation of a World Series. Let's not forget that. If you trust them, you're a better and more trustworthy soul than I.
Don't fret. Barry has still never failed a drug test. This seems to me to be a bit of an issue when it comes to the legitimacy of tests.
Barry Bonds and his supporters often pointed to the fact that the home run king never flunked a drug test administered by Major League Baseball. The Mitchell Report suggests why: it appears Bonds received advanced warning of two tests in 2003. According to the report, Bonds was tested for steroid use on May 28 and June 4, 2003 as part of MLB's first attempt at formal detection. The report cites a San Francisco Chronicle report that it had obtained a tape recording of Bonds' personal trainer Greg Anderson boasting he received advanced notice of the testing. Anderson purportedly said on the recording that he was told the 2003 testing would occur in late May or early June. "Therefore," the report said, "if the report of this conversation is accurate Anderson correctly predicted the dates of testing, at least for his client Barry Bonds."For starters, it's obviously easier to somehow circumvent the testing system if you know when you are going to be tested.
Of course, had Bonds tested positive, he wouldn't have been suspended in 2003. Not only that, but he continues to insist that he didn't know those things were steroids.
Yeah, right, Barry. And I didn't know that Twinkies were bad for me, either.
Oh, yeah. Football. Some picks for you.
Last week: 11-5 Season: 135-77
Home team in CAPS
Denver over HOUSTON (gotta be honest)
SAN FRANCISCO over Cincinnati
Buffalo over CLEVELAND
Tennessee over KANSAS CITY
Green Bay over ST. LOUIS
MIAMI over Baltimore
NEW ENGLAND over N.Y. Jets
NEW ORLEANS over Arizona
PITTSBURGH over Jacksonville
TAMPA BAY over Atlanta
CAROLINA over Seattle
Indianapolis over OAKLAND
DALLAS over Philadelphia
SAN DIEGO over Detroit
Washington over N.Y. GIANTS
MINNESOTA over Chicago