Jump to content

Mitchell Report


How many Red Socks will be named by Mitchell?  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. How many Red Socks will be named by Mitchell?

    • Lots; he'll go out of his way to scrutinize "his" club
    • One; a token scapegoat
    • A handful; or a number proportionate to other clubs
    • None; no stink on these Sox

Recommended Posts

I posted the ESPN article in the other Mitchell Report thread with some quotes... it sounds like this process has been anything but above reproach. It is really disturbing that the trainers feel like instead of being asked about potential solutions, they were asked to speculate and name players they suspected of using. I can kind of picture how that went:

Mitchell investigator: So, Miguel Tejada carries around a little black suitcase and takes B-12 shots... what do you make of that?

Richie Bancells/Brian Ebel/Tim Bishop: I don't know, it's his business what's in his briefcase.

Investigator: But... don't you think it could be... STEROIDS?!?!?!

RB/BE/TB: Well I suppose it could be.

Investigator: Alright, we've got another suspected user to add to our list! Now, what about Brian Roberts? He hit a lot of home runs one month. Hey... he and Jay Gibbons are pretty tight, are they not?...

So far all signs point to them including as many names as possible, even in the absence of concrete proof. I'm sure players named in hearsay won't be suspended or anything, but to include them at all without a darn good reason would be totally unfair. I expect to be very angry when this report comes out... not at the players who used but at the gross unscrupulousness of MLB and their hired gun in their effort to cover their own rear ends. Even if they do have credit card or delivery receipts for everyone in the report, what good is served by a list of those who used before the crackdown other than to appease the segment of the population that is already fascinated by Brittany Spears' purported lack of parenting skills?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS - If Julio Lugo is the token Red Sox player in the report (which wouldn't surprise me at all given the stupid contract they signed him to and his lack of productivity last year... it's the perfect opportunity to justify their colossal mistake in signing him and him being discredited won't hurt their rep since the Sox fans hate him anyway), wouldn't it be ironic that sticking a needle in his butt to try to hit more home runs could have more of a lasting negative impact on his career than putting his wife's face through a car windshield?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paxton Crawford, who admitted using steroids while with the Red Sox, claimed steroids were rampant in baseball and in the Sox clubhouse. But Crawford isn't considered to be the most reliable source.

Manny Alexander was a member of the Red Sox when they found steroids and syringes in his glove compartment. A Red Sox bat boy was driving Alexander's car at the time, and Alexander was never prosecuted. Back then, the MLB policy was that they could test a player if there was probable cause. Alexander's drug test was reportedly clean..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only thing sillier than evidence-less speculation about which players used steroids is speculation about how unfair or biased an unseen, unpublished report may or may not be.

I know you're silly, but what am I?

I mean, c'mon! Is it any sillier than all the emotional tumult over trade proposals that may or may not exist?

I think it is totally legitimate, while we twiddle our thumbs waiting for the report, to wonder about it's contents and speculate on possible scenarios. Otherwise, we might as well not post anything except links to straight news stories without comment.

For my part, I enjoy entertaining any negative thoughts associated with the Boston Red Sox. It may not be totally rational, but there you have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...