Why..............

[osofthepast]

with all the steroids talk , is most of it centering on the O's? It's funny how people aren't pressing Roger (the god in his own mind) Clemmens , and isn't asked to give his statments , but everyone needs to know if Roberts took once or twice? . Hey , seems nothing will be done to anyone that will hurt 'ol Selig's ratings or pocket book . And for that matter , how can they justify suspending Gibbons , but Clemmens , Bonds , Pettite , and others , have not received these same penalties???

[Mike Devo]

Have you been paying attention to the media coverage on the Mitchell Report at all? It's been all about Clemens and Pettite.

[BaltimoreSports]

with all the steroids talk , is most of it centering on the O's? It's funny how people aren't pressing Roger (the god in his own mind) Clemmens , and isn't asked to give his statments , but everyone needs to know if Roberts took once or twice? . Hey , seems nothing will be done to anyone that will hurt 'ol Selig's ratings or pocket book . And for that matter , how can they justify suspending Gibbons , but Clemmens , Bonds , Pettite , and others , have not received these same penalties???

What? Dude the entire press coverage has been focused on the big names. The moment the names broke Clemens lawyer commented on his innocence. And pettite has been all over espn.

[hefalumps]

Agreed - the only mention I've heard of the Orioles on the Mitchell Report is on Roch's blog. I feel like Clemens is getting almost more attention than he deserves.

[osfansince85]

Agreed - the only mention I've heard of the Orioles on the Mitchell Report is on Roch's blog. I feel like Clemens is getting almost more attention than he deserves.

Yeah, I dont really understand your post? All of the major outlets have been focused on Andy and Roger. Yeah a blurb or two on Roberts and how hiis name was in the report briefly, but thats all....

[blueberryale77]

Yeah, I dont really understand your post? All of the major outlets have been focused on Andy and Roger. Yeah a blurb or two on Roberts and how hiis name was in the report briefly, but thats all....

Other than the annoying reading of "the list" without qualification, most mentions of Roberts in the national media have been about how he got screwed.

[66-70-83-??]

Other than the annoying reading of "the list" without qualification, most mentions of Roberts in the national media have been about how he got screwed.

There is no getting around the fact that each player was invited to cooperate with the investigation and clear his name.

Apparantly, one did. And it worked- he was not included in the report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/sports/baseball/15mitchell.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin

Mitchell stood by the report. “I simply reported what I learned,” he said while talking to a few reporters at his law office in New York. “We made every effort to establish the truth of what we were told.”

He described the back-and-forth negotiations with the unidentified player, who was mentioned briefly in his footnoted report. The player offered “substantial and corroborated evidence” that he had disposed of the drugs without using them, Mitchell said.

Mitchell said the player and Kirk Radomski, the former Mets clubhouse attendant who sold drugs to dozens of major league players from 1995 through 2005 and provided evidence to Mitchell as part of a plea bargain, each confirmed that the player had bought drugs. But Mitchell said Radomski never saw him using them, and he believed the player’s account when they talked. Mitchell did not specify whether the drugs were human growth hormone or steroids.

The player was accompanied by a lawyer when he talked to Mitchell, who said he was disappointed that more players did not accept his invitations to talk to him.

The players got bad advice from Fehr.

Innocent people have nothing to fear.

[blueberryale77]

There is no getting around the fact that each player was invited to cooperate with the investigation and clear his name.

Apparantly, one did. And it worked- he was not included in the report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/sports/baseball/15mitchell.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin

The players got bad advice from Fehr.

Innocent people have nothing to fear.

This is one of those cliches that people assume is true just because it's repeated so much. It's not. How many people have been falsely convicted of serious crimes based on coerced confessions only to have DNA evidence prove they couldn't possibly have committed the crime? Mitchell and his team were skilled interrogators with an agenda. Anyone who spoke to them when they didn't have to would have been taking a risk no matter how innocent they were.

Aside from that, as I have said countless times, by the time Mitchell started requesting interviews with players he had already established a pattern of pressuring trainers and others to name names and engage in speculation about who they thought might have used steroids. It is perfectly justifiable that players did not want to participate in this non-criminal investigation because they did not want to be put in that position. Perhaps you feel that they should have implicated their peers and told Mitchell who had used or who they thought might have used, but it's ridiculous to say that had nothing to lose meeting with him. Any player who had friends and the respect of his teammates, or who had sympathy for the many colleagues he knew were users, had something to lose.

[RShack]

Innocent people have nothing to fear.

Sure they do. Innocent people have a lot to fear. Always have, always will. The whole point of creating the United States was trying to invent a place where innocent people didn't have a lot to fear. It was a very new and very radical idea at the time. We've not been perfect at it, but for a long time we kept getting better and better at it. Slaves had a lot to fear, and they were innocent. After slavery was outlawed, black folks still had a lot to fear, but not quite as bad, and they were innocent. It wasn't until the '60's that we started really trying to fix that problem. So, we're imperfect, but we eventually get better and better at it. Workers who were innocent people had a whole lot to fear, which is 100% of the reason that unions got started. People starting unions had a lot to fear, and they were innocent unless you think forming unions is a crime. They got shot and killed. But we kept getting better at it. By the latter portion of the 1900's, the United States had reached the point where most innocent people did not have a lot to fear. This was quite an accomplishment. It's the main reason why the rest of the world looked up to us. It wasn't just big cars and cheap gas, it wasn't just about our stuff. It was because in many places all around the world, people saw America as being the place where innocent people had nothing to fear.

This did not happen by accident. The whole reason America became that way is because we set out to be that way. America went out of its way to be this way. That's why we have the Bill of Rights, so innocent people won't have a lot to fear from the gov't. That's why the courts have rules that everybody's gotta follow (even the police), so that innocent people won't have a lot to fear. That's why we have limits on power, so that innocent people won't have a lot to fear. The whole project of the USA is to create a place where innocent people can live OK without having a lot to fear. But it's an uphill thing, always has been. And, as anyone who is dubious about of big-gov't power would know (and I believe you are dubious about big-government power, are you not?), the important principle to making a situation in which innocent people don't have a lot to fear is that you gotta keep power in check, and have the same rules for everybody. Right?

So, where are the power-checks and rules-for-everybody in this situation? Just because some people are guilty, that does not mean that innocent people have nothing to fear. Exactly who is protected from what in this situation? BRob's been plastered all over ESPN based on one guy saying what he heard once, nothing else. The Commish is empowered to hand out any specific discipline he sees fit. And the investigation of players somehow did not extend to an investigation of owners, did it? So, exactly where are the parts about this whole thing that are compatible with how America makes it so that innocent people have nothing to fear? Where are the rules that everybody has to follow, and where are the limits on power? Where? I don't see them, and I bet the ghost of Shoeless Joe Jackson doesn't either. I see one guy (Bud) ordering a report, which was done by a colleague of his (Mitchell) via a process that he pretty much made up as he went. Next thing you know, all the details are plastered all over TV, and Bud is saying that he'll decide whatever he wants to decide about who to punish and how badly, and he'll do it whenever he's good and ready. How does this situtation add up into "innocent people have nothing to fear"? It's pretty much the exact opposite of what I was taught America is about when I was a kid. The phrase "Innocent people have nothing to fear" is an American goal. It's what we're supposed to strive for, it's how America is supposed to be different than other places. It shouldn't be just a slogan for smearing people who don't wanna roll over and submit to power.

[66-70-83-??]

Sure they do. Innocent people have a lot to fear. Always have, always will. The whole point of creating the United States was trying to invent a place where innocent people didn't have a lot to fear. It was a very new and very radical idea at the time. We've not been perfect at it, but for a long time we kept getting better and better at it. Slaves had a lot to fear, and they were innocent. After slavery was outlawed, black folks still had a lot to fear, but not quite as bad, and they were innocent. It wasn't until the '60's that we started really trying to fix that problem. So, we're imperfect, but we eventually get better and better at it. Workers who were innocent people had a whole lot to fear, which is 100% of the reason that unions got started. People starting unions had a lot to fear, and they were innocent unless you think forming unions is a crime. They got shot and killed. But we kept getting better at it. By the latter portion of the 1900's, the United States had reached the point where most innocent people did not have a lot to fear. This was quite an accomplishment. It's the main reason why the rest of the world looked up to us. It wasn't just big cars and cheap gas, it wasn't just about our stuff. It was because in many places all around the world, people saw America as being the place where innocent people had nothing to fear.

This did not happen by accident. The whole reason America became that way is because we set out to be that way. America went out of its way to be this way. That's why we have the Bill of Rights, so innocent people won't have a lot to fear from the gov't. That's why the courts have rules that everybody's gotta follow (even the police), so that innocent people won't have a lot to fear. That's why we have limits on power, so that innocent people won't have a lot to fear. The whole project of the USA is to create a place where innocent people can live OK without having a lot to fear. But it's an uphill thing, always has been. And, as anyone who is dubious about of big-gov't power would know (and I believe you are dubious about big-government power, are you not?), the important principle to making a situation in which innocent people don't have a lot to fear is that you gotta keep power in check, and have the same rules for everybody. Right?

So, where are the power-checks and rules-for-everybody in this situation? Just because some people are guilty, that does not mean that innocent people have nothing to fear. Exactly who is protected from what in this situation? BRob's been plastered all over ESPN based on one guy saying what he heard once, nothing else. The Commish is empowered to hand out any specific discipline he sees fit. And the investigation of players somehow did not extend to an investigation of owners, did it? So, exactly where are the parts about this whole thing that are compatible with how America makes it so that innocent people have nothing to fear? Where are the rules that everybody has to follow, and where are the limits on power? Where? I don't see them, and I bet the ghost of Shoeless Joe Jackson doesn't either. I see one guy (Bud) ordering a report, which was done by a colleague of his (Mitchell) via a process that he pretty much made up as he went. Next thing you know, all the details are plastered all over TV, and Bud is saying that he'll decide whatever he wants to decide about who to punish and how badly, and he'll do it whenever he's good and ready. How does this situtation add up into "innocent people have nothing to fear"? It's pretty much the exact opposite of what I was taught America is about when I was a kid. The phrase "Innocent people have nothing to fear" is an American goal. It's what we're supposed to strive for, it's how America is supposed to be different than other places. It shouldn't be just a slogan for smearing people who don't wanna roll over and submit to power.

The lecture has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Let me rephrase: Innocent ballplayers in the Mitchell investigation had nothing to fear.

It is likely, that while he missed a bunch of dirty players- he didn't ask any players without credible suspicions to come and talk in the first place.

He invited players whose name came up in his investigation to come and talk, not squeaky clean players who he picked out of thin air.

Only one did and his name was left out of the report which lends some credence to idea that Mitcell was not on a "witch hunt".

An employer has every right to conduct an investigation of its employees.

An employee has every right to stonewall and not cooperate, but there are consequences to taking that route.

[Mark Carver]

There is no getting around the fact that each player was invited to cooperate with the investigation and clear his name.

Apparantly, one did. And it worked- he was not included in the report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/sports/baseball/15mitchell.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin

The players got bad advice from Fehr.

Innocent people have nothing to fear.

Not necessarily. Since a Federal Agent would be present at the time of the interview, anything that a player says or don't says could be used against a player in a court of law.

What if a player is truly innocent, but he has seen or heard of PED usage. Of course he's going to asked during the interview, so he either tells all of what he knows, or feigns innocence. But that could backfire and he'd be charged with lying before a Federal Agent.

Don't think so? Ask Martha Stewart why she ended up serving time in a Federal Prison for lying to a Federal Agent, even though she wasn't sworn to tell the truth during her interviews with Federal Agent.

[TinCup]

Sure they do. Innocent people have a lot to fear. Always have, always will. The whole point of creating the United States was trying to invent a place where innocent people didn't have a lot to fear. It was a very new and very radical idea at the time. We've not been perfect at it, but for a long time we kept getting better and better at it. Slaves had a lot to fear, and they were innocent. After slavery was outlawed, black folks still had a lot to fear, but not quite as bad, and they were innocent. It wasn't until the '60's that we started really trying to fix that problem. So, we're imperfect, but we eventually get better and better at it. Workers who were innocent people had a whole lot to fear, which is 100% of the reason that unions got started. People starting unions had a lot to fear, and they were innocent unless you think forming unions is a crime. They got shot and killed. But we kept getting better at it. By the latter portion of the 1900's, the United States had reached the point where most innocent people did not have a lot to fear. This was quite an accomplishment. It's the main reason why the rest of the world looked up to us. It wasn't just big cars and cheap gas, it wasn't just about our stuff. It was because in many places all around the world, people saw America as being the place where innocent people had nothing to fear.

This did not happen by accident. The whole reason America became that way is because we set out to be that way. America went out of its way to be this way. That's why we have the Bill of Rights, so innocent people won't have a lot to fear from the gov't. That's why the courts have rules that everybody's gotta follow (even the police), so that innocent people won't have a lot to fear. That's why we have limits on power, so that innocent people won't have a lot to fear. The whole project of the USA is to create a place where innocent people can live OK without having a lot to fear. But it's an uphill thing, always has been. And, as anyone who is dubious about of big-gov't power would know (and I believe you are dubious about big-government power, are you not?), the important principle to making a situation in which innocent people don't have a lot to fear is that you gotta keep power in check, and have the same rules for everybody. Right?

So, where are the power-checks and rules-for-everybody in this situation? Just because some people are guilty, that does not mean that innocent people have nothing to fear. Exactly who is protected from what in this situation? BRob's been plastered all over ESPN based on one guy saying what he heard once, nothing else. The Commish is empowered to hand out any specific discipline he sees fit. And the investigation of players somehow did not extend to an investigation of owners, did it? So, exactly where are the parts about this whole thing that are compatible with how America makes it so that innocent people have nothing to fear? Where are the rules that everybody has to follow, and where are the limits on power? Where? I don't see them, and I bet the ghost of Shoeless Joe Jackson doesn't either. I see one guy (Bud) ordering a report, which was done by a colleague of his (Mitchell) via a process that he pretty much made up as he went. Next thing you know, all the details are plastered all over TV, and Bud is saying that he'll decide whatever he wants to decide about who to punish and how badly, and he'll do it whenever he's good and ready. How does this situtation add up into "innocent people have nothing to fear"? It's pretty much the exact opposite of what I was taught America is about when I was a kid. The phrase "Innocent people have nothing to fear" is an American goal. It's what we're supposed to strive for, it's how America is supposed to be different than other places. It shouldn't be just a slogan for smearing people who don't wanna roll over and submit to power.

I'm guessing you have a lot of free time on your hands?

[blueberryale77]

The lecture has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Let me rephrase: Innocent ballplayers in the Mitchell investigation had nothing to fear.

It is likely, that while he missed a bunch of dirty players- he didn't ask any players without credible suspicions to come and talk in the first place.

He invited players whose name came up in his investigation to come and talk, not squeaky clean players who he picked out of thin air.

Only one did and his name was left out of the report which lends some credence to idea that Mitcell was not on a "witch hunt".

An employer has every right to conduct an investigation of its employees.

An employee has every right to stonewall and not cooperate, but there are consequences to taking that route.

Shack's last paragraph directly addressed this false assertion that you keep making. So did my post. There were plenty of things for players, innocent or guilty, to fear from Mitchell's investigation besides incriminating themselves.

Additionally, people are forgetting that at the time Mitchell asked to speak with 45 active players, he simply requested to speak with them. The union has stated that at the time, Mitchell did not indicate that he intended to provide them with allegations against them and give them the opportunity to respond directly. He didn't make that claim until less than a week before his "deadline" for players to speak with him. If he had really been that interested in being forthright and fair with the players, he would have very clearly explained that his intentions were to provide them with an opportunity to defend themselves against specific allegations from the beginning, and he would have told named players that they would be permitted to defend themselves without pressure to name teammates.

Someone like Roberts who was contacted by him over the summer would have had every reason to believe that an interview was being requested only because the LA Times had reported that he was listed by Grimsley. There would have been no use in Roberts going in to dispute a media report that someone allegedly called him a steroid user without providing evidence. We still haven't seen the real names in the Grimsley affidavit or resolved the issue of whether Grimsley's lawyer or Radomski is telling the truth about who he did or didn't name in the unrecorded interview. One thing we know from the affidavit Grimsley didn't do was provide any material evidence against any other player. Interestingly, at this point Roberts is the only one of the five players listed in the LA Times story who is not connected by a paper trail (Gibbons & Tejada), some pretty darn convincing evidence (Clemens), or an admission (Pettitte). Could he be one of the "significant inaccuracies??? We still don't know. People are certainly entitled to their opinions about how Roberts should proceed given the hand he's been dealt (albeit without having all the information about his situation), but a rational person cannot find him guilty of steroid use beyond a reasonable doubt based on the rumors and innuendo that are out there now. Suspect all you want, but don't offer up his failure to meet with the investigators as proof of anything other than the fact that he didn't want to talk to George Mitchell.

[66-70-83-??]

FWIW, earlier today Bill Ripken was speaking on XM about this very topic.

He basically stated "I keep coming back to this- for the life of me I do not understand why they didn't go talk to Mitchell IF they were innocent or to get their side of the story in the report. If you know the report is coming out and you know your name is in it....". He used the example of Pettitte- if you are going to come clean a few days after, why not do it a few days before with the same story- it would give your story more credibility rather than giving the appearance of having something to hide. He also mentioned questioning Mitchell's credibility is weak.

[blueberryale77]

FWIW, earlier today Bill Ripken was speaking on XM about this very topic.

He basically stated "I keep coming back to this- for the life of me I do not understand why they didn't go talk to Mitchell IF they were innocent or to get their side of the story in the report. If you know the report is coming out and you know your name is in it....". He used the example of Pettitte- if you are going to come clean a few days after, why not do it a few days before with the same story- it would give your story more credibility rather than giving the appearance of having something to hide. He also mentioned questioning Mitchell's credibility is weak.

Billy Ripken is entitled to his opinion just like you are, but the fact that he's a former Major League Baseball player doesn't give him any particular insight into the law or the particular dilemma these individuals faced in a unique time in baseball history. Besides, countless other current and former MLB players and other personnel have come out and said the exact opposite of that. He also didn't say failing to speak with Mitchell was proof of guilt, he just said he couldn't understand it (at least assuming the above account of his quotes is accurate and complete).