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

[Baroquen131]

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).

You really have a way of padding your words to try and make yourself sound as persuasive as possible. Just as Ripken and 66-70-83-?? have a right to their opinion, so do you. However, I think it's clear that you also don't have "any particular insight into the law or particular dilemma these individuals faced in a unique time in baseball history". And "countless other" MLB associates certainly is vague, but does sound impressive.

I acknowledge that there was a distinct lack of cooperation between MLB and the players' union over the course of this investigation. However, having read a good number of pages of the report itself, including the description of and recommendations for the testing program, it really seems to be that Mitchell's intent was to write a report on the history and use of PEDs in baseball. His descriptions of the players mentioned in the document come across as almost clinical in nature.

Did the media sensationalize the list of names and distort the stated purpose of the report? Did anyone really think they wouldn't? That said, anyone with half a brain and read the document could see that the emails and discussions of club officials are just as damning for the owners and their eagerness to ignore the situation.

That said - back to the point in question. Talk to Mitchell or follow the union's advice? If I am accused of something I know I didn't do, I'd be taking every opportunity to preach my innocence. I'd use every media outlet available to get my message across. Not clam up and say nothing both before and after the report has been released. I would be certainly doing so if I had the reputation of a Brian Roberts, and my inclusion on said list was so admittedly flimsy.

To me, the silence of so many of these players speaks volumes. And we know there are many many more who are probably in the same boat. Not talking to Mitchell and company might have been good strategy but it's not very persuasive to their case.

[olehippi]

I didn't realize there were as many "armchair attorneys" on OH as there are armchair managers.....

[TakebackOPACY]

I acknowledge that there was a distinct lack of cooperation between MLB and the players' union over the course of this investigation. However, having read a good number of pages of the report itself, including the description of and recommendations for the testing program, it really seems to be that Mitchell's intent was to write a report on the history and use of PEDs in baseball. His descriptions of the players mentioned in the document come across as almost clinical in nature.

I think it's important to get this right. The intent was to write a report that draws a conclusion about the use of PED's in baseball, and makes a strong recommendation.

The conclusion, stated in the first text sentence of the 409 page report, is that, "For more than a decade there has been widespread illegal use of anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing substances by players in Major League Baseball, in violation of federal law and baseball policy."

In my opinion, Mitchell's view on naming names was that it drove home the fact that use was widespread.

As for the players not taking up Mitchell on his request to meet with him, there are two letters in Appendix B of the report, one from Mitchell and the other from Donald Fehr to the players. They are must reads for this discussion.

As for players who did meet with Mitchell, here's a good read on Frank Thomas's meeting with him. There's also a quote from Schilling in support of Brian Roberts.

[blueberryale77]

You really have a way of padding your words to try and make yourself sound as persuasive as possible. Just as Ripken and 66-70-83-?? have a right to their opinion, so do you. However, I think it's clear that you also don't have "any particular insight into the law or particular dilemma these individuals faced in a unique time in baseball history". And "countless other" MLB associates certainly is vague, but does sound impressive.

There was no need to list because many of them have already been discussed... Curt Schilling, Kevin Millar, Chipper Jones, a couple of other Braves players, Jim Duquette, Peter Angelos (speaking of knowledge of the law)... To date B. Ripken is the only player I've seen mentioned as having quoted the "the innocent have nothing to fear" point of view.

As for me not having any particular insight into the law, I would have to say that compared with Billy Ripken, who didn't go to college and has never put himself forward as any sort of intellectual (not that there's anything wrong with that, it just makes it seem pretty unlikely that he's even a novice legal scholar), I do have somewhat more insight into how laws work in general. I am well versed in land use laws as an urban planner, took classes in college that covered laws related to both journalism-related and criminal matters, and used to be part of a volunteer legal collective that assisted people arrested at protests. I'm certainly not an expert in criminal law, but it's not like I've never opened a law book either. I have certainly seen examples of government overstepping its bounds and abusing laws when it has an agenda to put forth... and in this case, you're not even talking about government, you're talking about a unique, independent investigation operating on a set of rules all it's own that weren't very clear to anybody. But anyway, I wasn't saying that Billy Ripken's opinion had less weight than mine or anyone else's, just that his opinion wasn't exactly an ironclad authority to hide behind.

As for insight into this particular time in baseball history, I think in the absence of knowledge, it is ALWAYS better to give the benefit of the doubt than to condemn. If you haven't walked a mile in their shoes, don't judge them. Billy Ripken didn't have to face the scrutiny of playing during the steroid witch hunt any more than I did. But as I said, according to 66-70-83 he didn't say everyone who didn't speak with Mitchell was guilty, he said he couldn't understand for the life of him why they didn't speak with Mitchell. I have no problem with that statement. Just don't tell me you got inside every one of their heads and know that their reason for not speaking with him was that they were guilty of everything he accused them of.

[66-70-83-??]

There was no need to list because many of them have already been discussed... Curt Schilling, Kevin Millar, Chipper Jones, a couple of other Braves players, Jim Duquette, Peter Angelos (speaking of knowledge of the law)... To date B. Ripken is the only player I've seen mentioned as having quoted the "the innocent have nothing to fear" point of view.

As for me not having any particular insight into the law, I would have to say that compared with Billy Ripken, who didn't go to college and has never put himself forward as any sort of intellectual (not that there's anything wrong with that, it just makes it seem pretty unlikely that he's even a novice legal scholar), I do have somewhat more insight into how laws work in general. I am well versed in land use laws as an urban planner, took classes in college that covered laws related to both journalism-related and criminal matters, and used to be part of a volunteer legal collective that assisted people arrested at protests. I'm certainly not an expert in criminal law, but it's not like I've never opened a law book either. I have certainly seen examples of government overstepping its bounds and abusing laws when it has an agenda to put forth... and in this case, you're not even talking about government, you're talking about a unique, independent investigation operating on a set of rules all it's own that weren't very clear to anybody. But anyway, I wasn't saying that Billy Ripken's opinion had less weight than mine or anyone else's, just that his opinion wasn't exactly an ironclad authority to hide behind.As for insight into this particular time in baseball history, I think in the absence of knowledge, it is ALWAYS better to give the benefit of the doubt than to condemn. If you haven't walked a mile in their shoes, don't judge them. Billy Ripken didn't have to face the scrutiny of playing during the steroid witch hunt any more than I did. But as I said, according to 66-70-83 he didn't say everyone who didn't speak with Mitchell was guilty, he said he couldn't understand for the life of him why they didn't speak with Mitchell. I have no problem with that statement. Just don't tell me you got inside every one of their heads and know that their reason for not speaking with him was that they were guilty of everything he accused them of.

You are so consistent. Have you walked a Luke Scott's shoes ? Or "Christian athletes" shoes ? Gun owners shoes ? You were bashing and being judgemental of those people/groups all in yesterdays threads.

You can discount Ripkens opinion all day but he is an "insider". He has a hell of a lot more insight into playing baseball, clubhouse life, PED use, etc... then you will ever have. He also knows many of the players.

Who here is claiming that we got in every one of their heads ? We, like you, are just offfering opinions. Common sense resides (and recent history with these guys "coming out" everyday to validate Mitchells report) on our side.

How many ballplayers have to continually stonewall, lie, offer lame excuses before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt ?

Newsflash: this morning BRob came out and admitted STEROID usage.

Go ahead- resume your relentess attacks on Mitchell and his credibility and all the posters who believe the report has credibility.

[blueberryale77]

You are so consistent. Have you walked a Luke Scott's shoes ? Or "Christian athletes" shoes ? Gun owners shoes ? You were bashing and being judgemental of those people/groups all in yesterdays threads.

You can discount Ripkens opinion all day but he is an "insider". He has a hell of a lot more insight into playing baseball, clubhouse life, PED use, etc... then you will ever have. He also knows many of the players.

Who here is claiming that we got in every one of their heads ? We, like you, are just offfering opinions. Common sense resides (and recent history with these guys "coming out" everyday to validate Mitchells report) on our side.

How many ballplayers have to continually stonewall, lie, offer lame excuses before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt ?

Newsflash: this morning BRob came out and admitted STEROID usage.

Go ahead- resume your relentess attacks on Mitchell and his credibility and all the posters who believe the report has credibility.

What happened to you mantra of "attack the message, not the messenger"?

Oh, that's right. You break that mantra almost every time you respond to one of my posts. I guess I must be a pretty powerful antagonist to make you go against your values like that.

Luke Scott has freely and openly admitted to details of his gun carrying and use. No facts there are in dispute, and there is no lack of reliable information. I am as entitled to my opinion about his choice to carry a gun with him everywhere as anyone else is. I do, however, admit that I made a mistake in discussing it on a message board that doesn't allow political discussions.

As for Roberts' admission, that changes nothing about the level of evidence that was included in the report. Mitchell said his allegations against players would be based on documentary evidence such as receipts. The case against Roberts was not, nor was it based on eyewitness testimony that he used or possessed anything. I still believe it was not appropriate to include anyone's name in a report that had a massive impact on their reputation without stronger evidence. Harm was done not only to the players, but to the credibility of his document.

I am not giving baseball players the "benefit of the doubt" that they haven't used steroids. I am, however, saying that we should not convict any individual in the court of public opinion without convincing proof against that individual. If we want to look at this as a collective problem, great! That's what it is. There are far too many players involved for this to be a Brian Roberts issue or a Larry Bigbie issue. The culture of steroid use which influences many young men to make a harmful health decision needs to be broken up. In my mind, blacklisting maybe 10% of the players who used (and I highly doubt it's even 10% if you're going to include guys who took one shot and then thought the better of it) and not adequately addressing the issue of how the culture spread the way it did is a huge mistake. Just like with other drug use, players who want to use will still be able to assume, rightly or wrongly, that they'll be within the 90% who don't get busted. Education and treatment always work better than choosing a few scapegoats to make examples of, even if you are entirely accurate about all of your scapegoats being guilty. Throwing guys like Brian Roberts to the wolves is only going to build up a defiance among the players and further increase the mistrust between players and management.

[66-70-83-??]

What happened to you mantra of "attack the message, not the messenger"?

Oh, that's right. You break that mantra almost every time you respond to one of my posts. I guess I must be a pretty powerful antagonist to make you go against your values like that.

Luke Scott has freely and openly admitted to details of his gun carrying and use. No facts there are in dispute, and there is no lack of reliable information. I am as entitled to my opinion about his choice to carry a gun with him everywhere as anyone else is. I do, however, admit that I made a mistake in discussing it on a message board that doesn't allow political discussions.

As for Roberts' admission, that changes nothing about the level of evidence that was included in the report. Mitchell said his allegations against players would be based on documentary evidence such as receipts. The case against Roberts was not, nor was it based on eyewitness testimony that he used or possessed anything. I still believe it was not appropriate to include anyone's name in a report that had a massive impact on their reputation without stronger evidence. Harm was done not only to the players, but to the credibility of his document.

I am not giving baseball players the "benefit of the doubt" that they haven't used steroids. I am, however, saying that we should not convict any individual in the court of public opinion without convincing proof against that individual. If we want to look at this as a collective problem, great! That's what it is. There are far too many players involved for this to be a Brian Roberts issue or a Larry Bigbie issue. The culture of steroid use which influences many young men to make a harmful health decision needs to be broken up. In my mind, blacklisting maybe 10% of the players who used (and I highly doubt it's even 10% if you're going to include guys who took one shot and then thought the better of it) and not adequately addressing the issue of how the culture spread the way it did is a huge mistake. Just like with other drug use, players who want to use will still be able to assume, rightly or wrongly, that they'll be within the 90% who don't get busted. Education and treatment always work better than choosing a few scapegoats to make examples of, even if you are entirely accurate about all of your scapegoats being guilty. Throwing guys like Brian Roberts to the wolves is only going to build up a defiance among the players and further increase the mistrust between players and management.

The level of evidence ? Of course it does- Roberts confirmed it. He confirmed that Mitchell and the witness (Bigbie) were credible.

Besides, we don't know if Mitchell had other evidence that he couldn't disclose in the report such as old postive steroids test result.

Convicting these guys in the court of public opinion is natural considering the scope of the problem, the attention it has gotten, and largely a result of their collective (MLBPA) failure to do anything but stonewall the issue despite a lot of evidence that has been building over the years. Remember, these guys have not being doing themselves any favors when almost to a player for years they all had lame "dog ate my homework" excuses when they fail tests. Also, Raffy and McGwire didnt help their collective cause in the court of public opinion.

THe players are reaping what they sowed to a large degree in the court of public opinion.

Individually, they had a chance to clear their name and didn't. But, now one-by-one they are coming out of the woodwork to admit it. They have shot their own credibility and benefit of the doubt.

Education is fine. But, the only thing that will keep some of these from experimenting/using/abusing PED's are penalties that clearly outweighs the potential benefits.

I agree with Bouton. Going forward, treat this issue likel gambling: 1 strike and you are out. That will nip this problem in the bud.