Roberts Comes Clean

[Scribo]

And your comment about naming anybody he wanted to doesn't hold water, because by all accounts, Mitchell left off MANY names that he felt weren't substantiated. Mitchell is a very careful man, and knows the law pretty well. He didn't put anybody's name on that list he wasn't comfortable with.

Even leaving out one player who convinced him that he destroyed drugs that he had bought, but didn't use.

Just an aside, I'm curious how Mitchell was convinced? Did the player have a witness?

In any case --saying it for the second time this morning -- you are exactly right. The report existed to convince any lingering doubters that a problem existed, to suggest the dimensions of the problem, and to provide cover for more extensive testing and enforcement. The reaction to the report suggests how deep the denial and resistance really are.

[Loupgaroo]

It wasn't a witch hunt. Don't lump the Mitchell Report in with Senator McCarthy dragging people before Congress and getting them blacklisted, etc.

The report existed to do just that. Report. Stop letting the fast food media make your decisions for you and dig a little deeper, man. All Mitchell did was report what he heard. If you read it, it comes across exactly like that: Bigbie said Roberts told him he used. Invited Roberts to speak about these allegations, he declined. Just a report. And as it turns out, it was true. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a report.

And your comment about naming anybody he wanted to doesn't hold water, because by all accounts, Mitchell left off MANY names that he felt weren't substantiated. Mitchell is a very careful man, and knows the law pretty well. He didn't put anybody's name on that list he wasn't comfortable with.

You're right. I'll just let you make my decisions for me instead.

I think I've been very careful to say that overall, the report was a good thing, and the Mitchell did a good job. There were ASPECTS of it that were witch-hunt like. Getting the right guy does not justify the means. Roberts was included without a shred of written evidence against him.

In the end, yes, Mitchell says he was very careful. But his argument basically boils down to "trust me, I was careful." Saying the report is flawless because Mitchell is a "good guy" who is "careful" doesn't mean that his investigation was perfect.

[Baroquen131]

In any case --saying it for the second time this morning -- you are exactly

right. The report existed to convince any lingering doubters that a problem existed, to suggest the dimensions of the problem, and to provide cover for more extensive testing and enforcement. The reaction to the report suggests how deep the denial and resistance really are.

I agree with you and Wedge about this. The report was pretty comprehensive in reporting on the issue, from past situations to improvements for the future. It's not all-inclusive, nor did it claim to be.

It's a report.

[The Wedge]

Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Cleaning up baseball = the omelette.

[Hank Scorpio]

You're right. I'll just let you make my decisions for me instead.

I think I've been very careful to say that overall, the report was a good thing, and the Mitchell did a good job. There were ASPECTS of it that were witch-hunt like. Getting the right guy does not justify the means. Roberts was included without a shred of written evidence against him.

Well, he just admitted it today, so it looks like Mitchell was right to include him.

[The Wedge]

Roberts was included without a shred of written evidence against him.

He was included in the report because a man, who was under a form of de facto oath, told Mitchell about him. And he reported that in just that context. And guess what...it was true. Nobody claims that it was not the least substantiated of any of the referenced players in the report. It was the trumpet call for that.

But now, we know it's true. Which makes you wonder about all the other less substantiated accountings, don't it?

[DrungoHazewood]

Anyone think anyone listed in the Mitchell report is innocent now? People misunderstand the innocent until proven guilty thing. That is just for a court of law. In real life we can judge the evidence and think and say what we want.

GUILTY!

By the way cant we use confessions as proof of guilt?

Gurgi smokes crack!

[Bronco634]

He was included in the report because a man, who was under a form of de facto oath, told Mitchell about him. And he reported that in just that context. And guess what...it was true. Nobody claims that it was not the least substantiated of any of the referenced players in the report. It was the trumpet call for that.

But now, we know it's true. Which makes you wonder about all the other less substantiated accountings, don't it?

My question becomes, had Mitchell not included the information in the report, would Brian Roberts still have come out and made a statement yesterday?

[Mackus]

My question becomes, had Mitchell not included the information in the report, would Brian Roberts still have come out and made a statement yesterday?

Absolutely no chance he would have admitted this otherwise.

[The Wedge]

My question becomes, had Mitchell not included the information in the report, would Brian Roberts still have come out and made a statement yesterday?

Pretty much no way in hell. It's pretty much accepted now that your average player, 99% of them really, won't volunteer possibly damaging info unless they have to.

[Bronco634]

Pretty much no way in hell. It's pretty much accepted now that your average player, 99% of them really, won't volunteer possibly damaging info unless they have to.

I agree. That's probably a fair statement for most people in general, I would suppose. It does take a little bit of the sheen off the post-confession glow about him, in my eyes anyway. I'm glad he handled it the way he did---his statement was classy and, I believe, genuine, but I would have to say that there are plenty of MLB players who breathed a sigh of relief that they don't have to make a statement.

[Elston Gunnn]

Gurgi smokes crack!

Well done, sir!

[Loupgaroo]

Well, he just admitted it today, so it looks like Mitchell was right to include him.

But now, we know it's true. Which makes you wonder about all the other less substantiated accountings, don't it?

You won't quit with this will you? I guess I'm not making myself clear enough. I'll say it again.

Yes. The allegations turn out to be correct. But I still have a problem with Roberts's inclusion based on a source who was under high stakes pressure from the state and possibly facing jail time. Again, I'm absolutely not equating the report with McCarthyism, but just to use that for comparison's sake: The arguement that the method was okay because they got the right guy is like saying since McCarthy got a few actual spies in his investigation his methods were also sound. There. I hope that makes sense.

[blueberryale77]

Absolutely no chance he would have admitted this otherwise.

Why should he have? He tried it once. He never technically said he hadn't. It was nearly five years ago. The only reason it's an issue is because suddenly the public is really worked up about it because they'd rather not think about the war that's going on or how the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer.

But hey, in the spirit of it being really important to admit what we did in 2003... I smoked weed in 2003. A bunch of times. And while I've grown out of that habit in my old age, I don't regret it for a second. Maybe that makes some of you think less of me, but it really has no effect on the present reality today. Neither does one shot of the juice.

[Loupgaroo]

Actually, what I'm really wondering about is whether Roberts has been using HGH. He never mentioned that in his confession. For all we know, he's on it now.