How impartial is George Mitchell?

[blueberryale77]

I usually don't think too much of Ken Rosenthal because of his bitterness toward the O's, but I think this is pretty well-reasoned. Rosenthal states that he believes Mitchell will be impartial, but argues that the appearance of a potential conflict is too big a problem to ignore as MLB has.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7365076

Regardless, Mitchell is the issue. He is affiliated not only with the Red Sox but also is chairman of ESPN's parent company, the Walt Disney Company. Disney, like Fox, is in business with MLB.

I shouldn't need to point all this out a year-and-a-half into an investigation. Players shouldn't have to be worry about it, either. After all, if anyone should be sensitive to the appearance of conflict, it's a former U.S. Senator. But Mitchell has scoffed at such talk, promising a fair, thorough investigation. Selig has been equally dismissive, speaking repeatedly of the senator's "impeccable credentials."

I do, however, have to take a little bit of issue with Rosenthal's scenarios at the end. Since he's also involved with major media companies that make a lot of money off MLB, I highly doubt he's out to destroy the Yankees. I think it'll be more like players from small market teams bearing the brunt of it because they won't hurt the bottom line.

[sakata_catching]

I've been hesitant to bring this up, but I'm troubled by the thought that a D.C.-&-MLB-insider like Mitchell would enjoy nothing more than sticking it to Peter Angelos. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

[Camden_yardbird]

I think anything less than a huge list involving players on every single team will show that there was some bias.

[AgentOrange]

Side note to all of this, Rosenthal is not bitter towards the O's. Maybe because he lives in this town and we have given him nothing to cover in the last 10 years, but that's not the point.

On to the topic at hand, it is very hard to trust anyone when it comes to the MLB and PEDs.

[AgentOrange]

I've been hesitant to bring this up, but I'm troubled by the thought that a D.C.-&-MLB-insider like Mitchell would enjoy nothing more than sticking it to Peter Angelos. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

Just curious as to why you feel this is the case? Do you think it is from the National's and the agreement that was worked out?

[sakata_catching]

Just curious as to why you feel this is the case? Do you think it is from the National's and the agreement that was worked out?

Yup, basically. It's no secret that he's deeply hated by many in DC because of how the Nats and MASN deals played out.

[Frobby]

I understand that there is the potential for a conflict of interest here, but let's see the report before assuming that Mitchell has slanted his report in some way. At the end of the day, Mitchell was hired by MLB and there would be reason to question how much MLB wanted uncovered no matter what investigator they hired.

[bobmc]

I understand that there is the potential for a conflict of interest here, but let's see the report before assuming that Mitchell has slanted his report in some way. At the end of the day, Mitchell was hired by MLB and there would be reason to question how much MLB wanted uncovered no matter what investigator they hired.

Right Frobby. And please, even though the names are known and the report is complete, let's wait to divulge its tawdry details until at least one week following the afterglow of this wonderful Bosox Nation slumber party.

[Boy Howdy]

Wow, I can only stomach so much steroids coverage, but this smells fishy.

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/team/front_office.jsp?c_id=bos

There's George Mitchell, listed in the half-dozen most powerful men in the Red Sox FO. As a poster on another message board put it , "Even the appearance of a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest."

[scOtt]

Wow, I can only stomach so much steroids coverage, but this smells fishy.

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/team/front_office.jsp?c_id=bos

There's George Mitchell, listed in the half-dozen most powerful men in the Red Sox FO. As a poster on another message board put it , "Even the appearance of a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest."

SOP for MLB. Look at the sweet stadium deal the Brewers got, and Wendy Selig-Prieb. Except maybe for KM Landis, the commissioner has always been a schill for the owners.

I agree we should wait for the Mitchell report, but I'm skeptical.

[66-70-83-??]

I've been hesitant to bring this up, but I'm troubled by the thought that a D.C.-&-MLB-insider like Mitchell would enjoy nothing more than sticking it to Peter Angelos. I really hope I'm wrong about that.

I doubt it. As a longtime democratic senator and majority leader, if anything, Mitchell is indebted to Peter Angelos. Angelos is one of the top individual donors to the democratic party and its causes.

I rarely agreed with Mitchell's politics while he was in office, but I have no reason to question his ethics or his integrity. I belive he is a man of integrity and totally on the up and up.

It takes a lifetime to build a reputation but it can be destroyed in a heartbeat by one stupid act. I doubt Mitchell will come out with a "fixed" report. He has to be given the benefit of the doubt, imo.

[Mackus]

I'm more worried about Mitchell handing his report over to MLB and then having the commissioner's office redact or alter parts of it than I am of Mitchell altering or concealing facts on his own.

[24fps]

I'm beginning to believe that Ken Rosenthal is America's greatest living practitioner of the manufactured "news story". This is every bit the virtuoso performance that his Weiters non-coverage was before the last-minute signing took him by surprise.

There are three facts in this story:

1. George Mitchell is affiliated with the Boston Red Sox.

2. George Mitchell is on Disney's board which owns ESPN. (Sidebar: What is the nature of Disney's current affiliation with baseball and why is it pertinent? Also as far as I know, ESPN does not own a baseball franchise).

3. MLB's steroid investigation began after "Game of Shadows" was published.

The rest of this "story" consists of hearsay, supposition, re-hashed reporting from other media outlets, expectations, suspicions and doubts, questionable - or at the least insufficiently supported - connections, hypothetical scenarios, what ifs, numerous questions, uncheckable assertions, and opinion.

Evidently he did read a press release, but there is no indication that he himself or his staff followed up with a phone call to MLB.

Based on George Mitchell's reputation, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until better reporting than this gives me reason to believe otherwise.

My question is 'what does George Mitchell have to gain by being MLB's stooge'? If he is protecting MLB's interests in general and the Red Sox's specifically, this story provides no factual basis to support that conclusion.

Oh yes, I found one other fact: 'The Boston Red Sox are one of 30 major-league clubs'.

[scOtt]

Based on George Mitchell's reputation, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until better reporting than this gives me reason to believe otherwise.

My question is 'what does George Mitchell have to gain by being MLB's stooge'?

This is why I am willing to withhold judgment myself. The scenario Mack posted seems (sadly) more likely. Mitchell turns in a fair and honest report, and MLB releases it's own spin version of it.

[GeorgiaBird]

This is why I am willing to withhold judgment myself. The scenario Mack posted seems (sadly) more likely. Mitchell turns in a fair and honest report, and MLB releases it's own spin version of it.

I think Mitchell is too big for that. If he goes through all this time and trouble in the name of cleaning up the game and then sees a watered-down report come out, he could go directly to any of the networks or anyone else and get the story out there, either on background or just as likely on the record.

As for the original question I don't for a second doubt Sen. Mitchell's integrity. But that is not really the point. The point is that Bud should be intelligent enough to side-step the entire question by hiring someone other than Mitchell to perform the review. The first rule any time you do anything like this is to avoid obvious conflicts. Mitchell's duel role is such a conflict. The very fact that this question is out there is proof that someone other than Mitchell should be leading the review.

Of course, all of this is assuming that Bud really is interested in cleaning up the game, and isn't just trying to reverse/rewrite history and connect his name to the anti-steroid crusade after years spent as commissioner when baseball turned a blind eye to the whole thing and let drug use blossom.