How impartial is George Mitchell?

[ijoshyounot]

Someone just told me (and I confirmed it by looking it up) that George Mitchell is also a Front Office Director for the Boston Red Sox. How can baseball allow this? If I am under investigation for a crime, do I get to have a member of my family be in the investigator? Do I get to choose my own jury? If he worked with the Yankees we'd be talkign about how corrupt they are. Well the Red Sox have officially become the New Yankees in my book. George Mitchell should not be the guy investigating this report if he works for one of the biggest franchises around right now. Period. That is basic ethics right there.

[GeorgiaBird]

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54371&highlight=Mitchell

[ijoshyounot]

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.

I doubt the report will get this political. But Angelos supported a lot of MD republicans in 06 because he and Omalley don't get along too well (Omalley never wants to go along with Angelos' projects). Not to get too political on the board--just saying Mitchell and Angelos aren't necessarily political allies.

[byrdz]

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54371&highlight=Mitchell

Are you trying to make me crazy by placing a link to the same thread inside itself?

[GeorgiaBird]

Are you trying to make me crazy by placing a link to the same thread inside itself?

yes.

That or they merged the threads.

[twoBshorty]

Wait, so Mitchell is impartial enough to mediate with Sinn Fein and the IRA and be offered a Supreme Court seat, yet he's too biased to handle a report on spoiled rich athletes and their PEDs?

Uh, okay.

[NewMarketSean]

Maybe I should have put this here:

Sorry but I can't help but think this is a conspiracy.

Mitchell is linked in some way with the Red Sox, right?

Well NOT ONE player on their current roster is mentioned in the report. Not one.

I have a hard time believing that guys like David Ortiz, Kevin Youkilis and Manny Ramirez have remained clean all these years.

The O's are an easy target because they've had a lot of washed up stars come through here over the last 10 years and are a bad team. This report isn't going to deter their playoff hopes or anything like that.

Even the players mentioned on the Yankees are older pieces, not going to be there for much longer.

I think this report is a joke, IMO. Not objective at all.

[Dr. FLK]

Wait, so Mitchell is impartial enough to mediate with Sinn Fein and the IRA and be offered a Supreme Court seat, yet he's too biased to handle a report on spoiled rich athletes and their PEDs?

Uh, okay.

Yeah, I mean politicians are the most honest people around...everyone knows that.

He has a position with the Sox. I don't recall seeing any big name Sox in there. Lots of Yanks, especially the hated Clemens. I'm not saying he definitely has a biased opinion, but I could definitely understand people making a case for it. If I were going to pick a man to investigate this, I certainly wouldn't pick someone affiliated with a team.

[Dr. FLK]

Maybe I should have put this here:

I see this report as entertainment really. I love that Clemens and his boyfriend are named. I find it humorous to read. But, I don't think it changes much. We knew roids were a problem. Baseball knew it. Did they really need this report to tell them to do something about it?

[BaltimoreTerp]

Wait, so Mitchell is impartial enough to mediate with Sinn Fein and the IRA and be offered a Supreme Court seat, yet he's too biased to handle a report on spoiled rich athletes and their PEDs?

Uh, okay.

If he was a member if the Irish Parliament for the former, or a top official in a political party for the latter, then the situations might be similar.

[twoBshorty]

If he was a member if the Irish Parliament for the former, or a top official in a political party for the latter, then the situations might be similar.

When former US Senator George Mitchell was first mentioned as a possible chairman for the Northern Ireland peace talks, David Trimble's party denounced the idea as "the equivalent of an American Serb presiding over talks on the future of Croatia".

Ian Paisley's party, to no one's surprise, brought religion into it, categorising him as "a Catholic Irish- American from the same stable as the Kennedys". The Paisleyites never did warm to him, though they did sit under his chairmanship before flouncing out when Sinn Fein came to the table.

London Independent, July 18, 1999

And somehow, despite that, he managed to broker a deal that led to John Hume and David Trimble getting a Nobel Peace Prize. Not bad, huh?

I understand where people perceive a conflict of interest, and I think MLB would have been better served to pick someone else to head the investigation. But invalidating the report because of the name attached to it, as some people seem to be doing, or screaming that he must be hiding prominent Red Sox names because his name is on the Sox masthead, as others seem to be doing, is silliness and is unsupported by any evidence aside from the fact that people just can't get their heads around the absence of major current Red Sox players in the report, which isn't evidence at all.

[byrdz]

Yeah, I mean politicians are the most honest people around...everyone knows that.

Exactly, someone needs to come out from under the rock. How many politicians do you here involved with scandals on a near daily basis. You would have to do a whole lot of explaining to convince me that he wasn't biased in this report, it's actually quite obvious.

[Baltimoron]

It seems people don't realize 3 former Red Sox players (Donnelly, Mo Vaugn and Gagne) were implicated in the report, including one who played for the RED Sox this season (Gagne).

Consider the following passage, found on page 267 of the report:

"When the Boston Red Sox considered acquiring Gagne, a Red Sox official made specific inquiries about Gagne's possible use of steroids. In a November 1, 2006 email to a Red Sox scout, general manager Theo Epstein asked, "Have you gone digging on Gagne? I know the Dodgers think he is a steroid guy. Maybe so. What do we hear on his medical?"

The scout, Mark Delpiano, responded:

Some digging on Gagne and steroids IS the issue. He has a checkered medical past throughout career including minor leagues. Lacks the poise and commitment to stay healthy, maintain body, and re-invent himself... Mentality without the plus weapons and without steroid help probably creates a large risk in bounce back durability and ability to throw average while allowing the changeup to play as it once did... Personally, durability (or lack of) will follow Gagne."

Mitchell even implicates his club, suggesting the Sox knew Gagne was a steroid user.

[Loupgaroo]

London Independent, July 18, 1999

And somehow, despite that, he managed to broker a deal that led to John Hume and David Trimble getting a Nobel Peace Prize. Not bad, huh?

I understand where people perceive a conflict of interest, and I think MLB would have been better served to pick someone else to head the investigation. But invalidating the report because of the name attached to it, as some people seem to be doing, or screaming that he must be hiding prominent Red Sox names because his name is on the Sox masthead, as others seem to be doing, is silliness and is unsupported by any evidence aside from the fact that people just can't get their heads around the absence of major current Red Sox players in the report, which isn't evidence at all.

It's not that he would be "hiding prominent Red Sox", it's that he may have just not asked as many questions about them. Maybe he even did it unconciously. This guy is a director for the Red Sox, and no current Red Sox were named in the report. In my opinion, that is a SCANDAL.

The question should not be decided based on whether bias can be proven. Conflicts of interest are to be avoided precicely because it becomes impossible to sort out what's affected and what isn't. Just like scientific tests need to be blind, not because a scientist would deliberately falsify data, but because it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove yourself entirely from the subject. Any time impartiality is required, conflicts of interest should be avoided. Of course he denies any bias, but he's in no position to be his own judge. Are we just to take it on faith?

By the way, twoBShorty, since you mentioned the Supreme Court, consider this: If Mitchell were on the court, and a case was presented involving the Red Sox, you can darn well bet he would have to recuse himself. Why is this any different?

[byrdz]

It seems people don't realize 3 former Red Sox players (Donnelly, Mo Vaugn and Gagne) were implicated in the report, including one who played for the RED Sox this season (Gagne).

Consider the following passage, found on page 267 of the report:

Mitchell even implicates his club, suggesting the Sox knew Gagne was a steroid user.

No CURRENT players from the Red Sox were on the report. Gagne was barely a Red Sox player and I'm thinking they wished he never was one even before this report. The Red Sox suffer a lot less embarrassment with the people that the report has named, anyone can see this. You also can't tell me that after all of the hording of top players that the Red Sox and Yankees have done over the past few years that the Yankees just happened to get all of the steroid deadbeats while the Red Sox come up clean as a whistle. Just doesn't add up.