Newman, I'm taking the high road on this one. I think the Mitchell Report is important. I think it is useful. But I do agree that it is useful mostly as a historical record. The solution phase is in MLB's (and the Union's) hands. And I don't think much more than what we've got now is likely to happen. I do think we're in a down phase in steroid/HGH use. Players are scared, not just of being found out and suspended, but of being caught up in some kind of DEA sting.
But that will change. New drugs will come about, the fear will subside, and PED use will be on the upswing again.
I do have to throw in one comment. I keep hearing about "flimsy evidence" against the named players. And from what I've read, in a few cases (the Larry Bigbie outing of Brian Roberts) the evidence is a bit thin.
But in other cases, it is actually superb. This McNamee guy provided a highly detailed description of Roger Clemens' involvement with PEDs. Guys have been indicted on drug charges -- and convicted -- on weaker evidence. It was not testimony under oath, but as Mitchell (a damn good lawyer and judge; not just a politician) said, the key interviews with McNamee were jointly conducted with FBI present. Lying to a federal investigator can easily get you indicted (can't it, Martha and Scooter?) McNamee had a lot more to lose from lying than from telling the truth. Maybe he'll write a book, but honestly, I can't see much of a payday in that. This story is pretty well played out. And note that Pettite just admitted to the absolute minimum contact with PEDs that is consistent with McNamee's story as recounted in the Mitchell Report. So please: no more of this "shaky evidence that would never hold up in a court of law." I know more than a little about these things, and it's not true; it's just spin.
|