Remember when you were a kid and you dropped a relative's favorite keepsake, shattering its priceless form amidst a quiet family get-together? Your parents stopped, threw you a razor sharp glare and told you in that after-school-special tone, "We're not mad. . . We're just disappointed."I have similar feelings toward the steroid report.
It's not that I disagree with its allegations, it's just how it was presented.
Yesterday, the steroid tour traveled to Capitol Hill so George Mitchell and assembled United States Congressmen could pat each other on the back - joined by a suddenly exonerated Bud Selig. The group proceeded to spend 4+ hours telling us things we already knew. The only fresh material were the name tags of Senators hoping to have their name ring out thanks to major league baseball's inability to police itself.
My gripes begin with the trivial, though it is a simple matter of "truthfulness." A word Mitchell throws around a lot. When Sen. Mitchell appeared before the
Without McNamee, we all know there would not be Roger Clemens. And without Clemens included in the investigation, we all know there would be no Mitchell Report. All Mitchell would admit is that the report would have been "different." This is politician speak at its finest. Phrases like "I do not recall" and "I cannot say for sure" were invented for these very moments and these very men.
C'mon George. This isn't Rocket science [pun intended]. No Roger, no cache. No cache means Mitchell coming to Selig with empty pockets trying peddle Miguel Tejada and Brian Roberts. Save us the bull and just admit the report would have suffered greatly had Rocket's former trainer not implicated
Of the report's shortcomings, what bothered me the most was the acceptance of this report in its absolutely incomplete form. We all understand steroids became widespread over the past twenty years, even employed by the game's greatest players.
If Mitchell were only able to nab two trainers in Los Angeles whose biggest clients were Luis Gonzalez and Ryan Klesko along with an army of lesser known replacement-level players, would the same type of dog-and-pony show go on? Would everyone, including the commissioner who turned a blind eye to supposed epidemic levels of PED use, be patting each other on the back?... in the nation's capital?... televised for a national audience? I think not.
One would think Mitchell would realize a report on the use of performance enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball should not begin and end in one city. The point is not that Mitchell should have spent 25 years compiling every PED user and distributor in baseball. But, if you can only reveal two sources based in one city, a little further research is probably necessary.
It's also not this Yankee blogger's contention that a "proper" report would require the inclusion of a steroids pusher or player based in Boston. But, hey, maybe a flight to LA could have helped develop a report forcing its readers to think of words like comprehensive, leaguewide, or objective. These are all adjectives which I have a hard time using to describe the report.
When a US senator happens to leave off any players from the team he works for in its front office, that's one thing. When the Rangers and Brewers - teams formerly owned by the President of the United States and Commissioner Bud Selig respectively - are not included as well, then it becomes a bit suspicious.
But, hey, they got Clemens and that's all Mitchell, Selig and the grandstanding group of politicians needed for their performance.
