2007

It's time for my yearly wrap up. I wasn't particularly thrilled with much in sports this year. I enjoyed the baseball season, but the ending was not what I had in mind. The year was so uninspiring in fact that Sports Illustrated named Brett Favre it's sportsman of the year. Now Brett and the Packers are having a good year, but seriously, he hasn't done anything out of the ordinary this year. Brett did break the all time passing yardage record this year, but I wouldn't say that it would be on par with breaking the all time home run record. It would be more like SI naming Rickey Henderson the SOY after he broke the all time walks record or all time runs scored record. The home run record was broken this year, but as has been rehashed many times in the press and on this blog, there were many reasons why that was not a joyous occasion. Momentous yes, joyous no.

The Year started out with Peyton Manning and the Colts finally getting the monkey off their back by winning a superbowl. Actually, the more I think about it, Tony Dungy should have been the SOY. He was not only the first black coach to win the Superbowl, but his story of perseverance after the tragic loss of his son should have been enough to put him over the top. It's a better story than Brett Favre has to tell.

The Spurs won the NBA championship again. It was predictable and boring. I'm guessing that if they hadn't already given Duncan the SOY a few years ago, he would have taken it home this year. Florida won the men's NCAA crown in football and basketball. That was an unprecedented accomplishment.

The biggest "sports" story this year was the Mitchell report. It's a sad commentary when the biggest story of the year is about the abuse of illegal drugs by professional athletes. In the end, I think that 2007 will be remembered most for the fact that Hank Aaron's record was broken under a cloud of suspicion and controversy.

That's it for this year. I had a meager output of only 100 posts this year. I hope to do better next year, but I do want to thank the people who come back on a regular basis to check out my sometimes incoherent rambling. So thank you Sandy, Louise, Craig, Denise and Jeff. I'm sure there are more, but unfortunately, I don't know your names, but I do appreciate the support. Thanks to the folks at Replacement Level Yankees and The Chuck Knoblog for adding me to your links and keep up the good work.

That's it everyone. I hope you have a happy and safe New Year's celebration and I'll be back to rant and rave in '08.

Finger Pointing

Curt Schilling found the time to write a long article on his blog about the Mitchell report and specifically about Roger Clemens. Here's a quote from the article,

"From that point on the numbers were attained through using [performance-enhancing drugs]. Just like I stated about Jose [Canseco], if that is the case with Roger, the four Cy Youngs should go to the rightful winners, and the numbers should go away if he cannot refute the accusations."

I think that Clemens is clearly in a bad situation, but as I stated in a previous article, the "evidence" against Clemens in the Mitchell report would not hold up in a court of law. In fact, the only evidence against him is the word of a former employee. Curt Schilling is someone who can't help but give his opinion regardless of the topic and whether he's qualified to comment. His views on the war in Iraq are well known (and are ridiculous), as are his holier than thou comments regarding steroid use. How exactly is Clemens supposed to be able to refute statements about something that supposedly happened with only two people in the room? Roger can deny the allegations, but he cannot absolutely refute them. Unless someone with a video camera was recording Roger's life 24/7 for the time when he was supposedly using steroids, then there is no way for him to absolutely refute the charges. His vehement denial is already on the record, but that isn't going to stop the tidal wave of articles or turn public opinion in his direction. Those two people now have differing opinions about what happened and that's probably how things will stand unless one of them decides to change their story.

I'm not here to defend Roger Clemens. At this point I think his legacy is tarnished forever. His hall of fame induction is in doubt and everything he did on the field after leaving the Red Sox is being viewed in a very different light. Roger will have to answer the accusations made against him at some point (perhaps under oath in a congressional hearing), but it's not Curt Schilling's place to demand that Roger to do something that is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if one day Schilling himself is accused of steroid use. After all, he did enjoy the best seasons of his career at ages 34, 35 and 37. How rare is it for a pitcher to win 20 games three times after turning 34 when he had never won 20 games previously? Rare enough that Schilling is the only pitcher in history ever to have turned that particular trick. I'm not accusing Schilling of anything, but if you look at the numbers, you have to wonder just a little bit. Don't you?

Also...

Just so that all the Red Sox fans out there don't get on their high horse about their "clean" team, here's a report on Eric Gagne from a Red Sox scout that was sent to Theo Epstein during the 2006 off season

"Some digging on Gagne and steroids IS the issue. Has had a checkered medical past throughout career including minor leagues. Lacks the poise and commitment to stay healthy, maintain body and re invent self. What made him a tenacious closer was the max effort plus stuff ... 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 change-up to play as it once did ... Personally, durability (or lack of) will follow Gagne ..."

The scout was responding to a email from Theo in which he asked, "Have you done any digging on Gagne? I know the Dodgers" -- not to mention everybody else in the world -- "think he was a steroid guy. Maybe so. What do you hear on his medical?"

The Red Sox traded for Gagne nine months later even though they had this report in house plus their own suspicion beforehand. That shows just how much how much baseball owners and management care about steroid abuse. It's all about winning and the money that comes with that. Even for the now sainted Red Sox.

Something in the Mitchell report that seems to have gotten lost in all the Roger Clemens talk is that the GM of the San Fransisco Giants was made aware in 2002 of the fact that Barry Bonds' personal trainer was a steroid dealer and did nothing about it. Here's something that I wrote when the investigation was first reported:

I understand that George Mitchell has a great reputation for being far and tough, but why would Bud even risk the appearance of bias? What happens if he finds evidence that the owner of the Giants knew that Bonds was taking steroids? Will he want to indict one of his fellow owners? Would he want to take down someone from his own fraternity?

Apparently he did find proof that someone high up in Giants management did know of the steroid connection, but that still wasn't reason enough for him to say that baseball ownership or management had any culpability in the steroid problem. Very interesting, don't you think?

Sound and Fury

The Mitchell Report was released yesterday and with it a firestorm of controversy has arisen. The report names names, most prominently Roger Clemens, and lays out a plan for addressing the abuse of PED's in baseball. Overall the report was a well intentioned effort to try and address the problems of PED's, but I think it missed the mark on more than a couple of points.

First of all Mitchell mentioned that the players, the union and the Commissioner's office were all to blame for this problem. While that is true, he forgot to mention another party that was implicit in this scandal. The owners are just as much to blame for this as the other parties that were named. It couldn't be because Mitchell is part owner of the Red Sox, could it? I've always thought that Mitchell wasn't impartial enough to head this assignment. The owners knew what was going on, but all they cared about was how much money they were making. And now according to this report they are blameless??? And what about the Red Sox team? According to this report over 10 former or current Yankees were abusers of PED's, but only one Red Sox player was named. Roger Clemens is named, but the alleged abuse only took place after he had already left the team. So according to the report, the Yankees World Series run was fueled by steroids. The Internet is already burning up with Red Sox fans talking about how the Yankees wins are invalid because they had steroid users on their team. I wrote about this when the investigation was first announced and I stick by everything I said then. A report by an INDEPENDENT investigator would have been much more welcome than one by a baseball insider, regardless of their credentials.

Bud Selig responded that he would take action based on this report and said that has already taken steps to implement some of the recommendations laid out in the report. So after all this time and money has been spent has baseball really learned anything that they didn't know before this started? Here's a quote from something I wrote a while back in June about what the investigation would discover:

If you're in a giving mood, you can send me the $2 million you were going to spend on the commission next month. Alright are you ready, here goes. Steroid use was widespread and rampant during the 90's and early 00's. That's it.

And that really is all they have. For the tens of millions of dollars that was spent to produce that impressive 300+ page document, did they really find out anything more than that? Bud Selig knew this before the investigation, but at yesterday's press conference, he acted as though he was shocked by what was contained in the report. Immediate action needs to be taken, he said. I'll handle each infraction on a case by case basis, he proclaimed. What a bunch of bullshit! How he can now stand there and pretend that his eyes have just now been opened to this is simply amazing to me. There is no definitive proof in the document. None that would stand up in a court of law anyway. Maybe he knows a couple more names than he did before but to think that this report is somehow the font of all knowledge about PED abuse in baseball is almost laughable.

Now we get to the players named. I feel the worst for Brian Roberts, who was included in the report based on the fact that someone reported that he told them once that he took steroids. That's the entire basis for his inclusion. That's just wrong. I realize that this is not a legal document, but to sully someones reputation on evidence as flimsy as that is reprehensible. The players for whom documentation exists (cancelled checks, mailing labels, etc.), really have no defense to these charges. They chose to associate with (and write checks to) people who were involved in the illegal distribution of PED's and so they are paying the cost for that. That being said, I think that it's unfortunate that anyone was named in this report. It's very clear that the first hand testimony was mainly limited to two people with ties to the New York area. That leaves 92% of the country basically unaccounted for. If the report wasn't going to be all inclusive, then it should have included no one. Some of the most prominent alleged cheaters, Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro (although since he tested positive, I guess I can remove the "alleged" tag), Brady Anderson, Albert Belle, Brett Boone, to name a few, were not accused in this report. Is it fair to claim that you are releasing a wide sweeping report on PED abuse and then name less than 10% of the people that actually bought the drugs? Besides Mitchell's lack of impartiality, I find this to be the greatest failing of the report. I understand that his sources were limited, but why chose to include names, when he knew that the list is far from complete? Did he think that these two NY based informants were the backbone of the PED industry in the United States? Clearly that can't be the case. Releasing names was a mistake and one that will in the long run produce the most damage.

Roger Clemens has long been the poster boy for all that is good about the game of baseball. His legendary training regiment has been marvelled at for years. His record 7 Cy Young Awards and 350+ wins, 4,000+ strikeouts have led many to consider him not only the greatest pitcher of his era, but perhaps the greatest of all time. He may have indeed gotten 100% of the vote when he became eligible for the Hall of Fame. That all changed yesterday. The accusations made by his former trainer yesterday were the most detailed of any of the charges leveled against anyone except Barry Bonds. His career after leaving the Red Sox and turning 34 (an age at which a lot of pitchers begin to see a decline in skills) is almost the match of Barry's amazing post 35 career. If anything he has been able to maintain his incredible skills for a longer time than Barry has. Barry won 4 MVP awards and finished 2nd once, Roger won 4 Cy Young awards and finished 3rd once. However Barry won his last MVP at age 39, while Roger won his last Cy Young award at the age of 41 (he finished 3rd at the age of 42). Why didn't baseball fans question Clemens' performance the way they did Barry's? Was it because he's White? Was it because Barry's an insufferable prick? Was it because unlike Barry, he actually had people on his team and in the press who actually liked and admired him? I'm sure it's a combination of all those things. Also while he arguably had the best seasons of his career after turning 34, they were not out of scale with what he had accomplished in the past. However in the four years prior to turning 34, he won a total of 40 games. In the two years after leaving the Red Sox he won 41 games. That's pretty much a quantum leap, but no one questioned it.

The allegations against Clemens will go unproven. There are no pictures of Clemens getting shot up with steroids, there are no cancelled checks (we would have seen them yesterday if they existed). All we have is the word of his former trainer, who really would have no reason to lie. Bonds has admitted to unknowingly taking steroids and has been raked over the coals by the fans and the press (and by me on various occasions). He will have his day in court to defend his position. Clemens isn't going to get a day in court. This is not a criminal investigation and his only legal recourse would be sue baseball for libel. The problem being that libel (slanderous statements in print) carries a very high burden of proof. Basically it would have to be proven that George Mitchell (or whomever was ultimately responsible for the report being printed) knowingly included statements that they knew were false and would do harm to Clemens' reputation. I've already stated that I think that inclusion of names was wrong, but I don't think that George Mitchell or anyone else associated with the investigation knowingly included false statements in the report. Therefore Clemens is in an impossible position. He has already denied the report, but he basically has no other recourse. There are going to be people who believe he did steroids regardless of his denials. His name will always be associated with steroids in baseball and his legacy will forever be stained in the eyes of some.

Is baseball better off today than it was yesterday? I'm not sure. Besides ruining the reputation of a few baseball players, I'm not sure anything more was accomplished with the release of the Mitchell Report. I'm going to end by including something that I wrote a while back. It's a fictional letter from Bud Selig to baseball fans. I still think that this would have been the best and cleanest way for baseball to proceed. It's unfortunate that we find ourselves where we are today, but it was basically inevitable from the day this investigation was announced. The truth is that players will always look for an edge. Today's steroids will be tomorrow's blood enhancers and next decades genetic alteration. It will never end and the sad truth is that the Mitchell Report won't help at all.

To our fans,

Steroid abuse was widespread in baseball for a period of about 10 years. While we heard the whispers of this abuse, we (meaning management and the commissioners office) chose not to investigate this matter any further. The fact that the players union refused to allow us to put steroids on the banned substances list also played a big part in that decision. It is clear now that mistakes were made over that time, by the players, by the coaches, by the union, by the owners and by my own office. We apologize to the fans of baseball for our part in allowing the steroid abuse to take place. We could have done more to make sure that the integrity of the game was preserved.

We have now taken steps to ensure that this does not happen in the future. We have the toughest steroid penalties in North American sports and our testing program is among the most thorough of any sport. There is still no reliable test for Human Growth Hormone (HGH), but I assure that we are working towards eliminating all performance enhancing drugs from our sport. We appreciate your patience and continued support. Baseball is still the greatest game ever invented and we hope that the focus of attention can return to what's going on the field as opposed to the court room. Thank you once again for being such great fans of this game.

Bud Selig
Commissioner of Baseball and fan of the game