December 11, 2007
Bryant on Mitchell
Howard Bryant writes a lengthy piece at ESPN.com on the Mitchell investigation. The Sports Network interviewed the people Mitchell interviewed to find out how the investigation was carried out. A quick summary:
- A number of people think Mitchell has a huge conflict of interest due to his relationship with the Red Sox.
- Various groups (GMs, trainers, strength coaches) feel they will be unjustly blamed in the report because their jobs have no protection (no union, no ownership).
- There was a sense that the investigators didn't know the right questions to ask. They also wanted speculation when facts were not available.
Here is one example of a complaint:
"The problem was, what did they want us to say?" said a team trainer who was interviewed by Mitchell's investigators in 2006. "They wanted us to speculate. And I wouldn't do that. They wanted me to say who I thought was using steroids. And when I said, 'I don't know,' they would say, 'Well, you work most closely with these guys. You work on their bodies every day. You weren't the least bit suspicious when you saw their bodies change?'
"This was the kind of stuff I was most afraid of, because they didn't ask me about specific people with specific information that they had. They asked me to guess. I said my guess was no guess at all, because what would happen to me if I said a guy was using steroids who wasn't? What if I guessed wrong? Then my name is out there, I get fired, and I'm easily replaceable."
There's good reason not to speculate. Bob Tufts, a player from 1981 to 1983 with San Francisco and Kansas City wrote me over the weekend to complain raise issue with the Mitchell investigation. He suffered from having his name associated with drugs:
The only issue with me was the cocaine stuff in SF and KC in my days there. As I told Murray Chass, I was told by a former club official and also a current federal judge that I was not able to get a job in 84 due to my name being associated with Blue, Aikens, Wilson and Martin. Due to this, it is best to tell the papers suing for names in the Radmomski files to shut up before you possibly damage another career.
Please read the whole article. It's lengthy but very well done.
Posted by David Pinto at
03:01 PM
|
Cheating
|
TrackBack (0)
There is a major conflict of interest here. Look at the Paul Byrd leak during the Red Sox appearance in the ALCS. What are people going to think if there are no Red Sox on the List? What if there are a lot of Yankees? The APPEARANCE of impropriety is enough to cast a shadow of doubt on this whole investigation.
Yuck. The more I read about this stuff, the more disgusted I become with the folks minding the store.
re: #1 -- Someone remind me what the Paul Byrd report, written by Williams/Fainaru-Wada at the SF Chronicle and based on records seized by law enforcement, has anything at all to do with the Mitchell Report.
re: #3 - NOTHING. And that's my point. A report about Byrd's HGH use came from individuals with no connection to Mitchell, yet there were still rumblings about him - or someone close to him - leaking Byrd's name simply because of his connection to the Red Sox and the timing of the leak. The appearance of impropriety isn't something to be taken lightly and I personally think Bud, Mitchell and the owners did just that. And apparently I'm not alone if what Bryant claims is true (that a number of people think Mitchell has a huge conflict of interest).
For instance, what if the list comes out with one Yankee and no Red Sox. And what if that one Yankee is Jeter? (I'm not saying it's likely, I'm just hypothesizing.) Do you think some people in NY might question the source?
I'm not sure what people expect. When any investigator starts trying to get to the bottom of something in any field, they'll start with speculation. Sometimes it leads to facts.
The fact that these guys couldn't get a job after that speaks very poorly of the establishment of baseball then Mitchell. It says "keep your mouth shut about what goes on here or you're fired".