George Mitchell Report

[Milo Meningocele]

Here's my new Steroids Policy I'm injecting ( ) into this:

- First Positive Test: 81 GAME (not days) Suspension. That's half a season.

- Second Positive Test: One Full Calendar year Suspension and forfeit of all statistics from day of positive test or punishment handed out, dating back One full year. (example: you test postivie or are handed your suspension on July 4th, all your stats dating back to July 4th of previous year are wiped out.)

- Third Positive Test: Lifetime Ban and forfeit of all statistics.

This may seem harsh, but hey, you inject it and you're rejected. You use, you lose. You... well, you get the idea. This would strike some fear into those thinking about using, and rightfully punish those who do choose to violate the law.

Actually, it's much more lenient than I'd like to see. I say it should be a full season for the first offense, and lifetime ban for the second. My initial thought was in favor of a lifetime ban for the first offense. But then there's the issue of false positives/freak occurrences, and my belief that a civilized society should offer a second chance in most situations. But if somebody screws up that second chance, it shows a wanton disrespect for the rules and the game, and they should be gone forever.

[averyj]

*r* w* j*st r*pl*c*ng v*w*ls w*th *str*cks n*w?

Are we just replacing vowels with astricks now?

Not unless your sentence used steroids...

[quantum]

For those in the report, no punishment should be imposed. To punish certain players when you know members of the staff and management knew what was going on is wrong. The teams benefited by this as much as the players. If anything, this report just confirms that baseball has problems impacting its credibility. Most of the report is hearsay, so taking action on past wrongs is not appropriate considering the circumstances. What's important is what they do from here on out.

A silver lining for this is that the more people juicing brings some legitimacy to the statistics put up. With all things being equal on the steroid front, the individuals talent becomes the difference again. (Hey, I'm just trying to end this on a positive note )

[McCall]

Here's my new Steroids Policy I'm injecting ( ) into this:

- First Positive Test: 81 GAME (not days) Suspension. That's half a season.

- Second Positive Test: One Full Calendar year Suspension and forfeit of all statistics from day of positive test or punishment handed out, dating back One full year. (example: you test postivie or are handed your suspension on July 4th, all your stats dating back to July 4th of previous year are wiped out.)

- Third Positive Test: Lifetime Ban and forfeit of all statistics.

This may seem harsh, but hey, you inject it and you're rejected. You use, you lose. You... well, you get the idea. This would strike some fear into those thinking about using, and rightfully punish those who do choose to violate the law.

Actually, it's much more lenient than I'd like to see. I say it should be a full season for the first offense, and lifetime ban for the second. My initial thought was in favor of a lifetime ban for the first offense. But then there's the issue of false positives/freak occurrences, and my belief that a civilized society should offer a second chance in most situations. But if somebody screws up that second chance, it shows a wanton disrespect for the rules and the game, and they should be gone forever.

I know, but I was kinda going for the baseball corelation(sp?) of "3 strikes and your out."

And also, I don't think you can necessarily punish all of those in the report, unless there is proof of a positive test or purchase. Which means a lot would be. But, just by their name being mentioned, doesn't necessarily mean automatic punishment.

[zig]

I think this gives the Mitchell Report much more credit

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3156305

NEW YORK -- Andy Pettitte used human growth hormone to recover from an elbow injury in 2002, the New York Yankees pitcher said two days after he was cited in the Mitchell report.

Pettitte said he tried HGH on two occasions.

"If what I did was an error in judgment on my part, I apologize," Pettitte said Saturday in a statement released by his agent. "I accept responsibility for those two days."

On Thursday, Pettitte was among 85 players named by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell's investigation into steroids and performance-enhancing drugs. Pettitte had not commented publicly on the allegations.

Pettitte asked the trainer he shared with Roger Clemens, Brian McNamee, to help him with HGH while on the disabled list early in the season, the report said. McNamee recalled injecting Pettitte two to four times, Mitchell said.

"In 2002 I was injured. I had heard that human growth hormone could promote faster healing for my elbow," Pettitte said in the statement released to The Associated Press by agent Randy Hendricks.

"I felt an obligation to get back to my team as soon as possible. For this reason, and only this reason, for two days I tried human growth hormone. Though it was not against baseball rules, I was not comfortable with what I was doing, so I stopped.

"This is it -- two days out of my life; two days out of my entire career, when I was injured and on the disabled list," he said. "I wasn't looking for an edge. I was looking to heal."

Pettitte was not linked to steroids in the report, and he emphasized he never had never used them.

"I have the utmost respect for baseball and have always tried to live my life in a way that would be honorable," he said. "If I have let down people that care about me, I am sorry, but I hope that you will listen to me carefully and understand that two days of perhaps bad judgment should not ruin a lifetime of hard work and dedication.

"I have tried to do things the right way my entire life, and, again, ask that you put those two days in the proper context. People that know me will know that what I say is true," he said.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

[STL FANATIC]

Good for Pettitte.

That said, he took it when it was legal, and for reasons that are as right as possible.

I don't advocate it's use, but he's clear in my book.

What's the case against Clemens? More than just HGH? (If it is just HGH, was it before it was illegal?)

Whatever the claims against Clemens, this gives them some legitimacy.

[Waffles]

Validating any part of McNamee's testimony really, really hurts Pettitte's BFF Roger Clemens, but if his use of performance-enhancers was disappointing and seemingly out-of-character for Andy, at least his response was more in line with what many fans had come to expect from Andy Pettitte.

I find it just as interesting that Pettitte's agent would release a such a statement from him, giving a huge boost to the credibility of testimony against their biggest, most profitable client, Roger Clemens. With his personal trainer testifying against him, and his good buddy and agent backing him up, it's got to be a very lonely time for Roger Clemens right now.

[infrared41]

Good for Pettitte.

That said, he took it when it was legal, and for reasons that are as right as possible.

I don't advocate it's use, but he's clear in my book.

What's the case against Clemens? More than just HGH? (If it is just HGH, was it before it was illegal?)

Whatever the claims against Clemens, this gives them some legitimacy.

Am I the only one who thought Clemens was using steroids all along? I thought he was every bit as obvious as Bonds was. Clemens is the Bonds of pitchers.

[jr79]

I don't see what's wrong with applying international standards in American professional sports.

First offence, 2 year ban. (It might even be 4 years for some offences iirc)

Second offence, life ban.

Any attempt by the players union to ask for weaker penalties or less rigorous testing regimes will surely not play well with the fans and they'd be best advised to keep quiet in this process.

The steroid era isn't exactly tarnished, because its records will be judged in the same light as the deadball period and adjusted accordingly in the minds of the fans. Just draw a line under it, send a clear message that the steroid era is over, and test the crap out of the players.

[Mac the Knife]

Am I the only one who thought Clemens was using steroids all along? I thought he was every bit as obvious as Bonds was. Clemens is the Bonds of pitchers.

No you aren't the only one, but honestly I wasn't among them. The reason? Nolan Ryan. Like Ryan, Cl*m*ns mystique grew with his age and longevity in the bigs. Both worked out like fiends. Both were phenomenal throughout their careers so it was hard to perceive a difference beyond thinking, "It's experience."

I also never saw a B*nds-like physical comparison showing that significant a difference in their appearance.

Was I blind? Maybe in this case, yeah. But I'll readily admit that I heard rumors about him and blew 'em off to an extent. "Why would a pitcher like Cl*m*ns really juice?" I'd think to myself. Guess it just goes to show, there's no accounting for stupidity.

[STL FANATIC]

I thought Clemens was a possible user, but I tried to avoid the witch hunt mentality.

[JQK]

With Andy's confession, i don't see that Clemens has a leg to stand on.

However, it's hard to burn Pettitte at the stake, because even in the report, it states he only used it 2 to 4 times, which he admited to, and it was to recover from an injury faster to get back to his team, not to enhance his performance.

This is just such a mess. We'll be seeing lawsuits for twenty years.

[See Red]

With Andy's confession, i don't see that Clemens has a leg to stand on.

However, it's hard to burn Pettitte at the stake, because even in the report, it states he only used it 2 to 4 times, which he admited to, and it was to recover from an injury faster to get back to his team, not to enhance his performance.

This is just such a mess. We'll be seeing lawsuits for twenty years.

I agree... hard to get on Andy too much. He's a classy guy... made a mistake, and if it's true that he used them for two days -- which I don't doubt -- they'd have made such a tiny difference in his career. At least he was man enough to own up to it.

[infrared41]

I also never saw a B*nds-like physical comparison showing that significant a difference in their appearance.

1988

2004

I always thought this was a result of "roid rage."

[Mac the Knife]

I also never saw a B*nds-like physical comparison showing that significant a difference in their appearance.

Now see, in looking at those side by side, I don't see anywhere near the change that I see in B*nds: the head doesn't seem appreciably bigger, nor does the torso, the legs, etc. At least nothing that couldn't be attributable to normal aging, anyway. I mean the human body gets a little larger as it ages, and in Cl*m*ns case I could just as easily attribute the growth depicted in that picture to simply hitting his mid-30's and 40's.

I'm not trying to defend the man by any means, I'm just sayin'.

[Fred T. Jane]

Now see, in looking at those side by side, I don't see anywhere near the change that I see in B*nds: the head doesn't seem appreciably bigger, nor does the torso, the legs, etc. At least nothing that couldn't be attributable to normal aging, anyway. I mean the human body gets a little larger as it ages, and in Cl*m*ns case I could just as easily attribute the growth depicted in that picture to simply hitting his mid-30's and 40's.

I'm not trying to defend the man by any means, I'm just sayin'.

Not to mention 16 years between photos. Perhaps stuff from his final years in Boston/stint in Toronto would be a better comparison.

[infrared41]

I also never saw a B*nds-like physical comparison showing that significant a difference in their appearance.

Now see, in looking at those side by side, I don't see anywhere near the change that I see in B*nds: the head doesn't seem appreciably bigger, nor does the torso, the legs, etc. At least nothing that couldn't be attributable to normal aging, anyway. I mean the human body gets a little larger as it ages, and in Cl*m*ns case I could just as easily attribute the growth depicted in that picture to simply hitting his mid-30's and 40's.

I'm not trying to defend the man by any means, I'm just sayin'.

I agree it's not as profound as Bonds but look closely at his jaw line. That is a telltale sign of HGH use. The jaw line gets more square looking and more protruding (for lack of a better term) and more pronounced. You could also see it in guys like Ken Caminiti and Kenny Rogers. I wish I could have found better pictures to use. I'll try to find better shots to illustrate what I am talking about later.

[slapshot]

Clemens also got fat in his old age. That's a difference between Bonds and Clemens. Bonds got bigger muscle- (and head-) wise, where Clemens got bigger waist-wise.

I've never heard anyone accusing Bonds of being fat.

[DEAD!]

I've never heard anyone accusing Bonds of being fat.

... but he was phat, right?

[Mac the Knife]

I agree it's not as profound as Bonds but look closely at his jaw line. That is a telltale sign of HGH use. The jaw line gets more square looking and more protruding (for lack of a better term) and more pronounced. You could also see it in guys like Ken Caminiti and Kenny Rogers. I wish I could have found better pictures to use. I'll try to find better shots to illustrate what I am talking about later.

Again I'm not being a Cl*m*ns apologist here, but if you took a look at pics of me from my early to mid-20's versus today as I approach 40, there's a marked difference in my appearance. My features are now completely filled out (albeit in many areas further than I'd like) whereas in my mid-20's I looked downright gaunt by comparison.

And frankly, the jawline you mention could easily be explained away: different lighting, even more or less beard stubble. I can't speak for Caminiti and Rogers, but still, in Cl*m*ns case, I don't see an appreciable difference that I can point to and go, "Yep... there's the sign."