So unless you have been sequestered all day, the Mitchell Report was released. While some names, like Bonds were no surprise, Clemens and Petitte were big surprises.
But let's come down to the real debate. There has been no evidence that Bonds knowingly took steroids until now. Roger Clemens was never mentioned in the investigation until today. Some Hall of Fame Voters have publicly stated that they would never vote for Bonds. So do we leave out one of the greatest pitchers of all time?
I'm a big believer in innocent until proven guilty. So until very recently, I always believed in Bonds. Even now, you can argue that he didn't need enhancements to attain a fairly close career. So because he is the official home run record holder, I think he should be in the Hall when he is eligible. Same for Clemens. I'll be interested to know if voters will treat Bonds and Clemens the same way.
Podcast RSS Feed
Just because the mainstream media chose to ignore the allegations against Clemens and Pettitte does not mean that they are surprises. They were fingered by Jason Grimsley as reported in an article written in the LA Times on Sep. 30, 2006.
It's still a surprise as the Mitchell report outed them. I'm working on the assumption that Mitchell's team had to have multiple sources before publishing those names. Grimsley's allegations may not have been sourced anywhere but from him.
Uh, what makes you think that Mitchell had to have multiple sources? He put everything in the report, even names of players that a single source had second-hand information about, as is the case with Brian Roberts being named by Kirk Radomski.
All I am saying is that you would think they would double check. What's the point of naming all these players on the word of one source, where he's naming names to get a lighter sentence? Granted, he does not gain anything by telling Mitchell.
I'm working on that assumption. If they were working off single sources, the credibility of the report should be in question.