PDA

View Full Version : Mitchell report


misty60481
12-10-2007, 06:09 AM
I heard the report could come out this week. I m wondering how it will affect the players, will the ones named all be suspended for a certain number of games ?

Madvora
12-10-2007, 08:15 AM
There might be some weird union rules about this. Maybe these players would have to be caught with the actual testing. This is another reason why nothing can be done to Bonds, Sosa, McGwire etc.
I'm a little confused with how this is going to work, but I'm sure it'll be explained better when it comes out.

misty60481
12-10-2007, 10:08 AM
Cant Selig impose his own fines or suspensions as with the 19 Sox. They were proven innocent in court but Landis put them out of baseball anyway. I know he would have a big fight with the players union if he tried. Should get pretty interesting.

soxfan21
12-10-2007, 10:27 AM
It should be an interesting report. Gammons said a few weeks ago on ESPN that this might affect all 30 major league teams. Hopefully it does not affect the sox too much, but I personally do not believe any of our players were poppin the roids, except for maybe uribe.:D:

Nellie_Fox
12-10-2007, 10:31 AM
Cant Selig impose his own fines or suspensions as with the 19 Sox. They were proven innocent in court but Landis put them out of baseball anyway. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the distinction is meaningful. The were not "proven innocent," they were found not guilty.

Oblong
12-10-2007, 10:32 AM
Cant Selig impose his own fines or suspensions as with the 19 Sox. They were proven innocent in court but Landis put them out of baseball anyway. I know he would have a big fight with the players union if he tried. Should get pretty interesting.

No because there's an existing collective bargaining agreement in place to deal with this stuff. Not to mention decades of labor law advancement and rulings to influence an eventual court decision.

WhiteSox5187
12-10-2007, 01:05 PM
No because there's an existing collective bargaining agreement in place to deal with this stuff. Not to mention decades of labor law advancement and rulings to influence an eventual court decision.
Can't Selig say "It is in the best interest of baseball to suspend these guys for x number of games"? I think that best interests clause gives him a lot of room to play with...as for the records, I don't think there will be any asterisks or anything but it will be remembered in the minds of baseball fans that the numbers posted in this era are not legitimate. This will do the most damage to potential FAs who are named and guys looking for a bid into the Hall of Fame.

Madvora
12-10-2007, 01:32 PM
Has there been any further word on when were going to be able to actually see this thing?

soxfan21
12-10-2007, 01:37 PM
ESPN was reporting that it was going to be released after the Winter Meetings, and before Christmas. So if that holds true then it should be released either some time this week or late next week at the latest.

spawn
12-10-2007, 01:44 PM
Can't Selig say "It is in the best interest of baseball to suspend these guys for x number of games"? I think that best interests clause gives him a lot of room to play with...as for the records, I don't think there will be any asterisks or anything but it will be remembered in the minds of baseball fans that the numbers posted in this era are not legitimate. This will do the most damage to potential FAs who are named and guys looking for a bid into the Hall of Fame.
Sure...when he holds himself, the media, and other GM's/managers accountable that knew this was going on but decided to look the other way because "homeruns are sexy!". He'll be a hypocrite IMO if he does this. It's too bad the Mitchell report won't include those in management who knew what was going on but did nothing to stop it.

Daver
12-10-2007, 04:30 PM
Sure...when he holds himself, the media, and other GM's/managers accountable that knew this was going on but decided to look the other way because "homeruns are sexy!". He'll be a hypocrite IMO if he does this. It's too bad the Mitchell report won't include those in management who knew what was going on but did nothing to stop it.

How do you know it won't?

Or provide the means to find out?


As far as the home run comment, I'll bet there are more pitchers than hitters named in the report.

spawn
12-10-2007, 04:31 PM
How do you know it won't?

Or provide the means to find out?

I don't know it won't. Just a feeling. I hope I'm wrong.

the1tab
12-10-2007, 04:41 PM
I heard the report was supposed to be released on Thursday the 13th (this week)

I'm excited to finally learn that Mark Prior, Eric Gagne, and God-knows how many other flash-in-the-pan pitchers were killing themselves w/ HGH to get back on the mound... and how many Richie Sexson, Marcus Giles type guys tried to make a life out of one season by juicing in a walk year (Adrian Beltre anyone?)

I've been wondering, since the Royals threw a 3 year deal at Jose Guillen hours before he got suspended... is the prospect that Prior might be in the Mitchell report slowing an already dead trade market for him? Because even if he comes back at half of what he was in 2003 he'd still be a solid #3-4 starter... good enough for the Cubs to give him a 3 year deal for $40 million like they did Marquis.

WhiteSox5187
12-10-2007, 07:57 PM
Sure...when he holds himself, the media, and other GM's/managers accountable that knew this was going on but decided to look the other way because "homeruns are sexy!". He'll be a hypocrite IMO if he does this. It's too bad the Mitchell report won't include those in management who knew what was going on but did nothing to stop it.
I agree that Selig turned a blind eye to steroids, but he now has the chance to redeem himself as far as I'm concerned...as for the management, that's a good point. I think EVERY GM and owner in baseball knew who was using and who wasn't and just didn't give a damn.

areilly
12-10-2007, 09:59 PM
It should be an interesting report. Gammons said a few weeks ago on ESPN that this might affect all 30 major league teams. Hopefully it does not affect the sox too much, but I personally do not believe any of our players were poppin the roids, except for maybe uribe.:D:


Maybe, but I doubt anyone believed Juan Rincon or Alex Sanchez were juicing, either. I would be more shocked - no, absolutely floored if NO former or current Sox players were named.

NardiWasHere
12-10-2007, 11:35 PM
Maybe, but I doubt anyone believed Juan Rincon or Alex Sanchez were juicing, either. I would be more shocked - no, absolutely floored if NO former or current Sox players were named.

The names of recent Sox players that would not suprise me if they were juicing at some point in their careers....

Valentin
Mags
Belle
Any reliever not named Shingo

List of players that WOULD Suprise me:
Boomer
Colon
Canseco

Domeshot17
12-11-2007, 12:18 AM
We know there WILL be former Sox players on it. Im just praying it does not touch 2005.

The only team I think comes up looking clean here is Boston....and not because they dont have any juicers aboard...

AJ Hellraiser
12-11-2007, 12:22 AM
We know there WILL be former Sox players on it. Im just praying it does not touch 2005.

The only team I think comes up looking clean here is Boston....and not because they dont have any juicers aboard...

The report is supposed to include players from all 30 teams.... I also hope it doesn't touch 2005, but I am also starting not to care as much... I mean if everyone was doing it, does that make our World Series Championship any less meaningful than any other? Hell no....

Fenway
12-11-2007, 12:41 AM
We know there WILL be former Sox players on it. Im just praying it does not touch 2005.

The only team I think comes up looking clean here is Boston....and not because they dont have any juicers aboard...

I hope you are wrong

Officers http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/images/trans.gif
John W. Henry Principal Owner
Thomas C. Werner Chairman http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/images/trans.gif
David Ginsberg Vice Chairman http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/images/trans.gif
Phillip H. Morse Vice Chairman http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/images/trans.gif
Larry Lucchino President/Chief Executive Officer http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/images/trans.gif
George J. Mitchell Director

kevin57
12-11-2007, 04:59 AM
I don't think Selig could do much about players named. With the contract and labor law, he would probably find himself in court for years.

What it will allow him to do is press the PR battle with the union to insert stricter procedures (e.g., off-season testing) and penalties. That assumes Uncle Bud really wants to do this and the real PR battle may be with the owners, not the union.

In any case, what the Mitchell Report will do is provide an opportunity, an excellent one, IMO, to clean this mess up.

Oblong
12-11-2007, 09:15 AM
The only way I could see the 2005 Sox being tainted from this is if at least 3 of the starters were named and there wasn't a heavy concentration on other top AL teams or on the Astros. From an outsider, the story of that team was the starting pitching. But even then I doubt it'd be a big story, outside of the Tribune.

My gut feeling is that each team will have a couple of guys(outside of the Red Sox), it'll be mostly fringe guys, along with guys who had one or two pretty good All Star caliber years, and the big names everybody suspects.

If that's the case then it all evens out in my opinion in terms of records and performance. Baseball will just have to live with it. Unless baseball names itself as a co conspirator and makes the point that this report should be the basis for stepping up measures then it'll just be a dog and pony show. The 1919 Sox got the rap for throwing the WS but only an idiot would think that's the only time players threw games.

bestkosher
12-11-2007, 09:26 AM
With upcoming Fukudome signing, (please sign with us please) it made me think, of what the ramifications of the Mitchell report might be. MLB already goes to foreign countries for many of its players, but I have a feeling it will force mlb hands hand even more to look more internationally. You may see more foreign players brought in from Japan, Australia, Canada, and other nations just because the are less likely tainted by steriods.

balke
12-11-2007, 09:38 AM
If the best the MLB is going to do is 15 games for a violation, I think everyone will just take their lumps and move on. It won't do anything to teams performance really. That's 3 starts for pitchers, and about the same time a lot of players miss for injuries in a season. The 15 it looks like they are giving just isn't enough. It might create a backlash with the fans where they go away from the game again.

ode to veeck
12-11-2007, 11:41 AM
The names of recent Sox players that would not suprise me if they were juicing at some point in their careers....

Valentin
Mags
Belle
Any reliever not named Shingo


Mags was one of 3 players in MLB willing to volunteer for testing and establish cleanliness when on the Sox a few years back. Along with the other Sox players taking the same line, MLBPA made them withdraw their positions to protect the positions of all the cheaters. Mags and Hurt would be two of the folks I'd really be shocked to find in the Mitchell report as dirty.

At this point, I don't expect much from the Mitchell report; they guy has obvious conflicts of interest here--wayy too much hype for something not designed to do well

soxwon
12-11-2007, 02:14 PM
Who would you think on the sox could be on Steroids?

Nellie_Fox
12-11-2007, 02:17 PM
Who would you think on the sox could be on Steroids?It is just so wrong to go around smearing players by name based only on suspicion.

russ99
12-11-2007, 02:24 PM
Actually, I think it's a clever ploy by Uncle Bud to do this now, as with Christmas coming up, no one will be thinking about baseball (except for us posters, of course.)

By spring training, it will have been forgotten and back to business as usual.

DumpJerry
12-11-2007, 05:24 PM
I heard on The Score that the GMs got the report today. The public gets it Thursday.

Other than possibly Fukudome, I don't expect any signings or trades between now and Thursday.

areilly
12-11-2007, 06:32 PM
The only way I could see the 2005 Sox being tainted from this is if at least 3 of the starters were named and there wasn't a heavy concentration on other top AL teams or on the Astros. From an outsider, the story of that team was the starting pitching. But even then I doubt it'd be a big story, outside of the Tribune.

I don't buy this: what if Willie Harris, Geoff Blum and Neal Cotts all show up on the list? All were crucial to the Sox winning the World Series - but since they're not starters, are the Sox still "clean"?

ilsox7
12-11-2007, 06:33 PM
I heard on The Score that the GMs got the report today. The public gets it Thursday.

Other than possibly Fukudome, I don't expect any signings or trades between now and Thursday.

I'm disappointed you don't have a source at DLA Piper and read the report weeks ago. :D:

Or do you?

Oblong
12-11-2007, 08:31 PM
I don't buy this: what if Willie Harris, Geoff Blum and Neal Cotts all show up on the list? All were crucial to the Sox winning the World Series - but since they're not starters, are the Sox still "clean"?

I'm talking about starting pitchers.

rowand33
12-11-2007, 08:48 PM
48 hours til the report:

for whatever reason, I can't post the quote, but it's on rotoworld.

areilly
12-11-2007, 09:11 PM
I'm talking about starting pitchers.

And I'm talking about you can't limit the impact to "it only counts if so-and-so did it." Let's say every starting pitcher from 2005 stays off that list. So what? Does that make the team any less of a fraud just because only relievers, benchwarmers, big bats or position players are named? I don't think so.

It's dismissive to limit the guilt to just the individual, because this isn't an individual sport. One juiced player taints the entire team. Hell, in some cases one juiced player has tainted the entire league.

Fenway
12-11-2007, 09:28 PM
48 hours til the report:

for whatever reason, I can't post the quote, but it's on rotoworld.

Rotoworld has it listed under Barry Bonds :lol:

MLB received it's copy of the Mitchell Report on Tuesday, roughly 48 hours before it's due to be published.
The report is believed to name 60-80 current and former players. A substantial percentage figure to be New York Mets, as it was their former clubhouse attendant, Kirk Radomski, that provided George Mitchell's committee with much of its information.

Trav
12-11-2007, 09:51 PM
Rotoworld has it listed under Barry Bonds :lol:

MLB received it's copy of the Mitchell Report on Tuesday, roughly 48 hours before it's due to be published.
The report is believed to name 60-80 current and former players. A substantial percentage figure to be New York Mets, as it was their former clubhouse attendant, Kirk Radomski, that provided George Mitchell's committee with much of its information.

When can we expect the media to start leaking names?

Fenway
12-11-2007, 09:58 PM
When can we expect the media to start leaking names?

If MLB does what they usually do the NY Daily News will have it before the release date. MLB has leaked there for years.

Trav
12-11-2007, 10:03 PM
How do you know it won't?

Or provide the means to find out?


As far as the home run comment, I'll bet there are more pitchers than hitters named in the report.

I don't think this report becomes damaging to any MLB brass because Selig picked a horrible guy to lead the investigation. Getting someone with ties to a team and to the biggest sports media outlet leaves too many suspicions if the report were to come back less damaging then expected. Unless Mitchell's report points to the owners as also being responsible, no one will ever convince me that Selig didn't hire a lap dog to lead this hunt.

And the only way I see this investigation leading to the owners is if some of the players get pissed for being the scapegoat and start talking about how team doctors were forcing them to take stuff.



And as far as the other issue brought up in the thread, suspensions. Selig said a couple of weeks ago that he would consider suspensions for players named, not just failed drug tests.

ksimpson14
12-12-2007, 02:43 AM
My view on most people on the list prob won't change. I've accepted it and probably accept it from most of the superstars. At the same time, I know that a guy not being on the list doesn't make him clean. And I don't want to fret over not being able to change anything. Not the 'what if' game, ala Giambi and his MVP. I'm just curious either way though

One guy on the radio was saying he's friends with a Twins coach, and they were only speculating, but I agreed with a name they wouldn't be surprised with, which is Ortiz, didn't he go from released to MVP? Then again, Mitchell, Boston? He almost needs a Boston name to gain credibility. They brought up other guys who suddenly have better hitting years, they said Hunter, but I won't be expecting that. Maybe these nowhere to superstar stories, like a Pujols, from streetball to the majors, nice story, but is there more to it...

ksimpson14
12-12-2007, 02:48 AM
With upcoming Fukudome signing, (please sign with us please) it made me think, of what the ramifications of the Mitchell report might be. MLB already goes to foreign countries for many of its players, but I have a feeling it will force mlb hands hand even more to look more internationally. You may see more foreign players brought in from Japan, Australia, Canada, and other nations just because the are less likely tainted by steriods.

I don't think it'll be a big deal, especially at this stage. It might be awkward, and it'll definately be brought up (e.g, if the guy sucks or the guy excels, someone will mention it), but I don't think it'll stop teams, and dies down over time. Look at Giambi. I went to a Sox Yankees game last year. The booing for Jeter is about 10x that of Giambi (not sure why). Meanwhile, pretty silent all around for Giambi, and there should be a little more to that with the whole Frank MVP thing

Oblong
12-12-2007, 08:02 AM
And I'm talking about you can't limit the impact to "it only counts if so-and-so did it." Let's say every starting pitcher from 2005 stays off that list. So what? Does that make the team any less of a fraud just because only relievers, benchwarmers, big bats or position players are named? I don't think so.

It's dismissive to limit the guilt to just the individual, because this isn't an individual sport. One juiced player taints the entire team. Hell, in some cases one juiced player has tainted the entire league.

From my perspective as a baseball fan with no special allegience to the White Sox all I can tell you is what I would feel. Enough guilt will be spread around so that no team can get any special branding. Someone previously asked about how the 2005 champs would fare. For me the story of that team was the great starting pitching. The bullpen was so great that year because they didn't have to pitch as much. So in order for the 2005 Sox to get more crap thrown at them compared to otehr champs then the starting pitching would have to be disproportionately listed.

the1tab
12-12-2007, 08:10 AM
Who would you think on the sox could be on Steroids?

Since he was acquired for Aaron Miles from Colorado, Juan Uribe's butt has gotten significantly larger. His game has also changed from a pop out hitter to an all-or-nothing hitter, leading me to [jokingly] believe that Juan Uribe is juicing.

russ99
12-12-2007, 09:25 AM
Since he was acquired for Aaron Miles from Colorado, Juan Uribe's butt has gotten significantly larger. His game has also changed from a pop out hitter to an all-or-nothing hitter, leading me to [jokingly] believe that Juan Uribe is juicing.

Naw, that's just the churros.

Besides, steroids builds muscle mass, not fat mass... :D:

soxfan21
12-12-2007, 09:29 AM
So I'm pretty sure that every team in the majors will probably have at least one player on this list. My question to you guys is how do you think the trib will spin it, should there be any sox players on this list from the '05 season, to make it look like it was a tainted season and championship even though it was not?

D. TODD
12-12-2007, 09:46 AM
As I have believed all along most of the players used or have used substances that are now banned by MLB. This report is nothing but a dog and pony show to act like, hey we didn't condone this. All of the records and championship teams are legit. It was not a few it was MOST that used amphetamines, andro, roids, or other now banned substances as performance enhancers. I believe the majority are the mediocre to below average guys, rather then the stud superstars as well.

This report will just be the very tip of the iceberg in any case. Most that had some use of enhancers will not be named anyway.

Fenway
12-12-2007, 10:13 AM
The first leak

N.Y. Times: Mitchell Report Expected to Name About 50 Major Leaguers (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/sports/baseball/12mitchell.html?ref=baseball)
The report is believed to include the names of 60-to-80 former and current players, according to sources who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the documents. The report, the sources added, is based in large part on information provided to Mitchell by former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski.
"We cannot comment on anything," MLB spokesman Rich Levin said.
As the Daily News first reported on its Web site yesterday, MLB officials were reviewing the report to make sure there are no disclosures of confidential information that would violate the collective bargaining agreement. Because Mitchell is working on behalf of Selig, he is also beholden to the confidentiality terms of the CBA. Mitchell - who is expected to hold a press conference following the release of the report, as is Selig - told The News in an interview in July that he would give MLB advance notice but that the report would not be edited.

NY DAILY NEWS

The report is believed to include the names of 60-to-80 former and current players, according to sources who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the documents. The report, the sources added, is based in large part on information provided to Mitchell by former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski.


"We cannot comment on anything," MLB spokesman Rich Levin said.
As the Daily News first reported on its Web site yesterday, MLB officials were reviewing the report to make sure there are no disclosures of confidential information that would violate the collective bargaining agreement. Because Mitchell is working on behalf of Selig, he is also beholden to the confidentiality terms of the CBA. Mitchell - who is expected to hold a press conference following the release of the report, as is Selig - told The News in an interview in July that he would give MLB advance notice but that the report would not be edited.



http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2007/12/12/2007-12-12_mlb_receives_mitchell_report.html

soxfan21
12-12-2007, 11:08 AM
MLB.com says that Mitchell will hold a press conference tomorrow afternoon , then Selig will talk about his reaction in his own press conference after Mitchell's.

HawkDJ
12-12-2007, 12:35 PM
Is it possible Frank Thomas spoke to Mitchell? According to SI's Tom Verducci, Mitchell was able to get one active player to speak with him.

From SI:
The source described the player as one of several players Mitchell wanted to question because of their previous public comments opposing steroid use, not because the player was connected to any steroid use of his own. The source said the interview with the player was scheduled to take place "very soon."Sounds very much like it could it be Frank. If so, should we be expecting a lot of former White Sox players on this list?


This news is about a month old, so apologies if it's been discussed before. I admittedly have not been following the Mitchell investigation very much.

balke
12-12-2007, 01:01 PM
I only can only see some acquired guys and maybe 2 recent guys that came up through the system maybe taking them.

Frank only scares me for steroid use because he may have needed it medically with all of his surgeries. I highly doubt it though.

Sargeant79
12-12-2007, 01:07 PM
Is it possible Frank Thomas spoke to Mitchell? According to SI's Tom Verducci, Mitchell was able to get one active player to speak with him.

From SI:
Sounds very much like it could it be Frank. If so, should we be expecting a lot of former White Sox players on this list?


This news is about a month old, so apologies if it's been discussed before. I admittedly have not been following the Mitchell investigation very much.

Could be Curt Schilling too. I seem to remember him taking a rather vocal stance against steroids and he has publicly chastised Barry Bonds in the past.

soltrain21
12-12-2007, 01:09 PM
Frank only scares me for steroid use because he may have needed it medically with all of his surgeries.

I've had surgery before and didn't need steroids to recover.

munchman33
12-12-2007, 01:18 PM
I've had surgery before and didn't need steroids to recover.

Yeah, but as far as I know, you don't play professional baseball against a bunch of guys that do take steroids and HGH to come back faster from injuries.

soltrain21
12-12-2007, 01:19 PM
Yeah, but as far as I know, you don't play professional baseball against a bunch of guys that do take steroids and HGH to come back faster from injuries.


Well, I've been meaning to tell you something for a while, Munchman...

Sockinchisox
12-12-2007, 06:44 PM
60-80 players are going to be named.

George Mitchell's report on drugs in baseball will finger MVPs and All-Stars, The Associated Press learned Wednesday.
It'd be interesting to see Miguel Tejada named just one day after being traded, as it could be taken as a sign the Orioles knew it was coming. The report, set to be released at 2 p.m. EST on Thursday, will not address amphetamines. It will call for a beefed-up testing program conducted by an outside agency.
Source: The Associated Press (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-mitchellreport&prov=ap&type=lgns)

Lip Man 1
12-12-2007, 06:57 PM
I think the majority of the names on this list will be ones that have already been connected with these things over the past few years.

Personally I'd be very surprised if any 'new' big named players are implicated.

The Giambi's of the world we already know about but I will be interested to see if one name is on this 'official' list:

Sammy Sosa.

Lip

Trav
12-12-2007, 10:01 PM
Is it possible Frank Thomas spoke to Mitchell? According to SI's Tom Verducci, Mitchell was able to get one active player to speak with him.

From SI:
Sounds very much like it could it be Frank. If so, should we be expecting a lot of former White Sox players on this list?


This news is about a month old, so apologies if it's been discussed before. I admittedly have not been following the Mitchell investigation very much.

Maybe not too many of the players on the Sox team that wanted to skip the test to cause the overall number of positives to go up so the steroid testing would speed up.

chisoxmike
12-12-2007, 10:02 PM
Anyone else have a problem that Mitchell works for the Boston Red Sox? Shouldn't someone who doesn't work in baseball be doing this? :dunno:

Trav
12-12-2007, 10:21 PM
Anyone else have a problem that Mitchell works for the Boston Red Sox? Shouldn't someone who doesn't work in baseball be doing this? :dunno:

Not only do you have the BoSox angle, you also have the Disney (ESPN) angle. He worked for them in some capacity and I read it when this whole farce started, but I can't remember exactly what his role was.

ksimpson14
12-13-2007, 12:18 AM
Interesting about it naming several AllStars/MVPs, hadn't read that before. Again, if you say Giambi though, zzzzz. I'm still not bracing for much, but it'll be interesting

ksimpson14
12-13-2007, 12:22 AM
Also, as far as 05 Sox, my guess would be Freddy, but no, it wouldn't change my view on anything

Nelson Foxtrot
12-13-2007, 02:17 AM
I don't like the idea of a former U.S. Senator being in charge of this. Selig and many of MLB's owners have been big political donors over the years, which hurts the legitimacy in my eyes of a politician running this investigation. Mitchell's job with the Red Sox is a huge conflict of interest as well. Lowell Weicker is a former representative, governor, and senator from Connecticut. He's also been on the WWE's board of directors for nearly a decade. Would anybody trust him to be an impartial investigator willing to tackle a steroid problem? I don't think Mitchell's situation is very different.

SoxyStu
12-13-2007, 08:47 AM
Is it possible Frank Thomas spoke to Mitchell? According to SI's Tom Verducci, Mitchell was able to get one active player to speak with him.

Wasn't Giambi "encouraged" to speak to Mitchell? I could see him being the only active player who talked to Mitchell, only because he had to.

HawkDJ
12-13-2007, 08:57 AM
Wasn't Giambi "encouraged" to speak to Mitchell? I could see him being the only active player who talked to Mitchell, only because he had to.

Apologies. Giambi did speak with Mitchell. I guess what the article was saying was there was only one active player who spoke to Mitchell that wasn't forced to.

SoxyStu
12-13-2007, 09:04 AM
Apologies. Giambi did speak with Mitchell. I guess what the article was saying was there was only one active player who spoke to Mitchell that wasn't forced to.

No wuckin furries. I do like Sarge's guess.

DaveIsHere
12-13-2007, 09:07 AM
CNN has a headline on their website that Clemens is on the list

balke
12-13-2007, 09:07 AM
I've had surgery before and didn't need steroids to recover.

They always had to inject him with Cortisone I remember it being reported. I'm obviously not a doctor so I'm not sure what all you get steroids for. I thought it was to strengthen ligaments and certain tissues that have been damaged that may not heal on their own.

I doubt he took any like I said. I just get nervous from all the poking and prodding they did to the guy for all those years.

SBSoxFan
12-13-2007, 09:14 AM
They always had to inject him with Cortisone I remember it being reported. I'm obviously not a doctor so I'm not sure what all you get steroids for. I thought it was to strengthen ligaments and certain tissues that have been damaged that may not heal on their own.

I doubt he took any like I said. I just get nervous from all the poking and prodding they did to the guy for all those years.

I thought it was nearly the opposite; the steroids increase muscle mass and cause other soft tissue like ligaments to deteriorate. That or the muscle becomes too strong for the tendons to connect and too strong for the ligaments to support bone.

asindc
12-13-2007, 09:18 AM
I thought it was nearly the opposite; the steroids increase muscle mass and cause other soft tissue like ligaments to deteriorate. That or the muscle becomes too strong for the tendons to connect and too strong for the ligaments to support bone.

The muscles become disportionately stronger than the ligaments, tendons, and bones in the body, causing frequent breakdowns of the soft tissue. Steve Emtmann (sp?), the defensive lineman out of U. of Wash., had this problem in the extreme. Basically, he had bulked up to the point that his natural body frame could not support the extra muscle mass.

soxfan21
12-13-2007, 09:21 AM
CNN has a headline on their website that Clemens is on the list
The New York Daily News is reporting the same thing along with ESPN.

JermaineDye05
12-13-2007, 09:24 AM
CNN has a headline on their website that Clemens is on the list

I was just talking to my friend the other day about this. How good and bad at the same time it would be if Clemens name was on the list. Bad since his whole legacy as one of the best pitchers in baseball will be completely tarnished. Good because he'll finally retire.

balke
12-13-2007, 09:32 AM
I thought it was nearly the opposite; the steroids increase muscle mass and cause other soft tissue like ligaments to deteriorate. That or the muscle becomes too strong for the tendons to connect and too strong for the ligaments to support bone.

I don't know someone who was given them for hearing loss. I know someone else given them for Bell's Paulsy which is like a mild stroke. It helped rebuild whatever was needed in those areas. There were no guarantees for the hearing loss, but it was one method used.

Taliesinrk
12-13-2007, 09:45 AM
I don't know someone who was given them for hearing loss. I know someone else given them for Bell's Paulsy which is like a mild stroke. It helped rebuild whatever was needed in those areas. There were no guarantees for the hearing loss, but it was one method used.

Bell's Palsy sucks!! not a way to make friends in high school...

Juice16
12-13-2007, 09:46 AM
CNN has a headline on their website that Clemens is on the list

I do remember the big rumor in Sep. of 2005 of Clemens and Damon being the next two guys named.

AZChiSoxFan
12-13-2007, 09:53 AM
Steve Emtmann (sp?), the defensive lineman out of U. of Wash., had this problem in the extreme. Basically, he had bulked up to the point that his natural body frame could not support the extra muscle mass.

I've always had that same problem. Oh wait, you said muscle. Sorry, I thought you said fat. :redneck

voodoochile
12-13-2007, 10:09 AM
I don't think we need another thread on this. There is a main thread in TB and you should continue the discussion there.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=95704