How will the Mitchell report affect the NFL?

[upstater1]

Yankees get an asterisk next to their WS wins of the 1990s.

There, NY POST, now stick that up your a**!

(BTW, Clemens wasn't a Red Sox when he started using).

 

[Tommysgirl]

The other thing is, for those of us who are Red Sox fans, is that there have been complaints that the report was biased as there were not a lot of Red Sox players on the list and Mitchell is employed in a fringe capacity with the team.

Perception is a funny thing I guess. People see what they want to see.

I saw some prominent Red Sox on the list - Mo Vaughn, Roger Clemens, Mike Lansing, Brandon Donnelly, Eric Gagne - just to name a few of the bigger names...

No team is immune here and I believe more names will surface as people start selling out, etc. The bottom line is it happened and in it's in the past and the important thing is what MLB does from here on out to keep it under control for the future.

As far as Mitchell, being a former congressman, I find it hard to believe he would hang his integrity out to dry by favoring one team or another. Not that he is super honest or anything, I just think he understands how the political game is played.

What was actually more interesting to me was when you consider the percentage of Latin-born players in the majors, there were proportionately less on the list than you might have expected. I know some of the big names like Tejada, etc., but really when you look at major league rosters and see 10%-20% or more Latin-born players, at first glance, that trend does not play out on the Mitchell report.

Maybe they are teaching to play the game right and honest and straight in places like the Dominican Republic and Venezuela and Puerto Rico, like we used to do in the US, before we became a nation of "Get all you can while you can. The ends justify the means."

I know, I know, football, not Red Sox, but please, for the love of all that is holy, DO NOT mention Eric Gagne and Red Sox in the same sentence ever again.

Sorry, back to the NFL, carry on.

 

[alamo]

So help me out. Should this be moved to the Red Sox forum?

This was a thread about the NFL, actually, until Arman da Red Sox Fan hijacked it to talk about steroids and baseball.

Should we welcome an inquiry? Can an inquiry be avoided?

Until a few years ago the MLB players union successfully fought every possible drug-testing initiative and penalty, both for steroids and for other illegal drugs like cocaine. (Remember Steve Howe?) They had power and thought it important to flex their muscle simply because they could and because the individuals accused of course wanted to get away with it, even though their membership as a whole would have preferred testing. Then later it became in MLB's best interests to turn a blind eye towards steroids and fight Congress on the issue. It was due to those years of stonewalling that the process culminating in the Mitchell report was set into motion.

The NFL, on the other hand, has been on top of this issue for many years, testing players and frequently suspending them. So the NFL can point to that.

Yes, there are certainly NFL players getting away with it, especially with no available test for HGH. But there's nothing that can be done about that until there is a test. There's no action you can take right now which will solve that particular aspect of the problem. So a Mitchell-style report would likely simply list players the NFL has already penalized... I can't see any systematic change in the NFL it could advocate. The NFL has not in the past turned a blind eye toward the problem.

 

[patchick]

Until a few years ago the MLB players union successfully fought every possible drug-testing initiative and penalty, both for steroids and for other illegal drugs like cocaine. (Remember Steve Howe?) They had power and thought it important to flex their muscle simply because they could and because the individuals accused of course wanted to get away with it, even though their membership as a whole would have preferred testing. Then later it became in MLB's best interests to turn a blind eye towards steroids and fight Congress on the issue. It was due to those years of stonewalling that the process culminating in the Mitchell report was set into motion.

The NFL, on the other hand, has been on top of this issue for many years, testing players and frequently suspending them. So the NFL can point to that.

Yes, there are certainly NFL players getting away with it, especially with no available test for HGH. But there's nothing that can be done about that until there is a test. There's no action you can take right now which will solve that particular aspect of the problem. So a Mitchell-style report would likely simply list players the NFL has already penalized... I can't see any systematic change in the NFL it could advocate. The NFL has not in the past turned a blind eye toward the problem.

Great post, thanks. Makes sense -- the key difference isn't that one sport is "cleaner" or "dirtier," it's that one sport has made a significant effort to fight the problem while the other has gone out of its way to protect the cheaters (and thus penalize the guys who played fair.)

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think the NFL will be pulling blood for tests long before MLB does. But what the Mitchell report will do is put legitimate pressure on the players association from a congress with the power to revoke the anti-trust provisions under which the game operates. And the stigma backlash will grow, if the sports media ballwashers don't try to derail it. Felger was interviewing one of the baseball writers yesterday who voted against McGuire for the HOF. One of his arguments was that McGuire wouldn't have been considered absent steroids. He tried to claim that Roger would have or at least projected to be a HOF'er before he juiced, but in the end he backtracked and admitted that knowing now that he'd been juicing since Toronto he would not vote for him.

What both (or all) leagues need to do now is ramp up the public rhetoric against users. The NFL rule about not allowing players caught using to appear in the pro bowl was a good start. They need to pressure their advertising partners and their own NFLN to similarly shun these players as part of the process. The risks/consequences have to outweigh the reward. Create an environment where it is acknowledged that knowing what was at sake, those who chose to use did so only for limited individual personal financial gain. Hit those guys in the pocketbook, and hit the ones who crave the spotlight or lifetime laurels where it hurts them too.

 

[LiveShot]

Not at all. Any intelligent player will use HGH which is undectable, so far.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Not at all. Any intelligent player will use HGH which is undectable, so far.

I think the jury remains out on how intellegent that choice is long term. Even Rodney has said his decision was a bad one born of desperation. Not only was he cheating the game, he was potentially cheating his lifespan. I think using and abusing illegal performance inhancing drugs was a choice a lot easier to rationalize 20 years ago. With the money these guys make today, it's not about short to mid term survival any more - it's mostly ego and/or greed based decisionsmaking. And for those who begin use prior to or early on in a career, it's basically perpetrating fraud.

Until the media owns up to their role in promoting the bigger, stronger, faster athlete while turning a blind eye to how they generally achieved those goals, it will continue to be too much of a temptation for the most vulnerable - youngsters in the next generation desperate to be what the sports media salivates over.

 

[onegameatatime]

Yankees get an asterisk next to their WS wins of the 1990s.

There, NY POST, now stick that up your a**!

(BTW, Clemens wasn't a Red Sox when he started using).

How about every time Pettitte pitches, the The NY Post adds an asterisk that says "caught cheating"?

If nothing else, this should bring down the sanctimonious tone of any NY media.

 

[Rawky77]

Just my 2 cents but i know more about Mitchell then i care too. I was born and brought up in Maine and he was one of their Senators. In my observations of Mitchell he is a suit for hire with no integrity and with no loyalty except to himself and his own self importance and yes i can see him singling out Clements not because he left the Sox but because Roger refused too give Mitchell the proper respect and homage that Mitchell was in his own mind due.

Roger's refusing to meet with Mitchel was the his ultimate sin and so Mitchell in a snit devoted 8 pages in the report to prove to Roger what happens when a mere hall of fame baseball player snubs a man of Mitchell's self importance and power.

 

[onegameatatime]

Just my 2 cents but i know more about Mitchell then i care too. I was born and brought up in Maine and he was one of their Senators. In my observations of Mitchell he is a suit for hire with no integrity and with no loyalty except to himself and his own self importance and yes i can see him singling out Clements not because he left the Sox but because Roger refused too give Mitchell the proper respect and homage that Mitchell was in his own mind due.

Roger's refusing to meet with Mitchel was the his ultimate sin and so Mitchell in a snit devoted 8 pages in the report to prove to Roger what happens when a mere hall of fame baseball player snubs a man of Mitchell's self importance and power.

Seems rather harsh and without much basis.

As a former federal judge and senator, even if he were out for himself, he would not want to taint his image if it leajked that they had the goods on a big Red Sox player and left it out. I doubt he had much to gain by gratuitously dumping on Clemens or withholding a Red Sox player's name -- if anything he might look better bending over backward that way. In fact, Theo is in there in not a flattering way.

I thought he said that vertually no player met with him on the accusations, so why would Clemens be singled out?

If there's a bias, I think it would be to avoid current star players of any stripe.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Just my 2 cents but i know more about Mitchell then i care too. I was born and brought up in Maine and he was one of their Senators. In my observations of Mitchell he is a suit for hire with no integrity and with no loyalty except to himself and his own self importance and yes i can see him singling out Clements not because he left the Sox but because Roger refused too give Mitchell the proper respect and homage that Mitchell was in his own mind due.

Roger's refusing to meet with Mitchel was the his ultimate sin and so Mitchell in a snit devoted 8 pages in the report to prove to Roger what happens when a mere hall of fame baseball player snubs a man of Mitchell's self importance and power.

Minus his post Boston steroid and HgH fueled seasons, Roger isn't a HOF pitcher. His real career was in the crapper at 32. The last decade of Roger was a fraud perpetrated against baseball. Duquette was right after all - Roger Clemens was in the twilight of his career - absent performance enhancing drugs.

 

[nukin]

I was thinking the same thing.

With a workforce of men that are unhumanly strong, how long will it be before the NFL is pressured to ramp up their steroid testing, etc.?

I now they have random testing now and a handful of players get caught each year, but come on. Look at the guys on the fields. Your eyes tell you there are more than a handful of players on juice. Human beings are just not genetically built that way.

That said, I really don't even care if a guy takes juice. If he understands the risks and makes a choice as an adult, that's his business.

I wouldn't do it, but then again my livelihood is not contingent on how strong and physically dominant I can be, either.

The question is not if he is adult and wants to make the choice... taking drugs increases your chances of winning the game and adds an unfair advantage that is beyond the oppoants ability to control.

 

[Armen Da Pats Fan]

I want to move this thread. I want to move this thread bad.

But I don't want to get my anti-baseball, nothing but steriod on the sports shows since yesterday, bias in the way of having a thread remain on the main football forum page.

So help me out. Should this be moved to the Red Sox forum?

Your call, but it is kind of fluctuating back and forth between baseball and football and you do have four pages of responses, so people must want to talk about it.

Bottom line is, this is kind of the "front page" of the site. When you move something, it gets lost and buried.

You might want to keep it here for another day or two, then move it, if you want, because ultimately, it's not really hurting anyone by being here and people ARE into the topic.

 

[Mainefan]

Well, I've only lived in Maine for 32 years, but my impression of Mitchell is that he is one of the most honest, most capable public servants we've had in recent times and that his integrity is legend. Any man who can go to Northern Ireland, be accepted by both sides, and make significant progress in bringing them together deserves our admiration, I think. The fact that he was chosen to do this report even though he is a minority owner in the Red Sox speaks volumes about how he is regarded by the public.

 

[Mainefan]

Furthermore, this is a FOOTBALL thread and was always meant to be one. I don't even follow baseball.

 

[Armen Da Pats Fan]

This was a thread about the NFL, actually, until Arman da Red Sox Fan hijacked it to talk about steroids and baseball.

What? The title is "How will the Mitchell report affect the NFL?"

The Mitchell report is all about steroids and performance enhancers in baseball, is it not?

My original response states that the NFL has a testing program but I feel that players are slipping through the cracks...

The whole thing evolved on its own from there...

Be nice...

 

[Armen Da Pats Fan]

The question is not if he is adult and wants to make the choice... taking drugs increases your chances of winning the game and adds an unfair advantage that is beyond the oppoants ability to control.

Yes, I have heard that side of the argument before and it is perfectly logical, but I am just saying for whatever reason, it just doesn't bother me when I hear an athlete took juice.

In fact, to me, it almost seems like the natural thing for an athlete to do - get a hold of technology to improve themselves.

At the time these guys juiced, MLB had no rule against it.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Yes, I have heard that side of the argument before and it is perfectly logical, but I am just saying for whatever reason, it just doesn't bother me when I hear an athlete took juice.

In fact, to me, it almost seems like the natural thing for an athlete to do - get a hold of technology to improve themselves.

At the time these guys juiced, MLB had no rule against it.

You may be one of those people who sees sports as mere entertainment, then. Don't care how they arrive at the entertainment as long as it's there. Some of us would rather watch a well played game played by athletes who came by their performances honestly through talent and hard work alone, even at the expense of additional video game, highlight reel performances enhanced by artificial means.

MLB was unable for a long time to get specific rules on specific substances and appropriate punishment into their CBA until 2005 because of the Player's Association. However, they have long been illegal when purchased illicitly and without valid prescription, and baseball did have a broader policy against the use of illegal drugs dating back to Fay Vincent.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

this is a very good question and i don't think anyone really knows the answer yet. the conventional wisdom is that the nfl does a lot better job of monitoring and limiting substance abuse than mlb. but, who knows what might come up in the future.

i do know, however, that if I were a player who was fooling around with this stuff, I'd probably take this as a signal to stop...today.

 

[nukin]

You may be one of those people who sees sports as mere entertainment, then. Don't care how they arrive at the entertainment as long as it's there. Some of us would rather watch a well played game played by athletes who came by their performances honestly through talent and hard work alone, even at the expense of additional video game, highlight reel performances enhanced by artificial means.

MLB was unable for a long time to get specific rules on specific substances and appropriate punishment into their CBA until 2005 because of the Player's Association. However, they have long been illegal when purchased illicitly and without valid prescription, and baseball did have a broader policy against the use of illegal drugs dating back to Fay Vincent.

Not only that, but juicing up makes you less human. Accomplishing something while having an unfair advantage is really not accomplishing anything...