Mitchell Report Reactions

I'm not a journalist and so am reluctant to offer the "instant analysis" demanded by media outlets. But with the phone ringing off the hook, coupled with my general reluctance to respond to media requests, I thought I'd put a couple of thoughts here on the blog. Take this instant analysis for what it's worth (which is about what you're paying to read this). I'll write something more meaningful down the road. But here are my first thoughts, after the jump.

1. Mitchell's repeated admonition to the Commissioner, the media and fans to "look forward" and not back is both naive and wrong. It's naive because this search for truth is meaningful to everybody: it involves recent events, salient players, and something that matters a lot to sports fans. The Mitchell report, which relies a lot on non-testing evidence, only begins this search; the report's broad claims about a past "steroid era" hardly satisfies legitimate curiosity. The report's admonition is also wrong: you don't tell someone shocked by bad news your prescription for preventing recurrences. The aim of the report (I thought) was to expose the past, not make it irrelevant. Ignore the report's prescriptions, most of which are described in general terms and are subject to collective bargaining. The focus of our attention should be on baseball's immediate past.

2. The report names a lot of players; presumably many more are involved. At some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in and we no longer care. (Is Barry Bonds all that bad of a guy now that we know how widespread was the abuse?) What comes to mind is Jose Canseco's book (Juiced) which I recently read. Clearly Canseco's public image has moved from pariah to prophet. Canseco, who by his own claim more or less introduced supplements to major league baseball, casually suggested eighty percent of players used. Mitchell insisted in his press conference that the abusers were "a minority" of players; what if Canseco (again) is proved correct? What if entire teams had rosters nearly full of players using enhancements? We can be pretty sure as we sit here today that entire competitions in some sports, such as track and field, were heavily populated with dopers. Were the events less enjoyable? Are we fans of competition, or fans of "drug-free" competition? I'm not suggesting an answer at this point, but baseball's huge popularity in the midst of widespread knowledge of baseball's steroid culture does call into question the basis for legal (and private) prohibitions of performance enhancers. There is some evidence that, in mature adults, human growth hormone is a medically safe treatment that promotes healthy living. If that proves true, look for baseball's rules to change, and soon.

3. A lot of the on-air commentary so far has expressed concern with the report's reliance on "non-analytical positives," instead of drug-testing results. Such non-testing evidence includes matters that the law would describe as "hearsay" and "circumstantial," and that in total sum amounts to a quantum of proof that would be less than compelling in a court of law. But so what? This is not a court of law; the Mitchell report is essentially an act of journalism, a public statement in the form of a grand press release. Hearsay is considered and relied on in virtually all walks of life. (What is the media, except a large dose of hearsay?) The Mitchell report's evidence is some proof: not enough to satisfy the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of a criminal case, but still proof. It's worth something. It would not be enough for a criminal conviction. But the Commissioner's office, in meting out discipline, is not required to adhere to that most stringent standard. Selig may impose sanctions at his discretion.

4. As far as discipline is concerned, too many players are involved, too many records, too many trophies. Can't unscramble this egg. Declare an amnesty on all past violations, draw a line in the sand as of this date, and punish all future users severely. Or better, given the evidence of widespread usage, reconsider baseball's prohibition. Regulation instead of prohibition might be the prudent course of action.

5. And by the way, all this talk about "hearsay" (I'm watching ESPN) is incorrect. Most of the evidence in the report is not hearsay. When a player asks a trainer to order him some steroids, the player's statement is not hearsay. (It is a party admission specifically exempted from the definition of hearsay.) When a player writes a check for steroid purchases, the cleared check is not hearsay (it's a business record, assuming a foundation could be laid, which would be easy.) When a trainer states he supplied or injected a player with drugs, it's not hearsay (the statement is that of a co-conspirator, and thus is exempted from the definition of hearsay). Little of this report is hearsay; for the most part, the report consists of valid evidence. The only question about the report is whether or not the (valid) evidence it gathers is sufficient to conclude the named player actually used illicit enhancements. It's a question of the weight of the evidence, not its validity.