Lessons from the Mitchell Report
A variety of thoughts on the Mitchell Report now that the dust has begun to settle:
It's interesting how apologists claimed that taking any performance-enhancing drug could not possibly help anybody hit a major-league pitch. But now the proof is in the pudding: If so many hitters used them, steroids helped plenty. In a real way, baseball, which proceeds rather leisurely, may actually be a more difficult physical sport to play than all the back-and-forth games. After all, on top of a prime athletic body, you must have the keenest hand-eye coordination, as well as an ability simply to endure six months of games, with only about three off-days a month.
The two sports are very different, but it's the day-to-day grind that makes baseball and cycling so similar, and so seductive to drug use.
It's indicative of how the entitled modern athletes ---- or at least those who cheat ---- think, so that even when they presume to apologize, they can't. Did you hear
Andy, I'm sorry, but no apology can begin with the word if.
But let's look on the bright side. The Report does give
But apropos of Messrs. Bonds and Clemens, here's a thought: Can we simply put a moratorium on Hall of Fame discussions for the next five years? Please.
For failing to cooperate with the investigation and for, at the least, tacitly encouraging players ---- even those who would be charged in the report -- not to speak to
For that matter, wouldn't it be sensible if all four major team sports in North America joined together to use the same independent drug testing organization? Same rules, same procedures, same truth.
Baseball fans have, in a way, already put the whole drug issue behind them. The controversy does not seem to have kept a single ticket-buyer away. Baseball has never thrived so.
It's part of the folklore that after the Black Sox World Series fix of 1919,