WasWatching.com

From MLBtraderumors

"I did receive one tip on this topic - my guy says the Yankees are in for a bad day (but Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera are not in the report)."

Today is probably going to suck.

As I posted yesterday, without knowing the standard of proof and the basis of knowledge for the inclusion of any particular player in the report, it's impossible to know how much credence it should be given.

Maybe this is why Andy was debating about staying home and calling it a career?
===========
Could be, but I would think if that were the case (trying to avoid controversy), he would've retired a while ago.

CNN Breaking news: ESPN2: Roger Clemens listed in report due out today naming players who used performance enhancing drugs.

Clemens...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3153129&type=story

You know, we, as a society, condemn politicians (which is what Senator Mitchell is) all the time for even the appearance of impropriety. So if we do that in the political sphere, why should we not do it here?

Of course it is going to be a rough day in the Bronx. The guy writing the freakin' thing works for and is paid by the Boston Red Sox – a city and team who's whole identity is wrapped up in hating the Yankees.

It is certainly probable that a number of Yankees received and took illegal performance enhancing drug and they should be dealt with accordingly. But let us not forget that that Senator Mitchell comes with more than just the appearance of impropriety.

I bet no major Red Sox are in the report and not because they are innocent. There will be some Sox in there – have to look like you are trying – but no one major on the same level as Clemens.

Can anyone be shocked about Clemens? Canseco fingered him in his book. And, the stories of Clemens’ “Black suit” on game days and the stuff that he rubs all over himself are out there. I just want to know if Clemens will get the same treatment in the public, media and Hall of Fame process that Barry Bonds is sure to receive…that’s one interesting comparison study.

I wont be shocked at or disappointed by any names on the list.

I am curious to see the treatment of Bonds vs Clemens, now that you mentioned it.

I am also curious to see if the Yanks are going to distance themselves from Clemens, and if so, how. Especially in the light of how his role as a mentor to Hughes & Chamberlain was played up.

~~Can anyone be shocked about Clemens?~~

No, but there will be fans in denial. That's for sure. People will talk about the Mitchell/Red Sox conspiracy and people will talk about how players didn't know they were taking steriods and how steroids were legal because testing wasn't in place, etc, etc.

We know Giambi took steroids. We know Sheffield did. We know about Grimsley and Heredia and Holmes and Lawton and Almanzar. Why not Clemens? Why not Pettitte? Nobody should be surprised by any of the names on the report.

So if we do that in the political sphere, why should we not do it here?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think that this applies here. Mitchell did not write the report in isolation; he had a large staff. In order for there to be a Red Sox cover-up, everyone on the staff would have to be a Red Sox fan and I seriously doubt that Mitchell established a committee solely composed of Red Sox fans.

This is the biggest pile of crap ever. So some trainer told Mitchell and his guys that he gave Clemens steroids. THAT'S their proof? That's all they need to wreck the image of one of the best players in baseball history? Saying you gave someone steroids is not proof of anything. Surely Clemens will deny that. So what do you have? You have a he said/he said situation. It means nothing.

Canseco did not "finger" Clemens. He suggested his late-career surge looked like a possible use of steroids.

How will they treat Bonds v. Clemens? That's a ridiculous comparison. Barry Bonds admitted to using steroids, and was explicitly involved with BALCO (plus his buddy boy was dealing steroids to many baseball players). There's a ton of paper evidence showing that Bonds clearly did steroids for a long time. What is there about Clemens? Some trainer saying he gave him steroids? You cannot even compare the two circumstances.

And listen... whether Mitchell was totally honest or not is immaterial. Conflicts of interest are not about character. If there's any possibility of not being one hundred percent objective -- say, because you receive money from a company of entity you are investigating -- that is a conflict of interest! The only way the conflict would end is if Mitchell quit from the Sox. But now he's back with them. You cannot say that the fact he gets money from the Red Sox in no way had an effect on what he did. Maybe it didn't, but we can't know, which is the definition of a conflict of interest.

As it was stated above, I seriously doubt a single current Red Sox player of any significance will be named today.

It means nothing.
===========
It means plenty in the court of public opinion. It stinks, but that's just the way it is.

Get the torches and pitchforks ready!

Pettitte and Roger can't be too big of a surprise, they were named in prior reports

Pettitte and Roger can't be too big of a surprise, they were named in prior reports
-----

Sigh. They weren't, which I seem to have to point out a million times, which is why it's so dangerous when reporters don't get their facts straight. The day after the erroneous report, both Grimsley's agent and the federal prosecutor came out to say that the report was wrong and that in fact Grimsley had said that "never in a million years" would Pettitte or Clemens do steroids.

Ok well as with most things no one read the retraction, so America is uninformed and therefore this is not as big of a shock.