I think I'll break down my opinions on the Mitchell Report into a bunch of different postings. I don't know that this was the earth-shattering document a lot of people were expecting. I think it was about what I thought we'd see...but it left me with a lot more questions than answers. I'm pretty sure there have been Mets since the mid-90's who have used steroids other than Mo Vaughn and Matt Franco (surprise there - never would have expected that). But I'll get into that more another time.
What I want to spend my time on in Part I is Roger Clemens. First of all, it seems like a lot of people are shocked he was on this list. Really? I might be shocked that he started as early as when he was in Toronto...but not shocked at all that he was there. (P.S. - Why haven't I heard anyone yet using the words, "Maybe Dan Duquette was right.....?")
I am glad Roger Clemens was named in the report mainly for one reason (though there are a lot of other reasons right behind this one)....a white player needed to be prominently featured in this report. And there were a couple. But Roger Clemens compares favorably to Barry Bonds, talent-wise.
I get so tired of hearing about the race aspect of Barry Bonds and steroids. People were saying, "If Bonds was white, he wouldn't be treated this way...." Part of the problem is that Mark McGwire fell off the face of the earth, while Bonds was still playing and was a live target - so there was no white target. (Jose Canseco goes into a separate category, because he was the whistleblower.) Well, this should now take the race issue out of it, because Clemens is getting hit from all angles. His Hall of Fame candidacy is being questioned now, and that should ease the criticism that Bonds is being singled out because he is black. And if it doesn't, or if Clemens is given a pass...then this country still has a serious problem with race, and this will become prime example number one.
A NOTE ABOUT STEROIDS: Early in the day on Thursday, an e-mail made the rounds naming a bunch of high-profile major leaguers as being mentioned in the report. A couple of the names turned out to be accurate, but most were false - because if you name enough players, you're going to hit a couple. I hate that. You could name players all day and come up with a few that are guilty....and a couple who are still guilty who weren't named in the report. While I still feel that most of the players I mentioned on the blog last week probably took steroids, I have deleted that part of the entry, because I don't like the fact that anyone can throw names around and bring down people's reputations unsubstantiated. I know I don't have a ridiculous number of readers, but I felt like taking that down was the right thing to do. I wrote that in an emotional moment, when I was ticked off about this whole steroid thing. I will continue to write about steroids, and the report, but I will keep my thoughts about who else could have/probably did take steroids to myself, and stay with what has been published.