Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Friday, December 14, 2007 |
The Best Thing I've Read So Far On The Mitchell Report
The best thing I've read so far on the Mitchell Report (PDF, all 6.48 MB of it) has been from the Register's columnist, Mark Whicker:
If you can ignore the fact that there were no cross examinations, no subpoenas, no testimony under oath, no interaction between accuser and accused, no advance notice to the accused and no hard evidence whatsoever in most cases, the Mitchell Report certainly made its point.The Mitchell Report is a grab bag of slander, possible truths, and a splashy list of players designed to cow the MLBPA into surrendering even more of their constitutional rights. Written by a Red Sox board member, its bias is immediately suspect. It's political grandstanding at its lowest; if the point was to get Congress to back off, it's backfired, because now the Congress wants a second helping of self-righteousness that won't hurt anybody but a few millionaire athletes.But then its point had nothing to do with actual due process, because we don't really need that anymore, now do we? Check with assorted Duke lacrosse players and Whitewater defendants.
No, the Mitchell Report was all about Major League Baseball trying to cover the cracks through which all the steroids fell.
Labels: drugs, stupid ideas
Comments:
Rob, I'm as skeptical as the next guy (probably more so) and my disdain, no, make that contempt for all the sanctimonious hand-wringing about the steroid issue knows no limits; nevertheless, there's a lot in the Mitchell report that is fairly damning. Do you really think all those guys who wrote checks were just making their contribution for someone's birthday cake? It's a known fact that use of PEDs was rampant in MLB. I'll bet dollars to donuts that there isn't a single viable libel or slander suit that could come out of this thing.
It's one thing if they have actual evidence, and so hooray for them, in the limited sense that I actually give a damn (which I don't), but some of the charges are just based on one guy's say-so.
In a lot of instances, one is all it takes. And really, all these players had an opportunity to speak with Mitchell's investigators, but declined to avail themselves of an opportunity to clear their names or correct any inaccuracies.
When the point was to make as big a splash as possible, the usual rules of evidence not applying, and the persecuting attorney ^W^W investigator having decided to cast as wide a net as possible beforehand, what would you do?
What would I do? I'd go with my attorney and sing until I lost my voice. It's always better to go on the offensive. Get my version of facts out there first. Then, I'd go public, own it, and apologize. I'd be lauded for my honesty, and ultimately forgiven. And if I had nothing to hide, I would be even more pro-active.
Where were the owners? Sitting in their luxury boxes, observing with glee that as their players ballooned to cartoon-like caricatures, so did their revenues. Clearly they knew, and didn't have much of a problem with it.
A pox on all of them.
Again, I'd like to see one owner just come out & fess up: yeah, we knew it was going on, that's just how it was.
A pox on all of them.
Again, I'd like to see one owner just come out & fess up: yeah, we knew it was going on, that's just how it was.
Rob, I have NEVER agreed more strongly with one of your posts. What a complete waste of time and money, with the only tangible outcome being a few destroyed reputations that can never be rebuilt - and for what???
In both civil and criminal cases, the testimony of a witness (even one) is actual, tangible evidence. If the trier of fact determines the testimony to be credible, it can satisfy both the standard in civil and criminal cases. It is not uncommon for a civil or criminal case to be brought based on and decided solely on witness testimony. We may have liked to see additional evidence to support the charges, but given that Mitchell had no power to subpoena power to compel witness testimony and the production of documents, it's not surprising that few people or entities who likely had relevant information cooperated. And, as long as we're making analogies to civil and criminal cases, it's worth noting that if a civil defendant doesn't show up to defend against the allegations in the complaint, default judgment is the likely result with the allegations deemed admitted.
I agree that the whole process is unsettling and less than satisfying because of its unusual and unfamiliar nature. But I think the best analogy is with a newspaper or magazine investigation. (I, as an attorney, have more power to compel testimony and documentary evidence in a civil case than Mitchell's team did in its investigation.) Sure, the evidence against most of the named players falls short of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even a "preponderance of evidence," but is the evidence is surely strong enough to report in an article. We live with different standards of established "truth" in our society--one for criminal punishment, a handful for civil damages/relief, and many other ones we run across everyday.
The statements regarding some of the named players in the report may be unfair and inaccurate, but I don't think that Mitchell can be blamed for that if the players were given a chance to refute or explain the evidence. In fact, they continue to have the opportunity to do just that now. It's not too much to expect innocent players to cooperate in an investigation of the facts. There is no constitutional right to hide the truth or to lie--only one against self-incrimination.
The Mitchell investigation and report may be unfair to the players, but any unfairness has nothing to do with civil, criminal, or constitutional due process.
I agree that the whole process is unsettling and less than satisfying because of its unusual and unfamiliar nature. But I think the best analogy is with a newspaper or magazine investigation. (I, as an attorney, have more power to compel testimony and documentary evidence in a civil case than Mitchell's team did in its investigation.) Sure, the evidence against most of the named players falls short of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even a "preponderance of evidence," but is the evidence is surely strong enough to report in an article. We live with different standards of established "truth" in our society--one for criminal punishment, a handful for civil damages/relief, and many other ones we run across everyday.
The statements regarding some of the named players in the report may be unfair and inaccurate, but I don't think that Mitchell can be blamed for that if the players were given a chance to refute or explain the evidence. In fact, they continue to have the opportunity to do just that now. It's not too much to expect innocent players to cooperate in an investigation of the facts. There is no constitutional right to hide the truth or to lie--only one against self-incrimination.
The Mitchell investigation and report may be unfair to the players, but any unfairness has nothing to do with civil, criminal, or constitutional due process.
Wow, an official-ish document in which the testimony of one man amounts to a guilty sentence. That's the prosecution trying the case in the court of public opinion.
Rob, you keep mentioning "guilty" and "prosecution" yet this report contained neither. This was an independent investigation by a private law firm. I find it interesting that the same people who question the "due process" of the report at the same time bring former Senator Mitchell's independence into question, with I might add, a lot less reason. Much of the information (note I don't use the term evidence, as this is not a court) was obtained from people who were legally (in a real court) obligated to tell the Mitchell investigation the truth, or be legally liable per their plea agreements. There are several teams that had no current players mentioned, but everyone is focused on the fact there are no current Red Sox. I'm like you, I really don't care. What I would like to see is lawsuits. If you are said in the report to have been taking PEG and you really did not file a suit asap. You mention a wide net. I actually find it more interesting the number of people involved based on such a NARROW net. How many names do you think would be in the report if they had all of the trainers, doctors, and conditioning coaches from every single team since 1996 under penalty of perjury? Currently, these guys mentioned in the report are guilty of nothing other than being mentioned in the report, so it is hard to feel sorry for them without any information to the contrary.
Kudos Rob. You devoted about a 50 word editorial on it. Poster Ron nailed too.
one can be summariaed as Donld Duck would say - "What's the big idea?"
Actullay, my own comment is three letters - BFD.
Again kudos for Rob for basically ignorning this nonsense and please continue to just post the relevant.
Ps and Cs report in 2 months.
one can be summariaed as Donld Duck would say - "What's the big idea?"
Actullay, my own comment is three letters - BFD.
Again kudos for Rob for basically ignorning this nonsense and please continue to just post the relevant.
Ps and Cs report in 2 months.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.