Reply #17: Defend Against What?

[KharmaTrain]

He didn't specify any action against players or specifically said that a player used steroids...if you read his report the names cited are from documents he obtained as part of his investigation. Can and will people tie the two together...probably...but then, the evidence is there for you to read. If there's a dispute, it's with the documents, not with Mitchell.

Baseball is a private industry...not a public trust (despite its trust-exempt status...which should be removed) and the league sets the conditions of their employ, just like other companies do. If there were no specific laws against steroid use or that there was no direct evidence of "jucing", the players have a union that will take up their case (and be assured there's no union that stands up for players more than the Players Union). The bottom line is the Balco trial showed not only was there a problem, but there were illegal acts that went on...the Union will have problems in defending those who broke the law.

Personally, baseball's hands aren't clean on this mess. I'm convinced the league knew there was something going on and looked the other way. A lot of the "jucing" happened in the wake of the '94-'95 strike...baseball needed to "win" back the fans and home runs brought them back and I don't think Bud Selig was bitching too much when that was happening. A pox on all their houses.

Lastly, being from Chicago and I know Sosa's name wasn't on this list, but it's been long reported that he was one of the bigger "juicers"...and his massive home run totals were proof. While that may be the case, the bottom line was the Cubbies never really benefitted from those homers...many were one-run shots or when the game was already decided. Bonds sure didn't take home any World Series rings from his juicing either.

Be assured if a player is falsely accused they won't sit still. Most of them not only have the money, but also lawyers and agents who won't hesitate to sue.