Seriously do we need for players to come out and give their admittance or denials for the Mitchell Report. You're in there for a reason; most of us, maybe not people from West Virginia, have the ability to read. The ability to read allows us to come to the conclusion that you did something, but we should be intelligent enough to know that you're not the only one. And yet the comments have been pooring in this past week.The people who come out and admit to the usage (Pettite, Roberts, Vina) always have one caveat. I only took it for so many times and then I realized it wasn't for me. Or I took it so that I could heal and be on the team. Or in Vina's case he didn't take steroids because that's not what type of player he was. Cause being able to hit hard line drives instead of soft liners doesn't make a difference in baseball. Hell in Roberts' case everyone was damning the Mitchell Report for including him and for some reason he felt obliged to concur with the report and not ride the wave of sympathy.
My favorite comments are the ones made by players who think this justifies their stats (Mike Sweeney). "I wasn't in the Mitchell Report so I'm obviously not a steroid user." No Mike all it means is that you didn't get your HGH or steroids from either Kirk Radomski or BALCO. I'm not saying you did or did not take steroids, I'm just saying that the Mitchell Report far from clears anyone from suspicion of guilt.
And last but certainly not least is the blanket denial. There are shipments to your house or people saying that they stuck needles in your ass or your workout partner just admitted to usage however you never even touched the stuff. Come on, why would we believe any of this. If you ordered HGH or Steroids we're supposed to believe that you not once tried the substances. Or we're supposed to believe that Radomski who has nothing to gain from lying is lying solely about you but nobody else. Give me a break.
You know what kind of comments you should make? The comment of lack of acknowledgment. When someone asks you a question about the Mitchell Report just say how meaningless it was. Criticize the lack of depth of the report, criticize the fact that they uncovered only one new source that the public did not already have knowledge of. Don't give the stupid blanket rejection or the caveat laden admittance. And if you were not mentioned in the Report please don't see it as an opportunity to 'clear' your name you will just look like more of an idiot by actually acknowledging this joke of an investigation.
Comments