Could there have been pine tar in his popcorn?

Note: I say that as someone who has the screen name that I have.

Donnelly: "I thought that Georgie would keep me out of there. Guess I should have re-signed."

Seriously, I think it's a conflict of interest for an exective from the Red Sox to spearhead this probe. I have no doubt that Mitchell is a capable man, and little doubt that he was as impartial as he could be. But appearance of conflict is just as bad as conflict in a PR sense. And I think it's a conflict of interest for Gammons not to report that in blaring red letters in this particular piece.

Of course, history will remember Selig for the steroid era, longer playoffs, and his own conflicts of interest.

#2 -

Mitchell was actually never a Red Sox "executive" and never played any sort of role with the ball club other than being listed as a director for a period. This is the most overblown thing. He's had mininal connections with the Red Sox.

So wait though, you actually think this was a conflict of interest, or you think there is an appearance of a conflict of interest? Are you worried about the integrity of the report or the PR?

Peronally, I think neither is an issue.

Brendan Donnelly is 36 years old and coming off Tommy John surgery. He fought his way to the big leagues through independent leagues, seven days as pitching coach of the Nashua Pride and one time throwing a brushback pitch that knocked down a woman on the opposing team in an Indy League in West Virginia.

In other words, a guy fighting to make it to the majors and thus could be looking for any advantage he can get.

So wait though, you actually think this was a conflict of interest, or you think there is an appearance of a conflict of interest? Are you worried about the integrity of the report or the PR?

Only the second. I'm sorry if it read the other way. I think there's a miniscule (but non-zero) chance of an actual conflict of interest on Mitchell's part. But there's a reason that sometimes an Attorney General appoints an independent council - it isn't that the AG is corrupt, it's that no matter what his decision, there's going to be an appearance of impropriety there.

Mitchell was actually never a Red Sox "executive" and never played any sort of role with the ball club other than being listed as a director for a period. This is the most overblown thing. He's had mininal connections with the Red Sox.

I disagree. That noted aluminum-foil hat crazy website (ESPN.com) has a huge story about Mitchell's conflict of interest, which includes:

For the four years leading up to his role with the current steroids inquiry -- from 2002 to 2006 -- Mitchell was being paid by the Red Sox. During the course of his investigation, Mitchell hasn't been able to avoid the suspicions aroused by that fact.
...
Clarke and Lucchino both said Mitchell's return to the Red Sox following the investigation includes a return to the payroll. One general manager said that he did not believe Mitchell would implicate a high-profile Red Sox player in his report.
...
"Did he get a ring?" asked one team executive about Mitchell following Boston's World Series sweep of Colorado. "The kids who park cars at Fenway Park got rings, so you have to think he'll get one."
...
ESPN Story which includes a picture of Mitchell at the "meet the new owners" 2001 press conference

I can't get payroll figures, but I am very sure that Mitchell made far, far more in four years as a high-level official with the Sox than I've made in my ten-year career. And if I were investigating my company, I'd recuse myself.

It was not the first time Mitchell would have a financial stake in a baseball team. At the same time he joined the Red Sox, Mitchell was a member of the board of directors of the Walt Disney Co., the parent company of the Anaheim Angels and eventual 2002 World Series champions. Mitchell was chairman of the board of Disney, parent company of EPSN, from 2004-06.

It looks like Mitchell was my boss for two years also.

That's a helluvan article, by the way. I'm shocked that it didn't get posted here.

As I understood it Mitchell's inclusion as part of the "ownership" was mostly PR/and an attempt by the Sox owners to ingratiate themselves with Bud(if youll recall there were many allegations of fixing the bidding for the Sox so that the Henry group would win). Mitchell has stated that he has never actually had any duties with the team, too. Ive always read it as him just lending his name and credibility.

But I guess youre right... that would present a CoI, really. I actually wasnt aware he was paid. Im wrong then... although I still seriously doubt the results are tainted I do think it was somewhat improper for him to take this job...

Its a typical problem in the legal world, which is self policing essentially, with Bar associations governing the profession. The problem is that only those with an intimate knowledge of how the system works are qualified to make decisions regarding ethics and CoI issues... unfortunately 99% of the time those people have their own conflict of interest issues when making those decision. The alternative is to go outside and find someone who is a complete baseball outsider with no connections in the sport... the downside to that is whomever they choose to fit that profile will not have the connections Mitchell does and therefore wont be able to do the job nearly as well. Catch 22

(if youll recall there were many allegations of fixing the bidding for the Sox so that the Henry group would win)

This is in the article as well:

But from the beginning, the Red Sox sale was a particularly sensitive issue for Selig. The commissioner was accused of engineering the $660 million Red Sox transaction to the Henry group, while various other competitors to buy the Red Sox, such as HBO and CableVision founder Charles Dolan, believed the Henry group's bid had not been the highest. Dolan reportedly believed he had outbid Henry by nearly $100 million, and a bid by Miles Prentice was said to be the highest, at $755 million. Selig denied any involvement in managing the sale of the team or that he favored Henry, who had owned the Florida Marlins, or Werner, who endured a turbulent experience as owner of the San Diego Padres during the early 1990s when baseball was embroiled in a rift between large- and small-market franchises. Selig, who was fond of Werner, watched the bitterly divided owners push Werner out of the game in 1993 and told him he would run a team again one day.

In the days following the sale, Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly announced an investigation of the transaction on the grounds that the Yawkey Trust, the charitable foundation that held the team following the 1992 death of Jean Yawkey, was entitled to the highest bid. Reilly threatened a lawsuit against the Red Sox and Major League Baseball, depending on his findings. The Boston Globe, which holds a 17-percent stake in the Red Sox through its ownership by the New York Times Company, referred to Henry's purchase as "a bag job." The Boston Herald called the sale, "the fix." Ultimately, Reilly did not take legal action after the Henry ownership group agreed to increase its charitable contribution to the Yawkey Trust.

That's old history, though. If the heist is over for longer than five years, complaining about it counts as "whining", IMO.

the downside to that is whomever they choose to fit that profile will not have the connections Mitchell does and therefore wont be able to do the job nearly as well. Catch 22

Bob Costas, though he is hated here, would have been an independent choice. Do you think they could have backed the money truck up to former Supreme Court Justice Sandy O'Conner's house? I'm equally sure that there are dozens of former Senators who were available to run this investigation who don't have the taint of longstanding associations in the game.

Where is the Gagne trash-job article?

DAMMIT

He ain't an icon carved out of soap, he's fought for every penny he's earned". Ok, I'll buy that. But will Gammons tell us what major league player has not fought for every dollar he's earned? Even a 300 pound tub of goo like David Wells has fought back from arm surgery in his younger days and a back problem in 2001.

I'm equally sure that there are dozens of former Senators who were available to run this investigation who don't have the taint of longstanding associations in the game.

Think of Selig as a reclusive MMORPG fanatic with MLB as his game, where he is a very mighty character indeed. He would have a hard time relating to anybody who isn't in the game and who wouldn't pay the proper respect to his greatness.

I'm equally sure that there are dozens of former Senators who were available to run this investigation who don't have the taint of longstanding associations in the game.

But it wasnt Mitchell's being a former senator that qualified him for the job as much as the fact that he knew his way around MLB and could get things done...

It was exactly his longstanding associations in the game that especially qualified him, as well as assured that he would get the most done.

I agree with TVerik, I think we need a Giuliani report to balance out the Mitchell Report.

The part about the past associations, I understand. I still think it's a Conflict, but I understand. But right after doing this report, he's scheduled to return to Red Sox payroll? This bothers me.

If "Mitchell the investigator" were the guy to partially diminish the franchise's value by calling the last two championships into question, I can't believe that would not influence "Mitchell the Sox employee" in the near future in any way.

I repeat the quote:

One general manager said that he did not believe Mitchell would implicate a high-profile Red Sox player in his report.

You can't have this. Even if untrue, this colors all perceptions of the fullness and impartiality of the investigation.

#13 -

I thought Rudy cheered for the Sox in the World Series?

He's out.

Get off Donnelly's back. I think lots of players call clubhouse guys on other teams when they have a nosebleed.

That's a helluvan article, by the way. I'm shocked that it didn't get posted here.

It did.

Personally, I took the "icon of soap" thing as a veiled shot at Mr. Clean.

With that build, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if he were using. Probably got 'em from Mr. Brawny. They've worked together in the past...

D'oh! Thanks, Greg. I missed that.

Are there any remaining 1995 replacement players left in the Majors? I belive Donnelly was one of them.

Are there any remaining 1995 replacement players left in the Majors? I belive Donnelly was one of them.


Kevin F Millar

Erik - I agree with your overall point (the appearance of a conflict is itself bad enough, a point Howard Bryant made well), but two points that I think are wrong:

(1) Mitchell's pay as a Red Sox. The Man is a millionaire many times over - he is on the masthead of one of the largest law firms in the world and headed the post Eisner Disney board. His salary as a Red Sox does not cause him to be beholden. It causes a poor appearance, yes, but does not lead to a strong inference of non-independence.

(2) Not every article that ever talks about the MR and the Red Sox needs to mention the appearance of a conflict, does it? I suppose one could take the position that it does - but that just makes boring journalism, to me.

The commissioner was accused of engineering the $660 million Red Sox transaction to the Henry group, while various other competitors to buy the Red Sox, such as HBO and CableVision founder Charles Dolan, believed the Henry group's bid had not been the highest. Dolan reportedly believed he had outbid Henry by nearly $100 million,

I of course remember the bid rigging allegations, but I did not remember Dolan was one of the higher bids. The Sox really escaped that one, didn't they?

(1) Mitchell's pay as a Red Sox. The Man is a millionaire many times over - he is on the masthead of one of the largest law firms in the world and headed the post Eisner Disney board. His salary as a Red Sox does not cause him to be beholden. It causes a poor appearance, yes, but does not lead to a strong inference of non-independence.

Well, technically speaking, he's not "on the masthead," but he is one of the directors of the firm.

I think one thing that many folks are conveniently overlooking is that it isn't as if Mitchell is doing all the work himself. He's probably not even doing most of the work -- Charlie Scheeler is the partner that is doing most of the gruntwork, along with a team of other partners and associates, plus outside consultants, etc. Mitchell himself said at the press conference that he only really dove into this intensely in the last few months.

I seriously doubt that Mitchell could (much less did) give any hints to the rest of DLA that the Red Sox should be given more lenient treatment. (FWIW, Scheeler is a Baltimore attorney anyway.)

(1) Mitchell's pay as a Red Sox. The Man is a millionaire many times over - he is on the masthead of one of the largest law firms in the world and headed the post Eisner Disney board. His salary as a Red Sox does not cause him to be beholden. It causes a poor appearance, yes, but does not lead to a strong inference of non-independence.

As I said above, the really troublesome aspect to me is that there's strong indications (Luccino himself said this) that Mitchell will return to the Sox after the report is completed. Whether or not you think that his past financial status is an indicator that he's "uncorruptable" (a point, by the way, with which I disagree completely - I have no idea what his net worth is today, and I've heard of plenty of guys who had more money than Mitchell likely ever did who pissed it away. Think MC Hammer would drop his pants for food?)

(2) Not every article that ever talks about the MR and the Red Sox needs to mention the appearance of a conflict, does it? I suppose one could take the position that it does - but that just makes boring journalism, to me.

My position is that it should. Paraphrasing Joe Dimaggio, perhaps a first-time reader is unfamiliar with the underlying facts. He has just as much of a right to know as anyone else.

I think one thing that many folks are conveniently overlooking is that it isn't as if Mitchell is doing all the work himself. He's probably not even doing most of the work -- Charlie Scheeler is the partner that is doing most of the gruntwork, along with a team of other partners and associates, plus outside consultants, etc. Mitchell himself said at the press conference that he only really dove into this intensely in the last few months.

I seriously doubt that Mitchell could (much less did) give any hints to the rest of DLA that the Red Sox should be given more lenient treatment. (FWIW, Scheeler is a Baltimore attorney anyway.)

To the first point, what does Mitch bring to the investigation, then? If he is there to add credibility, it's my position that he was remarkably unsuited for that job.

To the second one, I doubt it as well. But if Bud had appointed a different lead investigator, no one would have blinked when no current Red Sox were named in it. Were the Sox the only team to avoid that fate?

Former public servants with unimpeachable reputations like Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, and that guy who hid money in the freezer would have been available then too. And a bit of a stretch would include Bill Clinton and even Gerald Ford (thought that may not have ended well).

To the first point, what does Mitch bring to the investigation, then? If he is there to add credibility, it's my position that he was remarkably unsuited for that job.

It's one thing to observe that he's directing the investigation; it's quite another to say that he's doing the majority of the work or would have the chutzpah to direct that the investigation be slanted in a particular way.

There were probably dozens, perhaps hundreds of people working on the project. If Mitchell were to imply that the Red Sox should be treated with kid gloves, isn't it likely that that would be come out? Furthermore, why would Mitchell risk all the accomplishments and credibility he's developed as an US Attorney, federal judge, and accomplished Senator just for that?

When he said that he was given similar/more scrutiny in his work with Northern Ireland, I believe it. I also agree with him that he should be judged on the (lack of) quality of the work itself, not by some conspiracy speculation and conjecture.

As to your final point, the Red Sox did have both Donnelly and Gagne named, but there were lots of teams that had no current members named --

Rays
White Sox
Royals
Braves
Phillies
Cubs
Pirates
Dodgers
Padres
D-Backs

I may be missing some; this is just at first glance.

Are there any remaining 1995 replacement players left in the Majors? I belive Donnelly was one of them.

Matt Herges, who was also named in the report.

DJF, to be as clear as I can be, I'm NOT accusing Mitchell of untoward behavior here. I didn't (and won't) read the report, so I'm not even going to try to question his investigative skills.

Mitchell was a working attorney for about twenty years. He knows full well about appearance of CoI, and has probably seen judge after judge recuse themselves when there's even a whiff there. 99% of them (charitably) would likely have judged the case on the merits anyway, but stepping down was the right thing to do.

I'll leave judging Mitchell to others. But appointing Mitchell was a CoI problem in a sport and by a commissioner besieged by CoI problems.

The point of this whole thing is to bring the "era" to a close in as unimpeachable fashion as possible. If this is the case, then I think that the lead investigator should be as free and clear of the mess as possible.

Are there any remaining 1995 replacement players left in the Majors? I belive Donnelly was one of them.

Ron Mahay was another. Know your scabs!

Hey Wok, today's Boston Globe notes column has the Brewers GM expressing embarrassment over the Gagne signing, following his inclusion in the Mitchell report. Ha, ha. [/nelson]

The point of this whole thing is to bring the "era" to a close in as unimpeachable fashion as possible. If this is the case, then I think that the lead investigator should be as free and clear of the mess as possible.

I understand, and actually agree to a large extent.

Are there any remaining 1995 replacement players left in the Majors? I belive Donnelly was one of them.

You are correct

Damian Miller
Ron Mahay
Brendan Donnelly
Matt Herges
Kevin Millar
Frank Menechino(only AAA this year)
Lou Merloni(only AAA this year)
Jamie Walker

Comprehensive list of replacement players: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_replacement_players

Speaking as the guy who added about half of those players to that list, it's not even close to comprehensive. Still working on it, though.

From the article:

Here is Donnelly's statement: "In 2004, I was having multiple physical problems and was concerned about not getting back on the field for even close to the level I had experienced. I made a phone call to Radomski. We discussed Anavar.

"Upon learning that Anavar was classified as a steroid, I realized that was not an option. That was the end of it. Yes, I called him. But I did not purchase or receive anything from him. I never took Deca or Anavar. I do want to fully support the testing program of Major League Baseball, and I support wider testing."

Of course, the Report does not claim Donnelly bought Anavar, but that he bought $250-$300 worth of Deca-Durabolin. However, there is no documentation of such a purchase, or even documentation of any purchase.

2004 was the season that mandatory testing began, so it is likely (certain?) that Donnelly was tested at some point during that season. The SF Chronicles writers claim that Greg Anderson had warned Jason Giambi off of Deca, as it stays in the system for a long time.

Obviously, the testing program is imperfect. But the evidence against Donnelly seems to fall somewhere between Brian Roberts and Paul Lo Duca on the scale of comprehensiveness.