BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Baltimore Sun: Knee-Jerk Reactions to the Mitchell Report

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, December 14, 2007

Baltimore Sun: Knee-Jerk Reactions to the Mitchell Report

Thanks to David Segui’s connections to a certain Ex-Mets Batboy, the Orioles were one of the teams that came up the most in the Mitchell Report (as if having Angelos sending what was once MLB’s flagship franchises into the “laughingstock” category wasn’t bad enough). So I figured I’d check out what the Baltimore Sun’s website had to say….

3. Kudos should go to Andy MacPhail, who might have timed a trade better than just about any other executive in the game. He shipped Miguel Tejada to Houston just one day before his name surfaced on Mitchell’s report. We don’t know whether there’s any penalties attached to today’s news, but suffice to say, Tejada would’ve been tougher to move tomorrow than he was yesterday.

16. To me, that reads like the allegation against Roberts is merely second-hand, word-of-mouth information. That wouldn’t result in a conviction in a court of law and it shouldn’t result in conviction in the court of public opinion. Even if Roberts did use, if his use was limited to just a couple of times, I think fans and baseball observers could be very forgiving.

All of that said, he’s now been linked to the steroid controversy in a couple of different ways (the first was via former teammate Grimsley), so even Roberts’ own defense is probably deserving of skepticism.

20. Mitchell said: “A principle goal of this investigation is to bring to a close this troubling chapter in baseball’s history.” Has it? Not by a long shot. For better or worse, today’s release of the report will spark a whole new round of discussions.

Gamingboy Posted: December 14, 2007 at 04:02 AM | 14 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: orioles, steroids

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Bad Doctor Posted: December 14, 2007 at 02:20 PM (#2645400)

To me, that reads like the allegation against Roberts is merely second-hand, word-of-mouth information. That wouldn’t result in a conviction in a court of law and it shouldn’t result in conviction in the court of public opinion.

Again, I don't understand the downplaying of the evidence against Roberts. It's testimony from a witnesses. The testimony against Clemens is more graphic and, I guess, direct, and it gives the impression that there could be more evidence against Clemens (needles, paper trail of payment, description of birth marks on his ass, etc.), but at this time, there is no such other evidence. The evidence against Roberts isn't second hand, and, I'm forgetting my evidence class, but it's either not hearsay or it's an exception to the general inadmissibility of hearsay because it's an admission against a party's interest. Actually, I think it's two exceptions, isn't it ... one because it's an admission by the defendant, another because it's a statement that's against the interest of the declarant, regardless of whether he is the defendant or not? Litigators, can you confirm?

Even if Roberts did use, if his use was limited to just a couple of times, I think fans and baseball observers could be very forgiving.

Now, here we are. What should be downplayed is that all we've got on Roberts is that he tried it a couple times by his own admission and passed up taking it with Bigbie and Tejada on several occasions. Why question the witness, instead of just saying, if the witness is telling the truth, it's not a big deal and, given the widespread PED use in the game in the last ten years, it shouldn't make anyone think less of Roberts in the slightest?

2. DKDC Posted: December 14, 2007 at 03:26 PM (#2645480)

Again, I don't understand the downplaying of the evidence against Roberts. It's testimony from a witnesses. The testimony against Clemens is more graphic and, I guess, direct, and it gives the impression that there could be more evidence against Clemens (needles, paper trail of payment, description of birth marks on his ass, etc.), but at this time, there is no such other evidence.

What Bigbie said about Roberts might not legally be "hearsay", but I think it's pretty clear that it should carry less weight than eyewitness reports of players injecting steroids.

-No one who testified under oath in front of Mitchell ever saw Brian Roberts use or purchase a banned performance enhancer.
-The Mitchell Report presented no physical evidence tying payments from Roberts to known steroid distributors.
-No one has claimed that Brian Roberts ever tested positive for a banned performance enhancer.

I don't think you can say those three things about virtually any other player named in the report (Jack Cust being one exception).

What should be downplayed is that all we've got on Roberts is that he tried it a couple times by his own admission and passed up taking it with Bigbie and Tejada on several occasions.

Of course, the flip side is, if we believe Bigbie, we know Roberts was willing to use steroids.

In 2004, Roberts allegedly admitted to Bigbie that he had tried steroids in 2003, but he didn't have his breakthrough season until 2005. He was competing for the starting second base job with Hairston (who was using hGH), so we can't rule out that he decided to give steroids another try and stuck with them this time.

3. AROM Posted: December 14, 2007 at 03:49 PM (#2645501)

Did Brian Roberts know that his name was going to be in the report before it was issued?

If he just got the form letter and didn't think he had anything to offer (assuming Roberts was clean and not sweating bullets about somebody ratting him out) then it would have been a waste of time to talk to Mitchell.

Once Bigbie gave his story, did Mitchell contact Roberts and say "Your name came up, would you like to tell your side of the story" then Roberts should shut up now if he didn't bother to do that. But if Mitchell gave Roberts no warning, then he's the sleaze here.

4. AROM Posted: December 14, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2645517)

Apparently its Roberts who needs to shut up:

"Again, from page 158 of the report: "In order to provide Roberts with information about the allegations and to give him an opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me; he declined."

5. Dr Love Posted: December 14, 2007 at 04:03 PM (#2645527)

Again, I don't understand the downplaying of the evidence against Roberts. It's testimony from a witnesses. The testimony against Clemens is more graphic and, I guess, direct, and it gives the impression that there could be more evidence against Clemens (needles, paper trail of payment, description of birth marks on his ass, etc.), but at this time, there is no such other evidence.

6. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: December 14, 2007 at 04:04 PM (#2645529)

Put case Roberts is clean but has observed a lot of dirty stuff going on. Mitchell calls him up, says Larry Bigbie has named him as a user. Like to talk? IOW, like to turn Bigbie?

It's a really rough situation. Cooperating with Mitchell turns you into a snitch, especially given Mitchell's delight with printing stray accusations. Clamming up if you're dirty leads to a presumption of guilt from many quarters, and clamming up when you're clean turns you into Buck Weaver. This is the mother of all no-win situations for a ballplayer, and I am not surprised that so few talked to Mitchell.

7. Chris Hansen, NBC Dateline Posted: December 14, 2007 at 04:07 PM (#2645533)

It's a really rough situation. Cooperating with Mitchell turns you into a snitch, especially given Mitchell's delight with printing stray accusations. Clamming up if you're dirty leads to a presumption of guilt from many quarters, and clamming up when you're clean turns you into Buck Weaver. This is the mother of all no-win situations for a ballplayer, and I am not surprised that so few talked to Mitchell.

This needs to be stickied to the top of every Mitchell Report discussion.

8. DKDC Posted: December 14, 2007 at 04:07 PM (#2645534)

In order to provide Roberts with information about the allegations and to give him an opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me; he declined.

That's a very carefully worded statement.

He asked Roberts to meet with him "in order to provide Roberts with information about the allegations", which means that Mitchell probably did not give Roberts any information about the allegations.

It could mean, in fact, that Mitchell didn't even tell Roberts that there were specific allegations against him, and Roberts declined just like virtually every other active major leaguer.

9. WhoWantsTeixeiraDessert Posted: December 14, 2007 at 04:13 PM (#2645545)

Has Roberts actually commented? I don't see a big problem in his NOT responding to an offhand quote he might not remember saying. It sounds like he would not be given the information unless he agreed to be questioned. Ratting out your roommate and friend... it's not even as though there's a fear of blacklisting here. These guys are worse than Elia Kazan.

10. sunnyday2 Posted: December 14, 2007 at 04:15 PM (#2645546)

I don't know if "knee jerk" means or at least implies hypocritical. But how hypocritical is it that the Sun wants to bash Tejada and exonerate Roberts. Sounds to me like a knee jerk baseball writer at work.

11. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 14, 2007 at 04:24 PM (#2645561)

Apparently its Roberts who needs to shut up:

Yeah, because the fact that he might have said to Larry Bigbie 3 years ago that he tried steroids once or twice is an allegation worth defending yourself from. How many times on this website have we shown that ballplayers can get ALL the facts wrong about important games they played in? And now we're going to pretend that Larry Bigbie's memory of a two sentence long conversation is worth responding to? Get real.

Add it to the fact that Roberts lived with two active users and never tried the drug, according Bigbie's own testimony, only strengthens the likelihood that Bigbie is full of #### in regards to the later conversation.

There's also nothing to suggest that if the conversation happened, that Roberts wasn't just blowing smoke up Bigbie's ass to get him off his case about using. "Yeah, I tried it once or twice" sounds exactly like the kind of thing someone would say to lay that kind of issue to rest.

12. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: December 14, 2007 at 04:31 PM (#2645571)

That's a very carefully worded statement.

He asked Roberts to meet with him "in order to provide Roberts with information about the allegations", which means that Mitchell probably did not give Roberts any information about the allegations.

It could mean, in fact, that Mitchell didn't even tell Roberts that there were specific allegations against him, and Roberts declined just like virtually every other active major leaguer.

That's a good point. In fact, Mitchell almost certainly wouldn't tell him about the allegations in advance so as not to give Roberts an opportunity to think about his response/defense. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Roberts was blindsided by the report yesterday (which is not to say that he didn't use).

There's also nothing to suggest that if the conversation happened, that Roberts wasn't just blowing smoke up Bigbie's ass to get him off his case about using. "Yeah, I tried it once or twice" sounds exactly like the kind of thing someone would say to lay that kind of issue to rest.

Also a good point.

13. Bad Doctor Posted: December 14, 2007 at 04:43 PM (#2645582)

With Clemens we have someone who (claims to have) participated in it. With Roberts, we have what could be an equivalent to "Pot? I tried it a couple times, didn't like it" which doesn't make anyone a pothead.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. It's the magnitude of the alleged sin that's the difference, not the quality of the testimony. And I'm optimistic that most rational-thinking fans will appreciate that. But, if this were a trial charging ballplayers with steroid use, Bigbie's testimony would be allowed, and if I were on the jury, I would want to hear it confronted or rebuffed in some manner. If it wasn't, would it be enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't think so ... but I don't think the testimony against Clemens would be enough to convict him either.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, December 14, 2007

Baltimore Sun: Knee-Jerk Reactions to the Mitchell Report

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics