I don't think the GMs have much reason to worry. GMs condoning steroid use isn't sexy enough, and we all know that that's what's driving the investigation.

i like this part:

Jose Canseco, whose 2005 book, "Juiced," prompted the seminal March 17, 2005, congressional hearings, told ESPN.com that he has not been contacted by Mitchell.

sheesh.

(EDIT: great summary of things. the process was hampered by insufficient access, and not trying to solve the problem, but get something which looks nice for a report. it reminded me SO much of when i'd have to deal from a techie end with federal or international auditors, who weren't trying to 'help' the company, but produce some gotcha! moments. this sounds the same. forget about the solution, just get a report).

I first read the headline as "Friction and Erections".

I first read the headline as "Friction and Erections"

*rest of Primates slowly move away from AJM*

It's an interesting piece. Take it with a pile of salt since so much of it is anonymous, but the parts that we can verify do match what we know. It's a long piece, but worth reading as a preface to the actual report. Assuming it's true, the telling parts are not exactly surprising:

* MLB is trying to pin everything on powerless people.

* The point isn't actually to find out anything about steroids, but to create a report that is sufficient to appease the fascists in Congress, which means that truth is less important than lists of names. According to the article, interviewees were told to guess who was using so that Mitchell could create those lists.

* Other than Radomski, they've got basically nothing. Players didn't talk at all. Personnel like trainers didn't say much, because for them to admit they knew stuff would put them on the hot seat.

* The investigation was incompetent, because the people didn't really understand the issues, so they asked stupid questions.

* Different teams were treated differently, and they cooperated to different extents.

* Players didn't trust Mitchell -- but neither did teams, and a significant part of the problem was the fact that he's on the Red Sox payroll, even though he pretends otherwise. (They weren't paying him _during_ the investigation, but they're paying him before and after.)

Etc.

The part about not interviewing Canseco -- or even trying to -- is bizarre. You've got an ex-major leaguer who has already shown a willingness to name names -- in fact, he's seemingly the only one who has been willing to do so -- and you don't even call him?

It surprises me that nothing substantial appears to be coming from this report.

This is a quality dog and pony show. It is of the highest quality.

I noted at the end in the tagline that Bryant was, predictably, contacted by the Mitchell team, and refused to speak with them. As such, Bryant is obviously cynical about the investigation and the writing reflects that. That said, this was a good piece, except as DMN noted, for all the anonymous sources and I was no doubt predisposed to like the article since it reinforces my own cynicism about the Mitchell Committee, which I explained months ago. But it is definitely worth reading.

I noted at the end in the tagline that Bryant was, predictably, contacted by the Mitchell team, and refused to speak with them. As such, Bryant is obviously cynical about the investigation and the writing reflects that.

Maybe he refused to speak with them because he felt that his role as reporter conflicted with that.

Maybe he refused to speak with them because he felt that his role as reporter conflicted with that.

Good point. But I also think since he is, presumably, concerned about steroids in baseball he would tell people he thought were interested in dealing with that substantively what he knows/thinks.

When the whole Mitchell thing started, other than the most cynically-imagined motives--ass-covering, hassling MLBPA--I didn't see a clear purpose to it. I still don't.

When the whole Mitchell thing started, other than the most cynically-imagined motives--ass-covering, hassling MLBPA--I didn't see a clear purpose to it. I still don't.

That's because there is none.

It's an interesting piece. Take it with a pile of salt since so much of it is anonymous, but the parts that we can verify do match what we know. It's a long piece, but worth reading as a preface to the actual report.

You might want to hold the salt a bit - Bryant's somewhat of an authority here, having written one of the better books on PEDs in baseball. He knows his stuff.

I noted at the end in the tagline that Bryant was, predictably, contacted by the Mitchell team, and refused to speak with them. As such, Bryant is obviously cynical about the investigation and the writing reflects that.

Here is Bryant's response to that when questioned about it in the chat he did today:

JR (Lansing): Howard - TREMENDOUS column on ESPN.com. Now tell us, why did you refuse to cooperate with the Mitchell investigation?

SportsNation Howard Bryant: the reason was quite simple. Over the last 10 years I've tried to build up the kind of sourcing that made people trust me. That would have all disappeared if I helped an investigation. Also, cooperation would have prevented me from writing about it...and my employers at the time, the Washington Post, strictly forbade it.

Here is Bryant's response to that when questioned about it in the chat he did today:

JR (Lansing): Howard - TREMENDOUS column on ESPN.com. Now tell us, why did you refuse to cooperate with the Mitchell investigation?

SportsNation Howard Bryant: the reason was quite simple. Over the last 10 years I've tried to build up the kind of sourcing that made people trust me. That would have all disappeared if I helped an investigation. Also, cooperation would have prevented me from writing about it...and my employers at the time, the Washington Post, strictly forbade it

.

Ok, fair enough. I am not convinced his sources would dry up if he talked to Mitchell's people, considering that Bryant wrote a long book on steroids, but that is not my call. I think he is clearly cynical about the investigation, however, based on the article.

Bryant's somewhat of an authority here, having written one of the better books on PEDs in baseball. He knows his stuff.

Bryant's book wasn't one of the better books on PEDs in baseball. It was the very best, hands down, slam dunk, no contest. He quite obviously knows his stuff.

Here's some more from the Bryant chat:

larry (hartford, CT): "Over the last 10 years I've tried to build up the kind of sourcing that made people trust me." So in other words you felt it was more important to protect liars and cheaters from the public, then to inform the public about these "anti role models", all because you were worried about your job? Please...

Howard Bryant: I wasn't worried about my job. Their job is to investigate. My job is to report the news. The two were in conflict. It would have been unethical of me to cooperate.


jerry, Portland: Great column. Won't it be interesting if no Red Sox are named in the Mitchell report.

Howard Bryant: These are the type of questions that made him vulnerable from the beginning. Its the conflicts that made people nervous about him, not his level of competence.



Jason (Phoenix): I think Mitchell leaked the info on Paul Byrd to mess around with the Indians and kind of mess with their heads. What do you think?

Howard Bryant: I don't. I don't think Mitchell had anything to do with it, but the very appearance of it undermined his authority. the timing couldn't have been worse.


ryan (ns): Howard, fantastic article - there are lots of qualified people outside of baseball so why would mlb choose an employee of a high profile team to conduct the investigation? it would seem that in this case avoiding even the APPEARANCE of impropriety would be valuable.

Howard Bryant: Agreed. I think the appearance was something baseball underestimated severely.


Jeff (Denver, CO): "My job is to report the news." Well if you know some news about who used it, then why not report it!!!???

Howard Bryant: Anyone I knew used, I've written about publicly. In my book I wrote about Miguel Tejada receiving b-12 vitamins through the mail and being caught with a syringe during a security check at an airport. I've written about people quite often, but I don't guess about who did what, because I don't know.

The part about not interviewing Canseco -- or even trying to -- is bizarre. You've got an ex-major leaguer who has already shown a willingness to name names.

I had forgotten Canseco was ever on the Red Sox until I saw the pic with the article.

People like Larry in Hartford and Jeff in Denver are why this report is going to do exactly what MLB wants it to do. People aren't interested in getting to the root of the issue, they want a few names to gawk at and then say "WELL, THAT'S WHO DID IT. GLAD WE'RE DONE WITH THAT. CLEAN BASEBALL NOW YAY."

Bryant's book wasn't one of the better books on PEDs in baseball. It was the very best, hands down, slam dunk, no contest. He quite obviously knows his stuff.

Clearly. Have you seen the size of his head lately?

The only part of Bryant's piece I can't figure out is this:

Club executives are nervous that Mitchell will be unsparing in his assessment of their role in enabling the game’s steroid culture,

If only that were to be the case.

If only that were to be the case.

Roger that.

Bryant's book sure as hell was unsparing in that regard. Maybe he's projecting. Then again, maybe he knows something we don't yet know.

Bryant's book wasn't one of the better books on PEDs in baseball. It was the very best, hands down, slam dunk, no contest. He quite obviously knows his stuff.

I wholeheartedly agree - but for disclosure purposes I haven't read Canseco's tome, nor any of the Bonds-specific stuff. After Juicing the Game - didn't seem like there was much of a point.

From Bryant's chat - he makes it seem like the Mitchell folks wanted to deputize him - which if true, is lame to the nth degree.

You might want to hold the salt a bit - Bryant's somewhat of an authority here, having written one of the better books on PEDs in baseball. He knows his stuff.

I recognize that -- but I make it a policy to always keep sodium chloride around when I read stories full of anonymous quotes. It doesn't matter how good the reporter is; you're still dealing with sources with an agenda and something to hide.

If I'm going to be skeptical of Game of Shadows' anonymous sources which might lead to a conclusion that disappoints me, I can't suddenly turn around and embrace Bryant's anonymous sources just because they paint a picture I like.

Ok, fair enough. I am not convinced his sources would dry up if he talked to Mitchell's people, considering that Bryant wrote a long book on steroids, but that is not my call. I think he is clearly cynical about the investigation, however, based on the article.

Of course he's cynical, but no reporter is going to cooperate, regardless. Remember, virtually all reporters will refuse to testify even under subpoena about what their sources told them; the Chronicle reporters were ready to go to jail to protect a criminal. They're certainly not going to spill to some private investigation just to make Bud Selig less of an embarrassment.