This is one of those times where your "community standards" rules gets in the way of fair and honest discussion.

Because politics and religion are verboten on this site (although ridiculous diaries similar to "if you were a tree what kind of a tree would you be" from Kerry Wood's large than life adoring women, seem to run rampant here) a man like George Mitchell can print trollop, innuendo, and hearsay with the self righteous aplomb of a man that knows he will be given a pass by an adoring leftist media as he spouts the latest P.C. trash concerning MLB's monster under the bed, steroids.

Because political discourse is not allowed in the sacred halls of BCB, a piece of work like George Mitchell is allowed to act like the bigger man, the demi-god among men, as he plays judge and jury over men that have committed lesser offenses than he ever did in his position as a Senator.

I'm fully aware of what kind of man Senator Mitchell was when he sat in the Senate, and he should never be allowed to sit in judgment of other men.

I can get very specific about Mr. Mitchell but I know, I know, political discussion is like the sign of the cross to a vampire, on this site, not to be tolerated or allowed.

Better to keep the malleable bovine that ingest this pabulum of his in the dark, than to shine the light upon the kind of person George Mitchell is, and the things he did when he sat in a position of power.

Interesting, isn't it. If we don't talk politics, religion, or financial matters, then we can all be equally ignorant.

That way a man like Senator Mitchell can be taken seriously, when instead he should be the last man to sit in judgment on others.

I'm not foolish enough to believe that's there's not a great deal of truth concerning a significant majority of the names mentioned. But I do hope that if there are those that have been unfairly tarnished by Mitchell, that self righteous fool Selig, and MLB  as an entity in general, that they take all of them to court on chargers of slander.

Senator Mitchell could utter the most slanderous words in the halls of the Senate because of the rules of that less than august body. He is not allowed that same ability to trample on the character of others in the private sector.

Baseball players are not public figures, in that respect. They don't work for the government. They're only public in that they're in the public eye through entertainment.

The legalize and parsing of words like those of Mitchell and Selig are the kind of words that can ruin reputations, all under the sanctified cover  of "what's good for baseball", "or do it for the children" or whatever drivel you can feed the masses to soothe an ignorant, malleable public into walking lockstep to your drum beat

It's not lost on me though, by the lack of outrage from the players union or the players themselves, legally that is. Although maybe those wheels are turning as we speak.

If most here knew the kind of man Mitchell was, not the media fabricated darling given to a "like-minded" thinker, his report would be given absolutely no credence to a "thinking" man.

In any organization that hopes to achieve success, the people at the top are expected to set the standard of behavior for the entire group.

If the head of MLB, Bud Selig, chooses to ignore a problem he is well aware of, of course there will be widespread cheating.

I have heard that Selig was on radio recently and spent the majority of his time applauding his performance as commissioner. Time and again he has stared down the threats of Congress and the public in an arrogant fashion. He blames lack of testing for failure to do anything meaningful. He blames the union for their reluctance to surrender their bargained rights. By the way, he agreed to those rights as commissioner.

If baseball wants to move forward and earn respect it's time for Selig to resign. In a past era baseball turned to Judge Landis to implement change. Until there is new leadership people will assume it business as usual, just a little bit sneakier.

First my line of thinking, then the question:

(1) If we suppose that the "cheaters" are the minority (surely less than 50% of the players, and more realistically around 10-20%),

(2) If we assume that many non-cheaters are loosing their job, along with big time money to the cheaters (and there is a good case to make that steroids, for example, can increase your production inmensly),

(3) If we assume that the "clean" players are outraged because of #2, then here's my question:

Why haven't the players done more to even their own playing field?

To me, this is an important question to ask. Because they players themselves, as a union, have resisted time and time again any drug testing program and the only reason that the present drug testing is where is at (which is better than before but still a far cry from the Olympic program, for example) is because of the hear brought on by Congress. So here's the thing: are you telling me that all this while 10-20% of the players have been at an advantage while 80-90% have been at a disadvantage, and that this 80-90% have shut their (angry) mouths just to be good union citizens?

I just don't buy it. To me a lot more than 10-20% stand to loose with tougher testing. How many don't use steroids but use amphetamines? How many do something else? Maybe the majority of players use "something" that they would stand to loose if there was a real testing program in place and that's the reason that they have never taken any initiative on this matter. Maybe.

One final thing:

Let's get one thing straight: with steroids both the owners and the players make more money because wether it sounds good or not the fans want to see more their team win and see great performances more than they care about steroids. That's the reality. So to me it seems foolish for anyone to expect that MLB and the Players Union can police themselves. If anything significant will be done on this matter it will have to be imposed by Congress and carried out independently. I don't understand why this is not more apparent.

I really appreciate all you do for this sight and enjoy it daily.  I will respectfully disagree with you giving Petite "kudos".  The way I took his response to the report was covered in legalese.  His statement through his lawyer said he took hgh twice but stop because "he just didn't think it was right".  Also, his statement made sure to point out when he did it hgh wasn't banned in baseball.  The real kudos should of been given if any of these guys came out with statements before the report forced them to..

Hi, I'm new here but have been writing about baseball for a long time. Am I the only one who isn't outraged about PEDs? I'll go one further: professional athletes should be allowed to use steroids and HGH under strict guidelines. They should be prescribed, distributed and administered by certified experts. Look into the nature and purpose of steroids and HGH. No, I'm not a body-builder. No, I'd never take PEDs. I have no need to. But if I depended on my physical assets to make my living, I certainly would consider doing them. As for the purported side effects, it's "reefer madness" all over again. Where in peer-reviewed medical research are suicide, "'roid rage" and other commonly-accepted maladies linked with steroid or HGH use? You can cite John Matuszak's name all day long but then you have to consider that no authority considers brain cancer a contraindication of PED use. Baseball players juice more for quick recovery from injuries than to build muscle mass. PEDs aren't magic pills; they won't transform Neifi Perez into Derek Jeter. Here's my compromise: guys who want to use them should register with their leagues and their records should be marked with asterisks. I want to see my favorite stars on the field, not on the disabled list. Thanks for hearing me out.

...pitchers having Tommy John surgeries? Why was it alright for Bo Jackson to play with an artificial hip? Why was Joe DiMaggio allowed to play with two or three pots of coffee in him every game? Pro athletes are always using new technologies as well as medications and substances to assist their performance. John Smoltz has a hyberbaric oxygen therapy chamber in his home. Babe Ruth didn't have one. Should we have another former senator look into that? You're gonna think I'm nuts but I bet that the use of steroids and HGH by pro athletes will be widely accepted by the middle of this century. By the way, I am nuts, but that's a different story.