So if you're a player named by Mitchell...

I was a little surprised by Pettitte, although it makes perfect sense now. And Gagne got me, though he's pretty much irrelevant anymore. As for Clemens ... no. He's so much bigger now than he was a few years ago, and he's breaking down just like Bonds. And Tejada was a fucking no-brainer. Perhaps Palmeiro was right after all.

 

So maybe Duquette was right all along, Clemens was in the twilight of his career and managed to postpone sunset to Dec. 14, 2007.

 

Gagne just signed a $10 mil contract to be Milwaukee's closer. He's plenty relevent.

 

To answer 21's original question, if I'd been wrongly accused by the Mitchell report I would welcome (perhaps beg for) Selig to try to impose some type of discipline. Then the union could file a grievance on my behalf, knowing that only at that point would I get a fair hearing in which due process standards would be upheld. (Frankly, I wonder if part of the reason Sen. Mitchell didn't call for disciplinary action is because he knows that much of the so-called evidence would disappear and throw the report's credibility further into question.)

If I'm guilty, I would apologize, shut up and be accountable.

 

Fatso and Fruit Loops was Imus' nickname for them, which I just loved.

 

Clemens gave a half-assed apology for that.
While Bonds has been an arrogant prick toward the media and the fans about the allegations of his steroid use.

 

Maybe the paper trail will turn up for Roger as well. But for now, there's just hearsay evidence against him.

 

If you're a player wrongly accused in the Mitchell report, you sue for libel to clear you name. You present all the evidence you can into the court of public opinion that Mitchell is wrong about you. You agree to take a blood test today to prove you're not taking HGH or steroids (no time to cycle off or let it clear out of your system), you take it today.

 

Agreed. Only one person has EVER sued for being wrongly accused of using steroids --- Bo Jackson, after that half-assed, second-hand report in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin a few years ago. The story was immediately retracted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7408479/

The silence from all the other guys is deafening ...

 

Mitchell's took enough care to avoid the high threshold for a public figure to be successful in a libel case. Any lawyer will tell you that. Blood test? Silly because it wouldn't prove or disprove any of the allegations.

 

The threshold for libel might not be met, but it will let the public know you're damn serious about clearing your name and that you feel you've been wrongly accused. HGH isn't detectable in urine tests, but I believe it can be detectable in blood tests (which the Players' Union is opposed to). So take a blood test on the spot and prove you're clean.