I'm tired of posting George Mitchell's photo here, so I figured for change's sake, we'd look at George Michael.
But I'm not tired, at all, of discussing George Mitchell and his blatant conflicts of interest regarding his Mitchell Report. Let's look at some statements from an interview he conducted yesterday with Fox News Sunday.
Chris Wallace, the highly respected interviewer, asked Mitchell if commissioner Bud Selig should have to step down as a result of this report. Here's how Mitchell responded:
“Well, he's the one who had the courage to commission this independent investigation. It would be ironic if, because of my work, which was at his request, something should happen to him."
Okay. Now, George Mitchell was a U.S. Senator from January 1983 through 1995, so he was in Washington for the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidency. Mitchell, as a veteran of the political arena, knows crises and damage control.
Remember Whitewater? As this Wikipedia entry details, Clinton got the ball rolling on the investigation by empowering attorney general Janet Reno to appoint a special prosecutor. That first prosecutor, Robert Fiske, was shortly deemed as too close to the Clinton administration, and a three-judge panel replaced Fiske with Kenneth Starr.
What if Fiske had been allowed to complete his investigation and, right out of the gate, praised Clinton for his "courage"? There would've been outrage, right?
I'm not saying the Mitchell Report has zero value, especially after Andy Pettitte's confession Saturday. But I am contending that any investigation that doesn't place everyone's job in jeopardy _ including the person that ordered the investigation _ has limited value.
Here's another quote:
"I myself am a fan. I'm not going to stop going to games. I love it. I'll
probably go to more games next year than I did this past year because I was busy on this investigation."
Once again - envision Fiske saying, "Oh, I love the White House! There's nothing like a visit to the Rose Garden to get the juices flowing!"
It's nothing short of laughable that Selig thought going with an insider like Mitchell _ who, to reiterate, 1) served on Selig's Blue Ribbon Panel; 2) has a cushy, paid job with the Red Sox; 3) lists the Cubs as a client on his law firm's Web site; and 4) worked for Disney, which owns ESPN, which televises Major League Baseball _ was the best way to go. It was the safest way to go for Selig, that's for sure.
As I wrote in the above linked column, Pettitte's confession helps Mitchell and hurts Roger Clemens' denials. But that's not my point. The point is that this report can only be so helpful, when we consider the biases of MItchell, which are fully spelled out in this interview.
"Judge me by my work," Mitchell says. But his words and his actions color his work. The same standard would apply to any of us.
Comments (10)
In comparison to Bud Selig's choice of Mitchell, back in 1969 Graham Chapman of Team Lotus hired someone who didn't like him to investigate the death of Jim Clark at the Hockenheim race track. Chapman figured this man would tell him the truth..were Chapman's cars, famous for being fast yet high-strung, responsible for the death of the greatest driver ever or not? The conclusion that Clark ran over debris, got a flat tire and crashed, were more believable because Chapman didn't hire a buddy.
Mitchell still should settle the internal debate with himself - and sportswriters were afraid to push the point.
Please respond to these quotes:
The following is a CNN transcript of an October 29, 2004 interview by Soledad O’Brien with Senator Mitchell that describes his status with the Red Sox. (http://transcripts.cnn.com.TRANSCRIPTS/0410/29/ltm.06.html)
O’BRIEN: On a much lighter note, how about those Red Sox? I understand that you have a little stake in the team?
MITCHELL: Oh, it’s great. I do. Yes, I do. I am involved with the Red Sox. I am a lifelong fan. I grew up in Maine and…
O’BRIEN: A part owner, too, beyond being a fan.
MITCHELL: Yes. Well, not that much of an owner.
O’BRIEN: Well, still more than most people do.
MITCHELL: Yes, no, it was a great success, a great season and a great success.
--
Cngressional record...FANS Act
Mr. WATT. The problem is the blue ribbon committee guy is now trying to buy into baseball. So he told me you were losing money, and then he says he wants to buy into the system. It leaves me a little shaky about his judgment and the conclusions he reached.
Mr. SELIG. I don't think so because he's trying to buy a big market franchise, Congressman. He's not trying to buy—I think we've already answered that. And by the way, the only information not turned over to you was, I am told by our people, the bargaining information on revenue sharing and salary, which they believe is confidential. The financial information I'm told has been turned over.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair would observe that the blue ribbon commission member who is trying to buy into a franchise used to be a Senator, and you know how they are.
--
In a Nov. 27 e-mail interview with ESPN.com, Mitchell said, "I do not have, and have never had, any equity interest whatsoever in the Red Sox, past, present, or future.
--
Perhaps he debates himself in his spare time to stay in shape as a negotiator?
Ken you are one of the only reporters/columnists in the nation asking these important questions about Mitchell and Selig. Congratulations. So far there are no heroes in this whole thing. I read with incredible disgust that Congressman Henry Waxman, who never saw a situation he didn't think government should stick its nose into, now wants to take and keep blood samples from players and store them so that if and when a test to detect HGH use is developed, the samples can be tested. What's next? Thought police or strapping players and front office staff to polygraph machines. As bad as Selig, et al is, the politicians are worse. Then again, Mitchell is a politician and Selig is one, too.
Second Jim's comment. Ken, you're one of the few insightful scribes out there. You look pretty good next to such tabloid hanging-judges as Madden & Lupica who are management toadies from square one.
I believe that at its heart, this sleazy report is a way for MLB to kowtow to Congress and to lay the blame on the union. Mitchell, Mr. Classy, is nothing but a glossy Joe McCarthy (senator) , What a mess! Keep whaling away Ken. Just maybe a few of your cowardly colleagues will see the light and the counter-attack can inject some rationality into the world.
At this point, the Mitchell report and fallout are no less laughable than celebrity gossip. However, the report could be a reasonable starting point for Bud (or his successor) to clean up the game. If the Commish really wants MLB to enter a post-steroids era, this person, his constituents and the rest of us will need to endure a period of painful transition. I've done some brainstorming on the subject, so for consideration and hopefully more discussion, below I toss out some rather extreme ideas for next steps:
- FBI/DEA/international govt raids on the whole supply chain,
- multimillion-dollar fines levied against teams with players found guilty, and their respective cities (legislated and imposed by Congress),
- blacked out games or forfeitures for teams with guilty players,
- a new, apologetic MLB marketing campaign somehow lowering fan expectations for ever-more dingers and the like,
- a new contract with the players' union addressing, in greater legal depth, testing and penalties (i.e., numerous clauses written in no uncertain terms) resulting in a possible players' strike to be mediated by the President of the U.S.,
- included in such a contract, rules to automatically suspend and drug-test players who exhibit violent tendencies (like hurling broken bats) in games, in practice, or off the field,
- periodic publication of drug-testing results, like every Sunday during the season, and monthly in the off-season,
- player perp walks celebrated by MLB, especially for perjury,
- banned sales of jerseys/merchandise containing any reference to guilty players,
- required public service for ALL players, managers and owners to speak out against use,
- a new set of record books and post-season awards sanctioned by MLB (just to make a point, really),
- psychological testing of current and new players to evaluate past behavioral anomolies,
- MLB-sponsored advertising featuring case studies of ill effects on health, even those occuring outside of MLB, or even baseball,
- perpetual fines, fines and more fines against guilty players and their estates, even if they die from too much juicing,
- an official check-off box appearing next to each player's name in the roster before every game to signify that he is clean before the game starts,
- MLB pressure on endorsers to end deals without too much deliberation,
- setting up a new substance department at MLB reporting directly to the commissioner.
OK, some of these ideas, in concept, are more radical than others (and some would be very unjust in cases of sabotage), but they're all predicated on conducting due process and obtaining and presenting scientifically and thus legally acceptable evidendence to effect change and set an example for the world of sport. So, Hey Baseball: Please get the hard evidence and take some action, even if you must swallow a mother of a pill! It's high time for the fraudulent suppliers, rather than its defrauded customers, to take a hit in the wallet to rectify this mess. Furthermore, unless there is pressure from we the fans in the form of greenbacks and votes, nothing will happen and life will generally go on as it has. That's the hardest part of all.
Thanks for the love, guys. Jon, I don't recall you being voted "Most likely to run a police state" in high school. ;)
For once, Peter Angelos got it right. The Birds' statement hits the nail on the head. I still don't think Mitchell's report was worth $20+ million and I still think it was unfair to name players when the investigation was admittedly incomplete, leaving out probably 200 other players from across the country. I think Mitchell did it (include names) because he was seeking to justify the huge cost of the investigation. Some have speculated he went especially hard on Clemens because as a Red Sox fan and director he hates the guy. I don't necessarily believe that, but I do wonder. That's why his conflicts should have prevented him from serving in this role.
No police state, please.... just multi-pronged, heavy-handed action within the limits of civil rights meted out by the courts if necessary... unless you want the next "greatest player" to be tainted in fact or by suspicion, which seems inevitable at this juncture. Where does proactive testing end, and violation of rights begin, anyway? And what promted A-Rod to be questioned in front of a national audience... did someboday at CBS say, "What about A-Rod? Let's grill him on the air to get some ad money!" Does the world need this? So, if we need to legally scare the sh-- out of all players and owners to get an honest result, then let's do it!
Consider me a "No" vote on the police state. If clubs didn't look the other way at best, or actually condone and facilitate use at worst, the problem might substantially be corrected or never have happened in the first place. You can't point the finger only at the players when the clubs hired and supervised these very same clubhouse people/trainers who turned out to be drug pushers. Read the Mitchell report and some of the notes found in the files of the Dodgers. The front offices knew much more than most people think. Selig knew a lot more than most people think - or he's admitting.
Interesting choice of picture. George Michael makes no secret of how much he enjoys his weed but funnily enough he discourages taking it when you "have something to do". And indeed, when he's up there on-stage dazzling huge European stadiums sold to the last seat what we see is George drinking isotonic sports drinks such as powerade orange.