mitchell report witchhunt anyone

The Mitchell Report - Witchhunt, Anyone?

"At best, the article is an example of irresponsible reporting. At

worst, the "facts" reported were simply manufactured."

- Judge Edward C. Voss, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Arizona, in an order to unseal the "Novitsky Affadavit".

I don't like Roger Clemens all that much. He's an amazing athlete with

Hall of Fame credentials, and I was glad to have him play for the

Astros for a couple seasons, but he can be a jerk at times and he's

never been much of a team player that I can see. But with that said, I

don't jump to conclusions when unsuported allegations are made, even

against him. I do not accept the Mitchell Report at face value, and

neither should you.

I was surprised when the Mitchell Report came out. Not about what it

said, but by the public reaction. I mean really, what did you expect

it to say, especially given the way in which the "investigation" was

conducted? I hate the gratuitous use of steroids and completely agree

they should be banned from professional sports, if for no other reason

than the fact that kids copy what they see their heroes do. But at the

same time, the presumption of innocence is - or should be - a hallmark

of American justice. What happened with the Mitchell Report, is that a

variety of people made accusations against other people, without the

persons accused being allowed to cross-examine their accusers or even

state their side of the story.

The media didn't help things, either. For example, ESPN gushed with

excited anticipation about the report, as a preview of the report said

"the big questions have been whether the final report would name

names, and how many names would be named, and how important the names

would be." The reader may note that ESPN was not at all concerned with

the lack of any proof; the accused would be presumed to be guilty.

Investigative journalism ended with the prospect of a juicy scandal.

That's why I noted Judge Voss' order. Back in 2006, the LA Times ran a

story which accused Roger Clemens of using "performance-enhancing

drugs". The accusation was based solely on the report that Clemens was

named in an affadavit to the court made by Jason Grimsley. The Times

specifically wrote "Grimsley told investigators

that Clemens used athletic performance-enhancing drugs." The order by

Judge Voss observed that a "review of the disclosed affidavit proves

that the Times never saw the unredacted affidavit. Roger Clemens is

not named in the affidavit and Grimsley makes no reference to Roger

Clemens in any context. At best, the article is an example of

irresponsible reporting. At worst, the "facts" reported were simply

manufactured."

Judge Voss went on in a footnote to show just how far off the Times

was in its claims. He wrote "This conclusion is almost inescapable.

The Times article lists six players purportedly named in the

affidavit. Actually, the affidavit names only two of the six and as to

Tejada, the Times quote relates to alleged anabolic steroid use which

is incorrect. The reference in the affidavit is to amphetamine use."

Now I'm no expert on the fine differences between understandable error

and deliberate defamation, but this sure seems to cross that line.

Again, I have no special appreciation for Mr. Clemens, but the LA

Times story certainly shows a climate that can only be called hostile.

The Mitchell Report merely reflects that same environment on a much

larger scale - the nation wants athletes punished, and all they need

is an accusation, never mind the proof. Anyone who wants to get down

to the truth of the matter with regard to Major League Baseball and

the use of drugs, needs to understand that the Mitchell Report has no