Friday, December 14, 2007

RE: The Mitchell Report

Was naming names required? In my opinion the names are just there to get the publicity, to draw attention, to create a stir. Simply stating we found more than 80 players had used substances many of them stars of the game have been enough. I'm not defending the players who used something. I can see why it is a competitive world. Mitchell is a minority owner of a team, would the report may have been better if it was done by some one with no involvement in the sport? Is it a witch hunt? Wasn't there a list like this regarding communism back in the 50s? Aren't there more important issues for congress to investigate?

To the stars who used something. Is that the legacy you want to leave as a cheat? Is that the example you want to leave to the children playing in ballparks across the world? Our these steroids and HGH and what not that great of deal in baseball? It doesn't improve the hand eye coordination.

The black eye was already on baseball. But all I'm seeing is wrongs.

No comments: