[Domenic]

Suspensions increasingly unlikely for players mentioned in Mitchell report

Mitchell report since the detailed account of drug use was released three months ago. That makes it increasingly unlikely players will be punished before Opening Day.

No players have been called in for investigatory interviews since Cleveland pitcher Paul Byrd spoke with baseball lawyers Dec. 17, several attorneys with knowledge of the disciplinary process said Wednesday. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The interviews are the first step in baseball's disciplinary process.

Full story.

I am glad to hear this news - I am a strong believer that public opinion is the most appropriate punishment for those implicated. Moreover, it avoids the can of worms that could be opened with players still in denial, retired players, etc.

[JoeR]

I agree. The hope was that after the Mitchell Report, the game itself could get with its life and put this stuff behind it. It will be interesting to see if this has been a deterrent to current players to stop juicing up.
Joe

[Domenic]

I am guessing that it will end up being a deterrent - there is a degree of uncertainty, though, about the impact of being caught. Most players that have been caught and admitted to it seem to be one of two things: the first is a relative unknown (Tim Laker), the othe is a 'class act' (Andy Pettitte).

The former will garner forgiveness simply because nobody will really care... that seems to be the attitude I've witnessed, at least. The latter will be taken at their word - I only tried it 'x' times for 'y' reasons. If someone like Rafael Palmeiro or Barry Bonds comes forward I am not sure what will happen - Giambi was forgiven, but he was never really viewed as negatively as others.

Either way, I do think that this is a greater step forward then simply suspending people haphazardly over glorified hearsay.

[panoo]

To me, this is just brushing the garbage under the carpet, unless they actually do something about the players "Juicing Up", things will never change. Why should it?

[Domenic]

The difficulty here is that you cannot begin to haphazardly start suspending players - much of the Mitchell Report is still hearsay, remaining largely uncorroborated beyond a 'he said she said' affair. While I am quite sure that most of the players implicated are guilty of the crime I am also sure that there are a few falsifications therein - I'm still unwilling to take many of those people turning players over on their word.

Suspensions are also unfair on the whole. Penalties have been adjudicated and re-adjudicated several times over the past decade... you cannot suspend a player via 2008 standards for an infraction in 2001. If a player is said to have purchased steroids three times do you consider that the third strike - out of baseball for life?

In the end, public opinion is what matters the most. A player retiring in shame is as much a penalty as a suspension. Clemens and Bonds will likely not sniff Cooperstown immediately, if at all - plus, you can't suspend players that are already retired. True, you can bar them from the Hall... but what does that do to Chuck Knoblauch or Tim Laker - nothing.

[Ddavis]

They should be suspending players for what they are doing now! Not based on hearsay from years ago. But I bet you won't see a lot of that happening either.