Originally Posted by jojo
I think you've confused me with someone else. My take has always been we shouldn't assume anything about a player one way or the other. BTW, you wont find a post authored by me that suggests steroid users are misunderstood martyrs.
Discussion of this issue in particular has been characterized by very shoddy reporting on the media's part and very poor behavior on the part of the fans who generally are all to eager to accept innuendo as fact thus encouraging a pursuit of the titillating angle rather than the truth. Furthermore, it's an issue that provides sportswriters and fans alike an all to easy opportunity to moralize on a grandiose scale.
My standard for being enlightened is I think much like anyone's-new light needs to be shed on a subject such that a greater understanding is achieved or the issue is moved forward. As a vehicle of enlightenment, I think the Mitchell report is woefully lacking and ultimately very disappointing.
Really, do we understand this issue anymore today than we did Tuesday night or do we just have another chance to beat guys with evil sticks?
You're asking the question on the Saturday after the report came out. Already, Andy Pettite decided to comment after refusing to do so for the report. So, the implications are still up in the air. But, to attack any problem, you first have to establish some facts, which prior to this report, we basically had innuendo. Where those facts are taken seems to be beyond the scope of this investigation. I really haven't had a chance to read the thing in its entirety, but I find your summarily dismissing the report's effectiveness ( a 400+ page report, double spaced or not) a few days after its release a symptom of someone having their mind made up on the issue or projecting their own expectations of what they want out of such an investigation.