Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
02.25.2008 2:02 pm

The Cards’ Mitchell Quotient

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

JUPITER, Fla. — In the fallout of baseball’s nuclear winter of steroid revelations, apologies and denials, spring training has added a new tradition.

It’s the Mitchell moment.

During the first weeks of spring training, a handful of teams have had a player mentioned in the Mitchell Report arrive and answer a salvo of questions about being cited in the record of baseball’s Steroid Era. If it appears like more of those stories are coming out of Cardinals camp than others, that’s because they are.

An audit of 89 players mentioned in the Mitchell Report as allegedly purchasing, possessing or using banned substances revealed that most are retired or out of organized baseball.  Five are at Cardinals’ major-league spring training.

That’s more than the NL East teams have combined and almost as many as the six players at the other NL Central spring trainings. By this count, the five Mitchell-named players in Cardinals’ camp are more than twice as many at any other spring training.

Several of the Cardinals in camp had already answered questions about the report before this spring: Ryan Franklin (suspended for 10-days in 2005), Troy Glaus (at the presser announcing the trade), Rick Ankiel (last September). Franklin and Ankiel have been the most direct with their answers, while Glaus has acknowledged he met with the commissioner’s office and not been suspended, but declines to offer a public explanation for the report that linked him to steroids.

The two others — Juan Gonzalez and Ron Villone – arrived on the same day this spring and spent about 10 minutes each addressing the report.

Gonzalez rejected its allegations — which are reprints of a New York Daily News article that described a border patrol inquiry into a bag that contained steroids and allegedly belong to Gonzalez or his trainer. On his first day back in a big-league camp, Gonzalez said he “never used” and was “clear.”

Villone said the report has “inaccuracies.” But he plans no legal action.

Then there is the article in today’s newspaper that the Cardinals, namely manager Tony La Russa, suggested the team pursue Barry Bonds this past winter. The suggestion was quickly rejected. One reason: The Cardinals spent the winter professing a wish to get younger, broaden the number of in-house prospects invited to spring and send up a flare of the direction the club was headed. There was internal hand-wringing that signing Gonzalez, even on a minor-league deal, ran contrary to that plan.

When asked if Bonds’ off-field events were a concern, La Russa told us Sunday that that his eye focuses on how a player “fits” the team’s need between the lines and in the clubhouse.

The Cardinals had a similar answer about adding Villone.

It became a baseball decision, they said.

(Aside: If MLB does continue to look into the allegations of the Mitchell Report, it’s been reported that suspensions could follow. The commissioner’s office has already released a statement that Glaus and Ankiel would not face punishment. The Cardinals received no assurances on Villone or others.)

The Mitchell Report is careful to point out that no team was untouched by the steroid culture and every team had a representative. The spectrum ran from four to 23 former/current players. The Cardinals were in the middle, with 11 former/current players mentioned when the report came out in December.

Before the reports publication, ownership said it would not guide their decisions. Chairman Bill DeWitt told colleague Joe Strauss

“When we’re considering acquiring players, it’s not really something on our radar unless someone has knowledge of it. And we don’t have that knowledge at this point. There are some rumors and innuendoes out there, but without facts you can’t base decisions on what you don’t know.”

This spring, it’s been something the Cardinals have considered, something they’ve looked into, something they’ve assessed on a case-by-case basis (the amount of info and time to research Glaus was different than that on, say, Villone). Officials have repeatedly said that even after the publication of the Mitchell Report access to a full spectrum of information is limited.

But need or intrigue has also guided the team’s choices.

“When you are dealing with players who are named in that, you do have to look into it,” GM John Mozeliak said. “You are limited to the amount of information you can get, but we did our due diligence, as much as we could. … Hearing the different sides of it it is something we can put behind us and move forward.”

-30-

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...
6 comments

Comments are closed.

Why do you have to rehash the same nonsense about Cardinals players and steroid allegations? We know all this stuff already and it’s getting old. I look forward to your blog updates from spring training… I check them religiously. However, what we look for in those updates is news about spring training (as you’ve been doing every day). So unless there is another blog update forthcoming that details today’s activities, I will be very disaapointed.

— philip
3:45 pm February 25th, 2008

I think it is of no consequence the Cardinals have more than other teams. Just because there were some players named does not mean that all who used them were named. The sources were limited who were known to the Mitchell people. Other players may have used sources which were not discovered by the Mitchell people. Therefore, let’s put a lid on it and concentrate on the upcoming season. By the way, the Cardinals are going to be much better than the merchants of doom keep projecting. At least, we will not be suffering through Jimmy striking out or Rolen popping up killing rally after rally. If one of the young guys do that, they will at least have an upside.

— ronald vines
3:58 pm February 25th, 2008

dg:

I had the opportunity to be in Washington, D.C. a few weeks back when
Roger Clemens was testifying before Congress. I think a local commentator said it best:
“Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the War on Terror, Global Warming, Budget Deficits, the viability of Social Security and Medicare, and what is the most pressingly important question before the Congress? What Roger Clemens may or may not have done TEN YEARS AGO.”

I think that puts it in perspective much better than I could.

— B. J. Page
4:43 pm February 25th, 2008

DG,

Despite the above comments, I think it is of consequence that the Cardinals\’ have a significant number of these individuals. I think it points to an organizational decision. The Cardinals\’ ownership has been consistent on the topic, to date. I have read a significant amount of the Mitchell Report pertaining to the players, and I believe that it is severally lacking in factual evidence. As has been too often the case with the PED issue, it is filled with conjecture, hear-say, and circumstantial evidence. In this country, despite what certain local radio personalities say, you cannot judge an individual guilty based solely on this type of evidence. Consequently, you cannot take away that individual\’s right to make a living (pursuit of happiness, and all) without convictable evidence. The players currently at Spring Training for the Cardinals have either been punished (Franklin), exonorated based on lack of evidence (Glaus and Ankiel), not directly implicated (Gonzalez), or not fully investigated (Villone). If MLB wishes to actually take issue with individual players cited in the Mitchell Report, then let the process take place. Until then, the Cardinals organization has nothing for which to apologize.

Due process is the most important right we have, and even millionaire baseball players are entitled to it.

Thanks.

— Elliott
5:04 pm February 25th, 2008

I also think this Cardinals team can be better than many project. Most of the roster can improve over last season’s performances, when virtually everything went wrong and they still finished just 6 games under. Let’s be patient with the young guys.

As for the PED issue, I’d like to see some real scientific evidence of what difference they really make. I’ve seen one story about a study with amateur athletes and its findings were negligible. It’s fairly clear that anabolic steroids can help build muscle tissue, supposedly allowing you to weightlift more often or something. But HGH benefits are fuzzier. Some say it really only helps the body to heal and may not really be a performance enhancer. As for amphetamines, didn’t Pete Rose in his book admit to using them when they were part of the culture in the ’60s-’80s? Seems like a high-energy guy like Rose would get more benefit from that than steroids/HGH.

We’ve made such a huge deal out of this being the steroid era, but every era has had quirks, particulary with regard to homerun records. At some point you have to factor in that all stadiums have different dimensions. Yankee Stadium was tailor-made for Ruth, and Atlanta moved in the fences during Aaron’s final years, creating the Launching Pad (remember Aaron, Davey Johnson and Darrell Evans all hit 40 homers one year?).

We should stop obsessing over some records that were probably meaningless anyway, and just make sure the playing field is level with PED testing (for whatever it’s worth), so we can just enjoy the game again.

— Jackson
5:16 pm February 25th, 2008

it is so hard to differentiate between those that did and those that didn’t and those who say they did not but maybe did. the reasonable thing to do is go forward from here with random testing with proven methods. everyone deserves the benefit of doubt. if they can prove a player cheated, he should be punished but an accusation without proof should not figure into the decision making. it is time to move on.

— roger from lake tahoe
6:12 pm February 25th, 2008