Mitchell Investigation

[Colinito]

Ah, never heard that. There are plenty of examples of ex-PrideFC fighters who ended up in the UFC that it's pretty apparent on.

Yeah, that's true. And Pride never steroid tested except for the few times they fought in Vegas towards the end.

All those international stars man, different rules.

(But the jiu jitsu guys are cool)

[Turfistough]

w/ those Merriman pics what happened to his neck tattoo? thats weird.

[wang_chi7]

w/ those Merriman pics what happened to his neck tattoo? thats weird.

Evidently the first pick is his head cropped on another guy's body (according to Colinito, whom I believe), probably explains it. That or its a recent tattoo.

[Colinito]

I believe the tattoo is simply recent.

EDIT: Here is the "retraction" from PFT.

MERRIMAN PHOTO WAS DOCTORED . . . BY THE CHARGERS?

We think we've finally figured out the mystery of the Merriman photo.

It was doctored. But not by us. Or by anyone looking to discredit Merriman. Instead, it was doctored by the Chargers, or by the league.

Merriman, as you might recall, stayed away from the Chargers' offseason workouts and minicamps in 2005, supposedly because he didn't like the terms of the team's injury guarantee.

But a headshot was needed, and it appears that Merriman's head and neck were grafted onto the body of the headshot generated by defensive tackle Jamal Williams.

So why was Williams wearing No. 97? Our understanding is that the team typically leaves several jerseys in the room where the pictures are taken, and that one of them in 2005 was No. 97.

None of this changes the fact that Merriman's face and neck are noticeably smaller than they were whenever the photo was taken, or that Merriman is smaller in his 2007 photo than he is in 2006.

Regardless, the apparently doctored image was used as Merriman's official headshot for 2005. Here it is on NFL.com. And also on the Getty Images site. We posted below a copy of the page from the 2005 media guide.

We hope that this finally closes the case.

When he had originally put those up, I was one (of presumably many) who said something was wrong with the picture because going off steriods does not cause that type of weight loss. He didn't believe me and ended up with egg on his face, but I hope he has learned his lesson, despite the fact that he tries to save face by saying that "his face and neck are noticeably smaller."

[Mr. X]

That probably won't change as long as Bud is still in charge unfortunately. Up until recently teams were giving players 24 hours notice of the tests, fortunately they put a stop to that.

From what I've read Selig has been in favor of a much more vigorous testing regime for some time now but that the resistance comes (as expected) from Donald Fehr and the players union.

In some of the interviews that Mitchell gave yesterday he indicated that they could greatly improve testing if a blood sample were taken as there apparently are blood tests for detecting some of these drugs (i.e. HGH and variations thereof) whereas there are no comparable urine tests available. Fehr's position is that blood samples are a nonstarter and that the union will never agree to that on the grounds that it is too invasive.

I believe the NFL does only urine testing as well. Rodney Harrison was suspended for HGH use but that wasn't from any testing procedure. He got caught up in a legal investigation where his supplier rolled over on him.

I'm not sure what effect the Mitchell report will have on MLB. Will attendance or tv ratings be negatively affected in any material way? I sort of doubt it. This issue with steroid abuse has been out there for quite a while now with the Balco & Bonds circus show. Maybe putting a name like Roger Clemens front and center will make an impact. It's hard to gauge if 'peeling back the onion' so to speak in the form of the Mitchell Investigation is going to result in any meaningful change.

[DanAS1]

From what I've read Selig has been in favor of a much more vigorous testing regime for some time now but that the resistance comes (as expected) from Donald Fehr and the players union..

I tend to be liberal about such things but I draw the line with testing multi-millionaires for performance-enhancing drugs. We need mega testing.

And if all this means that Fehr is even a more pernicious force than Bud "Contract This!" Selig, so be it.

[wang_chi7]

From what I've read Selig has been in favor of a much more vigorous testing regime for some time now but that the resistance comes (as expected) from Donald Fehr and the players union.

In some of the interviews that Mitchell gave yesterday he indicated that they could greatly improve testing if a blood sample were taken as there apparently are blood tests for detecting some of these drugs (i.e. HGH and variations thereof) whereas there are no comparable urine tests available. Fehr's position is that blood samples are a nonstarter and that the union will never agree to that on the grounds that it is too invasive.

I believe the NFL does only urine testing as well. Rodney Harrison was suspended for HGH use but that wasn't from any testing procedure. He got caught up in a legal investigation where his supplier rolled over on him.

I'm not sure what effect the Mitchell report will have on MLB. Will attendance or tv ratings be negatively affected in any material way? I sort of doubt it. This issue with steroid abuse has been out there for quite a while now with the Balco & Bonds circus show. Maybe putting a name like Roger Clemens front and center will make an impact. It's hard to gauge if 'peeling back the onion' so to speak in the form of the Mitchell Investigation is going to result in any meaningful change.

Bud might be on some level in favor of testing, but only because of the backlash that has happened. He's also a very weak commish that doesn't use his power and lets Fehr be almost a competing runner of the league. The commish has turned into head owner, where it used to be an impartial post. Selig, I'm afraid, will never push the issue enough to make big change. This study could have been a great start, but gave Mitchell no teeth in subpoenaing (is that a word?) players, owners, etc. I would have given him a lot of credit if he would have accepted some blame for the fiasco, but he dodged the specific question yesterday by totally changing the subject.

I don't know if blood testing is the answer, it would make testing possible but it is a very controversial subject because it could be unethically used against the players. Cycling does blood test, but beyond that I don't know of any other sport that does (the Olympics might). I almost have to side with the players on this one, which sucks because I really want the game cleaned up and the users kicked out. I've heard that blood testing for HGH only is effective for a very short amount of time after use, I don't know how true it is but I've heard it only detects within a day or so.

A story came out late last season saying that if a reliable test became available, baseball would push for a blood test. But would have to be accepted by the union. Gene Upshaw is vehemently against blood tests in the NFL.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/stor ... NHeadlines

[Mr. X]

This study could have been a great start, but gave Mitchell no teeth in subpoenaing (is that a word?) players, owners, etc.

This was a private investigation outside the legal system so Mitchell was nearly completely dependent on getting voluntary cooperation.

Mitchell said that all requests to interview players had to be submitted to the union which acted as the intermediary in all communications. He also said that one of the rules he set down from the beginning and communicated to all parties concerned was that if a player did not agree to be interviewed that they were subject to being named in the report. According to Mitchell he even gave players notice of the allegations that were made against them and still no one agreed to be interviewed except for Jason Giambi. Players like Clemens are crying that the process was unfair but they all passed on talking to Mitchell and his investigators.

I don't know if blood testing is the answer, it would make testing possible but it is a very controversial subject because it could be unethically used against the players.

Could you expand on that? How would a blood test differ from a urine test in regards to potential misuse?

Cycling does blood test, but beyond that I don't know of any other sport that does (the Olympics might).

I think you're right about that. Of course blood doping is the primary culprit in cycling races and you need a blood test for that. And if there ever was a sport that exposed how willing athletes were to cheat, cycling would be at or near the top of the pile.

I almost have to side with the players on this one, which sucks because I really want the game cleaned up and the users kicked out. I've heard that blood testing for HGH only is effective for a very short amount of time after use, I don't know how true it is but I've heard it only detects within a day or so.

I think MLB's reputation is so bad right now that the players and their union need to go the extra mile to try and gain back some credibility. If agreeing to blood testing and a truly random and rigorous testing protocol accomplishes that ... they should do it. I doubt that will ever happen. The players union has been so used to beating the owners at the bargaining table that I think they're in a classic 'can't see the forest for trees' state of mind and will probably stay there until they start getting hurt in their pocketbook.

[Hunter Morrow]

Blood testing gets plenty of things that urine testing can miss, plus it is easier to tell if someone is abusing HGH or an analog of it with a blood test.

[wang_chi7]

This was a private investigation outside the legal system so Mitchell was nearly completely dependent on getting voluntary cooperation.

Mitchell said that all requests to interview players had to be submitted to the union which acted as the intermediary in all communications. He also said that one of the rules he set down from the beginning and communicated to all parties concerned was that if a player did not agree to be interviewed that they were subject to being named in the report. According to Mitchell he even gave players notice of the allegations that were made against them and still no one agreed to be interviewed except for Jason Giambi. Players like Clemens are crying that the process was unfair but they all passed on talking to Mitchell and his investigators.
Could you expand on that? How would a blood test differ from a urine test in regards to potential misuse?
I think you're right about that. Of course blood doping is the primary culprit in cycling races and you need a blood test for that. And if there ever was a sport that exposed how willing athletes were to cheat, cycling would be at or near the top of the pile.
I think MLB's reputation is so bad right now that the players and their union need to go the extra mile to try and gain back some credibility. If agreeing to blood testing and a truly random and rigorous testing protocol accomplishes that ... they should do it. I doubt that will ever happen. The players union has been so used to beating the owners at the bargaining table that I think they're in a classic 'can't see the forest for trees' state of mind and will probably stay there until they start getting hurt in their pocketbook.

When I said subpoena, I didn't mean in the legal system sense, but that Selig would give Mitchell the power to talk to players and if they said no, Selig would make them or face punishment.

The blood testing can become an issue because of things like DNA use (mostly in the future) and testing for things without consent from the player. Basically it is paranoia that it will fall into the wrong hands and such (or that the league itself will unethically use it), but I can understand the player's stance on blood tests. That and urinating is something they'd do anyways, where getting stuck with a needle is not (though that isn't a good excuse in itself, just an add on.) I'm not totally against a test, but there are issues to be ironed out before it should be implemented.

Blood tests aren't very reliable yet from what I've read either when it comes to HGH. If there was a better test, then there would be more reason and I would probably be for it.

Baseball needs a stronger commish, someone who won't act as head owner and someone who takes charge instead of cowering to the players union. Right now Fehr is just as much in charge as Selig is. Where is Kenesaw Mountain Landis when the game needs him?

[odinspeak]

so if HGH is being used in the NFL it would greatly help an old QB bounce back from injuries very quickly and keep his starting consecutive game steak alive.

[wang_chi7]

so if HGH is being used in the NFL it would greatly help an old QB bounce back from injuries very quickly and keep his starting consecutive game steak alive.

It could, no guarantee. What are you leading at ?

[glg]

so if HGH is being used in the NFL it would greatly help an old QB bounce back from injuries very quickly and keep his starting consecutive game steak alive.

From what I understand, steroids would do a better job then HGH in that case...

[wang_chi7]

Brian Roberts has now admitted to using steroids "once." He took them in 2003 but immediately after shooting up felt guilty and quite using them.

He was one of the names in the Mitchell Report that probably should have been left off the report as the evidence was very sketchy (all it was was a former teammate saying Roberts may have said in the locker room that he would like to try steroids, but that he couldn't remember exactly what he said and could be remembering wrong.)

Its kind of funny that all these players tried it only once. Pettitte also came out and said he used HGH, for only 2 days.

[glg]

Its kind of funny that all these players tried it only once. Pettitte also came out and said he used HGH, for only 2 days.

Some of them are probably lying, some are probably telling the truth. I believe that some players did try it once to see what happened. I don't believe that all these guys just experimented.