Come on, New York media. Are we really up in arms over this?
Personally, I couldn't care less than Andy Pettitte allegedly used HGH to try to heal faster during his stint on the disabled list in 2002. Not only is HGH not steroids, but it wasn't even a banned substance in Major League Baseball at the time. Pettitte's done nothing wrong, and any Yankee fan that lets the Mitchell Report negatively affect their opinion of Andy is, to put it gently, a fucking moron.
Now Clemens on the other hand? I have no particular affinity for Rog. But even if the allegations are true, what does it prove? Were steroids able to help him strike more batters out? Stay in games longer? Sure, it's possible, but who knows?
I'm inclined to agree with those who felt that names should've been redacted in this report. While I'm not upset the report came out, linking specific players to steroids and HGH while leaving out countless others who were able to fly under the radar screams witch hunt to me, and ultimately I'm not sure what the purpose of all this was.
Do we have more knowledge of what some players allegedly did in the 1990s and early 200s with regards to performance-enhancing drugs? Yes, to a certain extent. Does it matter for the 2008 season? Probably not. The sense I get is that ever since steroids became such a hot-button issue, most players with half a brain probably realized it was time to cut ties with the needle, as it seems like we haven't heard about too many guys getting bagged save the occasional Jay Gibbons here and Jose Guillen there.
For me, the two biggest issues are (1) Will this deter players from doing steroids in the future? I'd say the answer would have to be yes, and (2) How will this affect Yankee fans' impressions of our players?
Well I'd put money down right now that when Dandy Andy toes the mound for his first 2008 start at Yankee Stadium, he'll get a bigger and longer standing ovation than anyone else.