After a seemingly interminable wait and an expense of over ten million dollars, the fabled Mitchell Report, the supposed last word on baseball's steroids problem, has finally been released. And it sucks.
Mitchell, of course, was hamstrung by a lack of power; all he could do was ask for players' cooperation. But does that really excuse the lack of reliable information? Most of the names in the report, so far as I could tell, were generated by hearsay and (very weak) circumstantial evidence - cancelled checks, address books, etcetera.
Thus, we have players included such as the immortal Jerry Hairston Jr., who is indicated on pages 207 and 251 of the report. According to ESPN.com's summary (because who really wants to read 400+ pages of bureaucratese?), the case against Hairston is based on the word of Kirk Radomski and one cancelled check. Nice.
I'm not saying that these players didn't do steroids. Quite probably, many of them did; more probably, there are dozens or even hundreds of other players, not named, who made use of performance enhancing substances. But was this report really the best that the MLB could do?
In the famous words of Stan Marsh: weak, dude.