Re: The Mitchell Report
- From: Thermos <cfbltw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:11:24 GMT
BadgerBC wrote:
On the appearance of a conflict, I respectfully disagree. I had
predicted that no matter what came of this investigation, it would
become an issue. It's not Mitchell's fault as he had a very limited
scope of inquiry, but when (not if) a prominent Sox player gets
discovered in the future (right now there are a few ongoing federal
investigations that likely will yield even more names), this will come
up again. THAT is why he should've just cut the ties but whatever.
Maybe unlike you I had more hope for this investigation doing some
good (maybe I'm naive) but it fell pretty short of the mark.
Let me clarify. I don't dispute that there's a conflict of interest - that's clear on the face of the facts. It is quite a different thing, however, to suggest that the conflict affected his work, and that's been stated by many as if it were a fact. I have plenty of problems with MLB and how they went about this, but to suggest that Mitchell clearly used bias in his work as a result of the conflict seems quite unfair to me. You are right, though, that I had no expectation for this investigation and report to be at all meaningful. In that sense, it did not disappoint.
.
- References:
- Re: The Mitchell Report
- From: PatsSox
- Re: The Mitchell Report
- From: BadgerBC
- Re: The Mitchell Report
- From: HPLeft
- Re: The Mitchell Report
- From: Dano
- Re: The Mitchell Report
- From: Thermos
- Re: The Mitchell Report
- From: BadgerBC
- Re: The Mitchell Report
- Prev by Date: Re: Coincidence?
- Next by Date: Re: Coincidence?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Mitchell Report
- Next by thread: Re: The Mitchell Report
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|