While I may think something like Wikileaks is excessive, I support the idea of a free press. In almost all cases, the benefits to people at large accrued as a result of broadcasting the information outweigh any cost to the sport. If there is a problem, just keeping quiet about it doesn't solve it.
I don't see why Congress should have anything to do with baseball. I never understood why it seems to have power over baseball, and no other sports. The hearings were a waste of time and money. I don't care what drugs baseball players take. It's not any of my business if they want to take steroids to perform better.
George Mitchell's expose showed the truth of baseball. It showed the type of business that it is and the problems it encounters on a daily basis. The commissioner's office is of course upset because it showed them in a bad light that allowed for the players union to vent their feelings. This expose showed that what we believe is America's pastime is a business too.
Regardless of what George did I feel there has always been tension between the Commissioner of Baseball and the players association; as far as I am concerned, the Commissioner of Baseball has always played GOD when it comes to baseball and holds far more power than the office actually should have. I think there should be a Commissioner Board and one man should not hold all the power to start with.
The Mitchell Report proposes a strange paradox. On one hand, it essentially proved and accomplished nothing, as no player was directly punished as a result of it. But at the same time, it perpetuated the eventual tragedy that there will be at least a dozen players who will not make the Hall of Fame, at least partially because of it. It only verbalized what most knew already: steroids were used in baseball. Regardless of one's view on the ethics of PED use in the sport, the Mitchell Report did nothing but further cloud the issue. And most every player, along with the fans, will suffer for it.
By reporting that Major League Baseball had been slow to respond to the presence of steroids within the league, George Mitchell forced the organization to face the consequences of allowing unmonitored use of steroids. Firstly, the use of steroids caused a non-level playing field amongst the competitors. Those who did not abuse steroids were penalized when performing against those that did partake. Secondly, it undermined the very nature of baseball, as time-honored records that are inherently important to the sport were broken by individuals who were possibly using illegal methods to gain a benefit on the playing field.
George Mitchell's baseball expos? did more than siphoning millions of dollars, causing tension between the commissioner and the players' association, and annoying fans. The Mitchell Report is going to help stop the use of steroids. Fans care about whether a player used steroids or not, and this report got all of this out in the open so it could no longer remain in the background. The Mitchell Report is ultimately good for the game of baseball, to keep it honest.
The Mitchell Report was a huge moment in baseball history. It exposed the widespread use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs in the sport, and the public hypocrisy of many of the game's best-known athletes. The negative cost to the game caused by steroids was much greater than the muckraking efforts of the Mitchell Report.
There is no convincing facts or documentation out there that proves that Mitchell's expose moved millions of dollars. And there's always going to be tension between a sports league commissioner and the player's association, so if this incident appeared to cause tensions, it really only inflamed preexistent grudges and disagreements. What the expose did do was highlight some of the huge problems endemic to the supposed national pastime. We should be thankful for the enlightenment.
I believe George Mitchell's baseball expose did not siphon millions of dollars, or cause tension between the commissioner and the players' association. ESPN's article, "Mitchell to head steroid investigation", does not state anything about siphoning millions of dollars. It also mentions that it is unclear if the players would cooperate with the commission. So, therefore, there is no evidence if there is tension between players and the commissioner.
Mitchell's expose really brought performance enhancers front and center in baseball. Without it, the problem would likely have continued to occur, without much consequence. The fact that the players are more highly scrutinized is better for the sport, and better for the children that are training to be baseball players.
Clearly George Miller's expose caused tension within the world of professional baseball but that was precisely because he was speaking the truth about America's favorite game. Whatever the short term cost to the owners and others involved in management, it helped to clear the air about the sport at a time when the public was doubting the integrity of some who were involved. In the long run, this will help to preserve the game.
It made the league crack down on the players and weed out the ones who were doing steroids. It wasn't fair for players to be breaking records while on performance enhancing drugs. The ones that didn't use performance enhancing drugs had their records broken by players who didn't deserve it because they were on performance enhancing drugs.
Ken Burns documentary on baseball is one of the most definitive histories of the game. The sequel, called, "The Tenth Inning" is about to become available to viewers. Whenever ken is asked why the sequel is necessary, he explains that there have been important additions to the story in the past decade. The issue of performance enhancing drugs being one key element of those stories. I think he is right, and I think he is right that this is now part of the history of baseball -- the sport is moving beyond the acceptability of such behavior. George Mitchell's work deserves credit for helping clean up a serious and shameful mess.