Was the Mitchell Report a Good Thing?

Of course, it was a good thing. I know that there are ton of people out there who think that the Mitchell Report, MLB's independently outsourced report on the use of performance enhancing drugs, was nothing other than a couple of pages that named names and brought the soap opera mentality to the world of baseball but it did more than that.

Much more.

For starters, naming names does more than serve as information for salacious headlines and endless critiques of someone's career. It allows us to put a face to performance enhancing drugs, which can then allow us to probe these people to understand how it was used, why it was used, and how prevalent it was being used. Knowing some of the people who used or were involved the use of steroids in major league baseball would also serve the purpose of outing those who were not discovered by the Mitchell Report. Now that didn't quite happen, except in the cases of Brian McNamee and Kurt Radomski, but at least some other individuals were discovered, even it weren't but probably a small percentage of those who actually dabbled in performance enhancing drugs.

Some of you will ask, "What is the purpose of knowing that "Andy Pettitte" used steroids if we can't go back in the past and stop him, and others like him, from using it?"

Well, I think Pettitte put it best when he pointed out that the troubles and tribulations that have happened to Pettitte, Clemens, McNamee, and some others will serve as a deterrent in preventing other ball players from electing to use steroids. If you're a player in the MLB making hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, for playing the sport you love, then before you elect to use steroids to boost your career and make 10-fold what you're making now, then you really have to ask yourself the question, "Is it worth it?" I mean is going from a fabulous life to a "superstar" life really worth the risk of being defamed, ridiculed, and harasses for who knows how long the scrutiny could last?

Some of the people on my side of the argument want to point out that the Mitchell Report might help serve the kids who are thinking about using steroids. I disagree. I don't think this is a deterrent for young kids. The deterrent may work for privileged baseball stars, but it's not going to be very effective on impoverished teenager from Cuba, or young kids growing up in the ghetto.

However, the Mitchell Report does raise the level of scrutiny on performance enhancing drugs, and it will set forth an atmosphere of discussion and education on the matter. And that's all you can really do for kids. They have to make their own decision and learn their own lessons, especially kids who share a talent that may make them superstars one day.

To those of you who thinking digging up baseball's dirty secrets and rummaging through the past was a bad move by Selig and baseball, I just hope you come to understand that despite the nasty fallout, the people who have been lambasted, and even the involvement of Congress, it is always best to know your past. That is the only way to move forward. The Mitchell Report helped us learn a little bit about the depths and the type of people that performance-enhancing drugs reached. It also helped us understand that there were facilitators of steroids that didn't necessarily ever suit up to play a game. Sure we all assumed that was the case, but there was never any evident of it, and there was never anyone to point the finger at. Well, I'm a proponent of pointing the finger. Because that is the only way to make sure that you're pointing back at yourself, even if you don't acknowledge it.