More PR on parade--now floating idea of "fines" which is a moot issue. On 12/6/07, Selig excused Glaus, Schoeneweis, & others.

Note: This NY Times article reads like an extension of the happenings of 12/13/07, with the suspense, speculation, partial facts, missing facts; the nation-state of baseball media dying for something TO REACT TO. Ah, for those halcyon days of business partners George Mitchell, the Red Sox, and The New York Times:

• (NY Times, 4/10/08): "In a sign that talks were continuing, the sides announced Wednesday that the suspension of José Guillén of the Kansas City Royals had been stayed until April 15.

A week before the Mitchell report was released, Guillén and Jay Gibbons were suspended for 15 days after they were linked to the purchases of performance-enhancing drugs. The two were also named in the Mitchell report. Gibbons was released by the Baltimore Orioles before the start of the regular season.

It is the second time the suspensions of Guillén and Gibbons have been stayed.

It is not clear if any deal will call for players named in the Mitchell report to be fined, a step that Commissioner Bud Selig has backed and that the union has resisted."

• From NY Times article, "Baseball to have Overseer for Testing," by Michael S. Schmidt, 4/10/08***************

• 1. The NY Times and George Mitchell are business partners which the article does not mention.

• 2. The NY Times mentions Guillen and Gibbons' case but makes no distinction between them and the rest of the names in the Mitchell Report. Key: Guillen's alleged activity occurred after Jan.13, 2005. Gibbons' probably did, some reports say Jan. 2005, other reports just say '2005.'

• 3. Now floating the idea of "fines" is more spin and PR, as was floating the idea of mass "suspensions." As stated in the Mitchell Report, Selig judged behaviors of players like Glaus, Schoeneweis and Ankiel did not warrant disciplinary action because they didn't violate the agreement at the time of their activity (documented evidence from DA raid of Florida pharmacies).

All players are entitled to the same treatment Glaus and others received. Unless the alleged offsense took place after 1/13/05, all players are off the hook. The NY Times does not mention this.

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon