To : AP's Ronald Blum: the Mitchell Report noted 'amnesty' granted to most by Bud on 12/6/07

Blum and AP again portray the mistaken existence of the topic of general "amnesty."

• It is not possible that general amnesty for "the names" (or as Blum broadly states "players implicated in the December report") hangs in the balance.

Blum directs you to think Mitchell is still pivotal in this whole situation. ie The idea of blanket amnesty is being brokered 24/7 in back rooms by Mitchell--

• his halo shining brightly.

• Couldn't happen according to the Mitchell Report itself. The report stated players such as Glaus and Schoeneweis--both having documented evidence of having purchased steroids--could not be subject to discipline, per the commissioner's office. The reason--stated in the Mitchell report--was their behavior did not violate the players' union agreement in effect at that time. ie, Their alleged offenses occurred before Jan. 13, 2005. (A version of this was also in the NY Times which I've posted on this blog).

Therefore, per Bud Selig's decision on 12/6/07, all other players have to receive the same treatment, ie 'not warranting discipline.' They could be on record for 2 tons of steroids, it doesn't matter, as long as it was before 1/13/05.

• You cannot lump Jose Guillen in with the rest of the names, as evidence against him exists AFTER Jan. 13, 2005. He is a separate case.

In the case of Jay Gibbons, Mr. Blum does us the great favor of telling us he admitted to something in "2005," Without saying when in 2005. As I've posted here, one report gave the date of January 2005. Was it before or after the 13th? That shouldn't be too hard to find out if you're AP.

• If it's after the 13th, it's outside the agreement.

• It's in the Mitchell Report, Mr. Blum. I've posted and documented everything here numerous times on this blog.

There is no such issue as "general amnesty." BUD SELIG'S ACTIONS ON 12/6/07 MADE THE ISSUE MOOT.

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon