President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

,m

You just backed up my assertion. Your criticism of him seems to be that he didn't extract confessions from players or catch them in the act of injecting themselves.

Of course, he had near zero cooperation from the players. Which is fine. I wouldn't have expected them to cooperate, given that there had been widespread use of PEDs for years as all evidence suggests, and the small number of players who might have even considered being honest and helping his investigation, were concerned about confidentiality. But given that, your criticism of him is that he isn't Kreskin.

OF COURSE he piggiebacked on the work of other investigations that had uncovered evidence. Given that your tact seems to be criticize-everything-EXCEPT-the-veracity-of-what-is-actually-in-the-report, I imagine if he hadn't included info from those investigations, your criticism would be that he ignored their work.

The guy was charged with a difficult task -- an independent investigation into PEDs in baseball, on the back of all the grief MLB was taking from Congress, and after Game of Shadows was published. He had no cooperation from the players and he was never charged with being an investigator in the vein of law enforcement. There was no way he was going to come up with a comprehensive list of who used, what they used and when. It's a ridiculous criticism of the report.

If you want to say he had a conflict of interest, OK. It still doesn't address the report itself; it MAYBE could call into question why he included some things and not others. He was a bad choice for that reason. It also doesn't mean he "embarrassed himself." He did a credible job, given the task he was given.

I can't say whether he came away with a complete picture of the era. I strongly suspect that he didn't, as would most people with any amount of common sense. It would also be a ridiculous expectation for anyone to have expected him to somehow produce a complete picture. He worked with what he had -- the prior tests and how many players failed, for example. He presented it for what it was. Given that players who used lied about it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, of course the scope of WHO he named was always going to be limited.