Jack Cust calls out George Mitchell and his report

[ryanm1058123]

Jack Cust still wonders why his name appeared in the Mitchell Report. Now, the Oakland slugger has a more pressing question: How come some prominent Red Sox were missing?

"To me it was kind of a joke, the whole thing," Cust told The Associated Press last weekend.

Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell released his report in December 2007 and of the 85 players mentioned, none of them were Boston stars. Mitchell has been a director of the Red Sox since 2002.

Last month, The New York Times reported former Boston teammates Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz were among 104 players who allegedly tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003, according to a list compiled by the federal government.

"With all the other stuff going on, with a lot of the guys coming out recently — big-name guys — to me it's kind of funny they spent all that money on the Mitchell Report and a bunch of hearsay and the guy who made all the money off it happened to work for the Red Sox," Cust told the AP.

"Were there any Red Sox on the report? To me, that's kind of a joke. How does that happen? It's coming out now with guys on that team. The guy worked for the Red Sox — they spent all kinds of millions of dollars — and then no one there had their name brought up," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090818/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bba_cust_mitchell_report

Finally somebody says what we all were thinking. Thank You Jack Cust

[The C]

Re: Jack Cust calls out George Mitchell and his report

Because the Mitchell report was based on the testimony of two guys who worked mostly with the Mets and Yankee players.

I think the report was spun from their web of clients. If no Red Sox players were getting their stuff from them, they wouldn't show up.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[djep]

Re: Jack Cust calls out George Mitchell and his report

He had all that money and time to put together this comprehensive report and he couldn't dig up more? How about talking those 2 guys who were fired by the Sox for being involved in steroids? He didn't find more than Radomski and McNamee cause he didn't look, especially in the Boston clubhouse. But that was expected since he was a Director in the organization.

[CMH]

Re: Jack Cust calls out George Mitchell and his report

Well, the same could be said for anyone.

Why did the Red Sox fire these guys before MLB knew to fire them? Why did the Mets have a clubhouse manager handing out steroids before anyone could tell them what was going on?

I've never worked for a clueless organization but most MLB teams appeared to be either extremely stupid and ignorant or just let it all happen.

So, did Mitchell let this happen by not throwing in any Red Sox names? Tough to really prove. The point is, if he did do it on purpose, then you have to realize that everything else was likely on purpose (such as Ramirez and Ortiz being leaked). If he didn't do it on purpose, then it just leads to other questions about MLB and its inability to monitor its players and personnel.

In the end, an image was tarnished and no matter how the names were discovered, whether it be by leaking testimony or a player having admitted guilt before guilt could be handed out, fans will feel used.

Right now, lots of fans agree with Jack Cust. I'm sure there are players that agree with Cust. But Cust should also just think about himself here and find out why he was in the report rather than complain about it. It's either that or work on striking out less.

[JBH3]

Re: Jack Cust calls out George Mitchell and his report

I think Cust has a point. I don't think a cover-up of Red Sox players is out of the question.

[CMH]

Re: Jack Cust calls out George Mitchell and his report

Yea, it's likely considering his affiliation to the organization.

But I think it would have happened to anyone. When BALCO broke loose, everyone in the Bay Area got hit. Any player that took steroids and played near the bay was outed.

Was that fair to them? No, if you think about the number of players that, at the time, walked away without blame.

If Mitchell worked for the Yankees, then less Yankees players would have popped up.

[djep]

Re: Jack Cust calls out George Mitchell and his report

That's where George Mitchell heading up this investigation was flawed. Whether or not he intentionally chose not to dig too deep in his own backyard, we'll never know. But his position within the Boston organization would always leave the Mitchell Report open to the kind of scrutiny it is getting, and deservedly so.

[FuzzySlippers]

Re: Jack Cust calls out George Mitchell and his report

Why didn't Jack Cust say this when the report first came out?

[Cebby]

Re: Jack Cust calls out George Mitchell and his report

Why didn't Jack Cust say this when the report first came out?

Seriously

Didn't Mitchell extend an invitation to anyone who was willing to talk about the issue? I could be mistaken on the that, but I thought I heard that just about anyone willing to discuss steroids was interviewed.

[snepp]

Re: Jack Cust calls out George Mitchell and his report

I wouldn't run my mouth after my rookie season either if I had been in the minors for a decade, seven of those rotting away in AAA.