Who's Eli-ing Now?

More evidence that Red Sox play dirty.  Gagne's already traded gone.  What about Varitek? 

About Clemens, I never wanted him and I didn't want him back. The audience at last season's Pinstripes on the Park was less than enthusiastic when he made his first post-re-signing appearance. His cheerleading then and after was seductive, but it rang a little sad.

As Clemens once called David Wells, we may now call him, Eli.  (Remember the **** everyone gave Wells for spilling any beans about steroids in his book, which came out before Canseco's?)

No surprise about Petitte.  They were inseparable.

By the way, the Yanks fired their personal trainer, McNamee, whom Clemens brought over from Toronto, in 2001. He is their alleged supplier, and I believe Clemens continued to see him.

That was a public statement of the Yanks' approach to anything suspicious. And it's suspicious that there are so many Yankees on the list. Then again, would we expect less of conclusions drawn by the Chairman Director of the Red Sox Board? However, I must admit, a brief bio hunt turned up nothing unpraiseworthy, let alone compromising, about Mitchell except his team position in the Red Sox organization, and the fact that he did not recuse himself from the commission immediately. He should never have accepted a role that in itself demonstrates his conflict of interest.

Giambi and Sheffield were open (Sheffield used a topical formula as I recall). But I hope they didn't inform. If they had to, so be it. Giambi was summoned more than once, and he is a friend of Wells!

But we must remember overall that most "evidence" in the Mitchell paper is from informants, as I understand it. Informants are criminals caught red handed, and they have every reason to "cooperate." How much more do we trust their information than the word of the waterboarded?

Finally, why were the results of the contractually-anonymous drug tests made available to the committee? (or, am I confusing this committee with another?) Although the results were not used as evidence in the report, it should not have been available as I understand the contract. Is this another execution of self-righteous union-busting?