It’s been the buzz of the baseball world, but this past week former Senator George Mitchell released his report. It’s an understatement to say that the results are stunning. He did not have subpoena power and couldn’t compel anyone to talk to him and there was the fear that his report wouldn’t reveal much. It did. You can read a list of the players. There were the names of those we expected to be there (Barry Bonds) but there were also players I wasn’t expecting, like Paul LoDuca and Eric Gagne. It appears that many of the players listed were told where to get the steroids from other players.

Aside from the long list of players the other part of this that was so sickening was the implied complicity of management. I was obviously looking for the names of former Padres, but here is what I found with former pitcher Kevin Brown (it’s on page 216). These are notes from an October 2003 meeting of Dodgers officials:

Kevin Brown – getting to the age of nagging injuries . . . Question what kind of medication he takes . . . Effectiveness goes down covering 1st base or running bases. Common in soccer players and are more susceptible if you take meds to increase your muscles – doesn’t increase the attachments. Is he open to adjusting how he takes care of himself? He knows he now needs to do stuff before coming to spring training to be ready. Steroids speculated by GM

Those same notes quote this about pitcher Eric Gagne: “he probably takes medication and tendons and ligaments don’t build up just the muscle.”

There is much more but this gives a flavor. I’m troubled by this because it was clear that not only was there pressure on the players to use steroids, there was also winks and nods from management. There are a few superstars on this list (Bonds, Clemens, etc.) but there are many more “2nd tier” players who used this stuff not for records, but just to make the team. They are competing against those who are cheating and many felt they had no choice if they wanted to stay on a level playing field.

Lots of comparisons are being made to the 1919 Black Sox scandal (this is where 8 players for the Chicago White Sox took bribes to throw the 1919 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds). I hope it’s not that serious; baseball had a very difficult few years and was only popular again with the rise of Babe Ruth. But the sense of betrayal is the same and I can’t help but feel that some of the fan base will simply leave. I won’t be one of them because I still enjoy watching the game and there are still the Tony Gwynn’s and Cal Ripkin’s out there.

We’ve been waiting for this for a long time, but word came out that Barry Bonds has been indicted on 4 counts of perjury and 1 count of obstruction of justice related to his testimony before the grand jury in December of 2003. You can read the text of the indictment here. If you don’t have Adobe Acrobat you have to download the reader to read the document.

It was about that time Barry changed his story from “I never took steroids” to “I never knowingly took steroids. The focus of the grand jury investigation was a company called Balco who Justice lawyers believed provided steroids to a number of athletes. Barry was given immunity so that he couldn’t be prosecuted for anything he told the grand jury (this prevents him from taking the Fifth Amendment) as long as he was truthful to the grand jury. Bonds was asked if he received steriods from Greg Anderson, a friend of Bonds who has an affiliate with Balco. He testified that Anderson administered a cream that Bonds believed was flaxseed oil.

This is all pretty dry stuff, but the bottom line is this: the indictment shows he knowingly took steroids and lied to investigators. Now he faces the possibility of prison time, all because he wanted the home run record enough to cheat. This shows not just a lack of respect for himself but also for baseball. I’ve written on this before on March 9, 2006. By the way Sports Illustrated has a terrific slide show on Barry’s growth chart.

Meanwhile, Barry is a free agent and is looking for a team that will pick him up so he can get 3000 hits in the major leagues. It doesn’t look likely now. Speaking only for myself as a baseball fan, I won’t miss him.

Last month I wrote a post on the sex abuse settlement with the Catholic Diocese of San Diego. In the negotiations with the victims Bishop Brom stated that the diocese could only afford to pay out $95 million without hurting the mission of the church. The final settlement was for $198 million and the share of the diocese will be about $107 million (the rest will come from insurance) which means that the diocese needs to close a gap of $12 million.

Most other dioceses have closed this gap by selling property or other assets; some have closed parishes. Bishop Brom doesn’t want to do this and appears to have come up with another solution: shake down your people. Last week he sent a memo to all the priests in the diocese; there is a link in an article in the San Diego Union Tribune. He asks all the priests of the diocese to donate a month’s salary to a campaign called “Embracing Our Mission” (though “Saving Our Mission” would probably be more accurate). This is the excerpt from the memo:

Since we cannot ask of others what we are unwilling to do ourselves, the deans [priests who represent a given geographic grouping of priests in the diocese] accepted the recommendation of the Presbyteral Council [a council of priests who advise the bishop] to invite every priest to contribute one month’s salary toward Embracing Our Mission. Retired priests will be asked to contribute according to their means. In this regard, you will soon hear from your dean.

The memo goes on to say that each pastor will receive a packet that they will mail to their parishioners “inviting them to make a generous contribution.”

The astounding part of this isn’t the fact that Bishop Brom is asking for money. Since we, the faithful, are essentially the only source of income for the church he really has nowhere else to go. The idea that the bishop can strongarm his priests in this manner is what astounds me. I, as a layperson, am asked to make a “generous contribution” but am left to myself to decide what it is. I certainly have no intention of donating a month’s salary because, simply put, I have bills to pay. But so do they. The mood of this letter to priests makes it sound like it’s far from a suggestion.

As for me, I doubt we’ll give the “generous contribution” but not for the reason you may think. It’s not a matter of “I didn’t cause the problem and shouldn’t have to pay for it.” I find that excuse a little thin. My primary concern is that the victims be compensated and that’s already taken care of. This “generous contribution” is to reimburse the diocese and I’m not sure that should happen. Bishop Brom (to my mind) doesn’t seem to “get it” in the sense of understanding why we are so upset with him. Perhaps the diocese should go through some penance and this may entail some selling of property. While I certainly want the mission of the church to go on, it should not necessarily be easy for Bishop Brom.

And by the way, Bishop Brom never states he will donate a month of his salary.