Sports writers, fans, and assorted media people have been jumping onto the bandwagon that has judged the players mentioned in the Mitchell Report. Plenty of examples abound, so many I won't even bother with links.

What country do we live in, again?

I seem to recall from civics class that we are innocent until proven guilty. Also, if you read the report, you'll find a house of cards built upon hearsay and the bought testimony of two guys facing jail time.

This would seem almost comical if it wasn't so damned important to the sport and to these players' lives. It's the schoolyard equivalent of "You have cooties, because Joey told me you do." No proof, just hearsay.

What country do we live in, again?

How about the architect of this report, Senator George Mitchell? He's not a US Senator these days, but he is a director of the Boston Red Sox. Hmmm... I only recall a handful of Red Sox players mentioned in the report -- two scrubbies who had already admitted to steroid use and (arguably) the biggest traitor in team history.

Is there an ethical issue here? Did Mitchell gloss over other "evidence" or fail to include names of current Red Sox players like David Ortiz (who couldn't really hit for beans until the Twins released him and he joined the Red Sox)? Could it be that Mitchell himself is caught in an ethically compromised position?

Childs Walker of the Baltimore Sun suggests he is. That's one opinion, and no further evidence, so it must be true.

Oh, and Joey says Mitchell has cooties too.