When is a Criminal Investigation Not a Criminal Investigation? The Weirdness of the Mitchell Report

I keep being struck by the odd language of the Mitchell report on Major League Baseball steroid use, because it can't quite make up its mind whether it is being written from the perspective of a disinterested observer, the perspective of a federal prosecutor, or something in between.

For example, Mitchell writes on p. 7 that "The Players Association sent out a companion memorandum that effectively discouraged players from cooperating. Not one player contacted me in response to my memorandum."

Think about that for a second. What else would a reasonable player do, when somebody with no legal authority starts to ask you whether you've been committing drug crimes? Of course they weren't helpful. Mitchell's investigation could do nothing but harm them.

A few pages later, Mitchell notes that "Through the efforts of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California and federal law enforcement agencies, we obtained the cooperation of former New York Mets clubhouse employee Kirk Radomski."  What he's really saying, of course, is that Radomski had his arm twisted through the threat of being sent away to prison for decades, and that he turned state's evidence as part of a plea deal. Indeed, Radomski faced up to 25 years in prison for steroids-related charges, according to the SF Chronicle. But presumably by spilling his guts he will manage to be sentenced to something less extreme.

The Chronicle reporters also note:

Before Radomski was ordered to cooperate, Mitchell had complained that he was having trouble finding witnesses for his report.

"Mitchell was hamstrung 20 different ways," said Marc L. Mukasey, a criminal-defense specialist and former prosecutor in New York who has followed the investigation. "He had no subpoena powers, he faces very serious labor law issues and, as I understand it, there wasn't a line of players beating down the doors to help him out."

In short, this investigation might not exactly be a criminal affair, but it seems to draw far more heavily on the weight of the criminal justice system than one might expect for an "independent" investigation.

Incidentally, I've never been a fan of allowing anonymous sources to be the basis for drug prosecutions, but I can only imagine how mortified Radomski is to see his name practically up in lights on page after page of this report.
 

Comments

sorry to ask this - but in the first paragraph of his report - "... in violation of federal law...."

which law is it that says a baseball player can't use steroids?

i have done some searching but can't place my finger on it....

thanks

controlled substance act - 2004
found it.

thanks