A random thought and then a response to Lucas' Mitchell Report comments:

-In the Tom Brady vs. Randy Moss MVP debate, I've been up in the air all year. The difference in the Patriots' offense between last year and this year has been astronomical, mostly in part to the attention that Moss draws from defenses, the pass interference calls that Moss draws (despite the offense PI calls that he generates himself), and his ability to make tough fingertip catches in traffic. At one point in Saturday night's game, Brady dropped back to pass and was immediately surrounded by rushers, at which point he sprinted backwards for 10 yards, pratically closed his eyes, and heaved the ball at about a 70 degree angle up the field in the direction of Moss. Randy didn't make the catch, but he almost did, and last season when it was either take the 15 yard sack or throw in the direction of Reche Caldwell it would have most definitely been a sack. However, my decision in the MVP debate was made the moment that Moss laid on the field after a helmet-to-helmet hit, seemingly injured. The first thing that went through my mind was "now maybe Brady will spread the ball around a little more instead of trying to force it to Moss to break Jerry Rice's record". If it were Brady lying prone on the field, my first thought would have been "the season is over". Moss has been a fantastic 4th round draft pick, but Brady for MVP.

Now to respond to Lucas' Mitchell Report thoughts:

On whether it was right for Mitchell to lead the investigation: I'd also have to say no here, although I don't buy any of the nonsense floating around that the New York teams were singled out and the Red Sox were spared because of George Mitchell's ties to the Boston organization. Because he had no subpoena power, his entire investigation relied upon finding quasi-credible witnesses who would roll over on players in order to save their own asses or because they had nothing to lose. You're much more likely to find this in a large organization, especially one with many players already under investigation for steroids purchases (Giambi and Sheffield with the Yankees). All Mitchell needed to do was find somebody already involved in federal steroids investigations who no longer feared legal action due to already being involved in legal proceedings. Seeing names of Yankees and Giants players did not surprise me at all as a result of this, not because of some vast conspiracy. Still, if you're trying to clean up your image and you're intent on airing the dirty laundry and cleaning house anyway, there's no reason not to go with an independent, third-party investigator.

On what to do about the records/statistics from convicted users: The media hand-wringing about revising statistics is patently ridiculous. The Mitchell report contains the names of players who were tangentially connected with two or three core witnesses, not an entire encyclopedia of every player who ever jabbed himself with Winstrol. It may seem easy to go back and wipe Barry Bonds' home runs off the record books, but what about the pitchers who surrended those shots, do we lower their ERA's accordingly? What if it was a game winning home run, do we credit the other team with a victory? If so, how do we explain that the Giants finished 1 game behind team X in the historical standings even though the Giants went to the playoffs? What if the pitcher who surrendered the home run was also using steroids? Statistics are a factual record of what occurred when, they can't be changed by waving your hands around like the kids at the end of the Charlie Brown Christmas special. In the early 1900's there was the Deal Ball Era, the mid to late 1990's and very early 2000's is the Steroid Era. Comparing statistics between eras is pointless anyway, just leave them be.

Now for a more personal question, how do you feel now that your favorite team has signed a player (Eric Gagne) named in the Mitchell report? Does this affect at all how you feel about him or your opinion of the Brewers organization? I have some HGH thoughts also, but I'll save them for later in the discussion.