Roberts didn't want to rat out his fellow players.  Mitchell would undoubtedly ask what he has seen or heard about steriods.  That said, even if the union told not to talk to the commission, any named player in the report should have agreed to talk to the commission under the condition that he would only talk about his own use if he's interested in clearing his name.  

It sounds like you're saying these players were presumed guilty by Mitchell & co., and I have gone to great lengths to state that I don't believe this is true, and have laid out the reasons why. I think the committee had suspicions and gave players a fair chance to clear them up.

You say that if guilty, the player should go before the committee express his guilt. No misunderstanding here, and I reiterate why do that in this atmosphere where future punishment is unknown.

First of all, I don't say that. I say that a player, if guilty, cannot expect to leave the proceedings untarnished if he is unwilling to discuss his past actions. I say that remaining silent leaves people thinking the worst. So a player has to weigh those ramifications in deciding whether or not to appear.

Why appear when future punishment is unknown? I don't know, maybe because it's an Official MLB investigation and you want to get ahead of the curve? Maybe when they call you you decide to take an opportunity to give your side of a story? By the standards you're suggesting, any guilty person who is ever accused should plead innocent until they are convicted. A lot of folks, not knowing what punishment awaits them, choose to come clean and face the music. In criminal and civil courts, there is often an advantage to doing so. It sounds to me like you're defending the baseball players' near-universal silence on the matter. Personally, I think that's exactly the kind of behavior that led us to where we are.

One other overriding fact each player had to contend with is the players union telling them not to cooperate.

No one's union has control over their individual actions. MLBPA could advise players not to interview, but had no power to compel them not to do so. Frank Thomas is the one player I know of who agreed to interview. Last time I checked, no one was calling him a "rat", and I haven't heard of him getting any sanctions from the union. Know why? 'Cause they have no right to tell him how to act. Frankly, MLPBA is one of the entities most responsible for this mess. If players feel that following the union's advice was automatically better for them, they are being naive. MLBPA wants as much of this covered up as possible.

If you want to impose some sort of "name clearing" for the innocent or at least an attempt to restore dignity for the guilty, why limit it to those who were fingered by whatever talker, facing criminal charges depending on their cooperation, Mitchell had at his disposal? Get every single player past and present up there to make a statement about their past use or non-use. It's not binding, but it would be a public statement. At least then your approach would be comprehensive and consistent.

It would be neither comprehensive nor consistent. Baseball had different rules at different times, so consistency is well near impossible. And comprehensive? Ha. Many players who are clearly guilty have gotten up and given numerous "non-binding public statements" to the effect that they were completely clean. Do I really need to see Jay Gibbons lie to me one more time?

No, the scope of this investigation is what it is. A player wasn't called unless the committee felt they could shed some light on the matter. The union, feeling it was in the players' best inetersts, asked the players to maintain a "Wall of Silence". Most chose to do so. That's a gamble that the players and the union made together. Perhaps it didn't work out as well as they expected.

People have to be responsible for their individual actions. Saying "everyone else was doing it" is hiding behind an excuse. Saying the investigation was a "witchhunt" is bullshit: there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence of what the committee is investigating. Saying a player would afraid of being a "rat" is a straw-man: I am not saying players should have gone in and "named names"; I'm only saying theat each player was given an opportunity to clear his own name. To pass on that chance and then bitch about one's name being dragged through the mud is naive at best and posturing at worst.

It's just a question of arrogant self-entitlement against drunken limp-dicked self-loathing--DaBB