The Mitchell Report has generated a bevy of excellent news, media, and blog stories. To add to those mentioned in previous posts, check out:
- Geoff Rapp has some terrific comments in a piece today by Tim Lemke of the Washington Times.
- Don Walker of the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal examines the quality of evidence used to implicate players. He interviews Marquette Law Professor Matt Mitten and me for his piece.
- George Washington University law professor Paul Butler, in a post on BlackProf entitled Free Barry Bonds, argues that "If the other players [named in the Mitchell Report], most of whom are white and Latino, do not face criminal charges, the prosecutor should drop the charges against Bonds."
- Willamette University law professor Jeffrey Standen, in a post on Sports Law Professor entitled Mitchell Report Reactions, argues "The report names a lot of players; presumably many more are involved. At some point the law of diminishing returns kicks in and we no longer care."
- In a press release, Duke law professor Paul Haagen and Duke cultural anthropology professor Orin Starn discuss the desire the affix blame for the steroids problem.
- George Mason law professor Illya Somin, in a post on The Volokh Conspiracy, argues that George Mitchell did not have a conflict of interest in his role as director of the Red Sox. I argued the same on SI.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment