As advertised, The Mitchell Report came out last Thursday, naming 86 current and former baseball players as users of performance enhancing drugs. Many of the players have acknowledged their involvement, some have denied it.

Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig has said he "Will act" on the claims. The report is the product of an investigation by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who was asked by Selig to conduct it.

Mitchell said that all of the players named were contacted before the release of the report and offered a chance to explain the claims against them. It seems that the evidence consists mostly of claims made by clubhouse employees.

Brian McNamee, a former strength and conditioning coach for the New York Yankees is cited as the source for claims against Yankees' pitchers Roger Clemens, who denies any involvement and Andy Pettite, who admits only to taking human growth hormones for two days to help heal an injury. Former New York Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski was interviewed at least four times for the report.

In announcing the report, Mitchell said that everyone in major league baseball shares responsibility for what is described as a problem. However, I think it's telling that he said those involved should not be punished except for a few of the most serious abuse cases.

In fact, many of the incidents of using steroids or HGH that are listed in the report occurred before 2003. The investigation did not get into the issue of stimulants. Before that year, those substances were banned but testing was not being done, so the bans essentially were null. His position seems to be that since MLB

wasn't taking the issue seriously enough to actually test, players should not be held to the standard.

In other words, what is included in the report is Old News.

And to say that punishment is inappropriate suggests that usage is really not to be considered such a big deal.

A little Devil's Advocate moment here.

Why ban the use of steroids and HGH anyway? What is so wrong?

Sure, they make the human body grow faster. But they don't automatically turn that increase body mass into muscle.

They don't automatically train that muscle to perform. They don't automatically provide the eye-hand coordination needed to hit a homerun and they don't provide the mental power a pitcher needs to outguess a batter or the finesse to put the ball where it is not expected.

That still takes work and it takes practice, the same things that have been expected of athletes forever.

These are not homerun pills.

Is there a fundamental difference between using substances that help an athlete make his body stronger and more powerful and the development of a better fitting athletic shoe that helps him or her perform better?

Are there different pole vault records for bamboo and fiberglass poles?

The accomplishments of athletes are in how they use their skill and dedication to make the best use of the technology as it exists in their activity … technology available to all participants.

Of course there is that pesky "roid rage" phenomenon, that can be tragic.

And the commitment to use performance enhancing substances, with their ramifications, is not something that juveniles are prepared to make.

Just something to argue with your in-laws about during the holidays … as if you needed anything.