The Bud Selig questionnaire

In what has to be considered the most unlikely of developments, I’ve been asked to be a guest question asker at the Congressional hearings on steroids on the 16th.  To say this is an unexpected honor is like saying Brady Anderson’s 50 home runs were unexpected.  I’m shocked and honored.However, I have decided that I do not want to abuse this special privilege that has been bestowed upon me.  After all, I have no link to baseball other than my silly blog, I am not a lawyer, I have NO reason to be on Capitol Hill except sight seeing, and nobody in the US of A has the foggiest clue as to who I am.So in the spirit of fairness, for those asking questions and those being questioned, I have decided to decline my invitation.  It would seem unfair to have a person such as myself, having never been part of a Congressional committee, asking questions that might be deemed inappropriate, or demanding that everyone be sworn in. In my place, I have chosen to submit a small section of the Mitchell report that I would like the commissioner of Major League Baseball, Mr. Bud “the Stud” Selig, to comment on.  This section is taken from pages SR-14 through SR-15 and describe some of the earlier incidents regarding players and steroids that came to the commish’s attention.The Mitchell report states as follows:I think, without a doubt, my favorite line from the report is Is there any stronger evidence that Mitchell was trying not to throw Selig under the bus?  “With the benefit of hindsight?”  Is it Selig’s job to use hindsight to solve problems or use FORESIGHT to predict problems?  Three incidents involving steroids cropped up around the Major Leagues within a four month span.  THREE.  Involving three separate teams,  Does it take hindsight to realize that there might be an issue worth looking at?  Did it take a genius to see this many “accidental” discoveries of steroids among Major League players for someone to open their eyes and realize that there might be a greater issue?Mitchell claims that this realization can only surmised with the benefit of hindsight.  Let me ask you a question: how many instances of a leaky pipe in your house do you need to see before you realize there might be a problem?  One?  Two?  Would you wait for three over a four month span before you declared a state of emergency?So my lone question to you, Mr. Bud Selig, is what were you waiting for?  Did these three incidents not signal a problem to you?  If this were your personal business, would you run it this way?