The Mitchell Report...Does this change anything?

It seems like everyone is talking about the Mitchell report, as if it is the most important thing to happen since the Dowd Report (for those of you have no idea what I'm talking about, google it).  My question is, what's changed since yesterday morning, when we all got out of bed and were convinced that Barry Bonds used steroids, along with Jose Canseco and (based on some estimates form within baseball) 25-30% of active MLB players from 1990 - 2000? Well, we have a couple of new names, in the form of Roger "1st ballot Hall of Famer/I'll pitch for you for $1.2M a start" Clemens and his ever faithful sidekick Andy "Gee I wish I was Roger Clemens" Pettite.  Other than those two names and the seeming confirmation that Miguel "Houston gave up five guys to get a washed up shortstop" Tejada used roids (and to think that no one believed Rafael Palmeiro), the rest of the named players are nothing new.  We've been bombarded with news about steroids in baseball for the last 3 years on a weekly basis.  So who cares? First off, there is no concrete evidence of any wrongdoing contained within the Mitchell report.  All the accusations are based on the testimony of clubhouse attendants, personal trainers and a few MLB players who actually met with George Mitchell.  No criminal charges can be brought about by the findings of this commission, Mitchell recommends no disciplinary action be taken against those named in the reports and more importantly, it's all hearsay. Now, I will admit that generally speaking, where there's smoke there's fire.  Yet, this is one situation where I am incredibly skeptical of the report of an unbiased (but they paid me $60 million to investigate) commission.  George Mitchell was hired by Bud Selig, unilaterally.  The Player's Union had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of this report and actively encouraged it's players not to cooperate.  Now, if they felt that it were truly an investigation into the penetration of drugs into the game, as opposed to a witch hunt by Bud "Gotta save my legacy" Selig, why would they not want to concentrate.  The players have far more to lose in this fight than the owners, especially the ones who do not and have not used performance enhancing drugs.  The owners know that fans could give two shits about steroids in baseball (evidenced by the newly minted attendance records set during the 2007 season), in fact, they seem to prefer the type of game that these drugs have created; lots of offense, bad pitching and little or no defense (see the 2007 NY Yankees for the prime example of this game). What it all comes down to is this, as John Kruk pointed out yesterday, if the report has any merit then we have to look at Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds in the exact same light.  Barry Bonds is hated (outside of SF) for his "cheating" of the game by using HGH.  If Roger Clemens (who is universally lauded as one of the greatest pitchers of all time) used HGH, steroids and artificial testosterone, shouldn't we hate him too?  My answer (if the report is deemed to be credible) is yes, absolutely; or no, unequivocally.  Your feelings toward these players has everything to do with their role in your lives.  If you want your children to look up to athletes as role models, then you better tear down your Clemens posters, clean the closet of MJ material (he had that gambling problem you know) and god forbid you should have a poster of Shawn Kemp somewhere left over from his 15 minutes of fame. Athletes are first and foremost human beings, they are fallible, they make mistakes, they cheat, big surprise.  It is no secret that there are countless numbers of cheaters already enshrined in Cooperstown (Gaylord Perry and Whitey Ford come to mind), as well as players who used illegal drugs (amphetamines were really popular at one point), so how are they different than this new crop of cheaters?   The answer is, they're not.  What's different is that sports media is no longer keeping it quiet, and with sports becoming big business in this country, people know more about their on-field heroes than ever before.  The culture of celebrity worship/destruction has transfered into sports.  But this is really nothing new, read "The Natural" (don't rent the movie, read the book), nothing new.  There is always a quiet, jealous part of us that loves watching those tha have risen come crashing back to the earth (Lindsay Lohan anyone?). Alright, I feel as if I been rambling for too long, I just want to leave you with this thought.   Were any of you really that surprised that Roger Clemens' name showed up in that report?  I mean come on, the dude is closer to 50 than 30, and he is no Satchel Paige.