San Diego Union-Tribune releases NFL version of Mitchell Report

San Diego Union-Tribune published Sunday what it calls the NFL version of Mitchell Report.

Like the Mitchell Report, the Union-Tribune relied on hundreds of media reports, archives, plus public records and interviews with players and league personnel. There are no bombshell names unveiled for the first time, nor is it considered comprehensive or proportional, just the best snapshot that could be provided through those sources.

It is believed to only scratch the surface of actual usage in pro football during that time, according to doping experts.

“If I had to venture to guess, you're touching the tip of the iceberg,” said Charles Yesalis, a Penn State professor emeritus and anabolic steroids expert. “Because of the secretive nature of all of it, it's very difficult to come up with any kind of solid handle.”

Another story touches on the lack of interest in the NFL's drug problem. It's called: "Why less outrage over drugs in the NFL?" The newspaper answers the question with several possible reasons, but no definite answer. It's probably a mix of all the newspaper's possible reasons, but their final possibility seems to resonate.

Individual recognition: Fans don't get as disappointed in those they don't feel they know very well. In baseball, you can see players' faces and recognize them individually when they bat or pitch. In football, players' faces are covered by helmets, and many of those who have used steroids are linemen who labor in relative anonymity.

“There's a greater ability to see and relate to baseball players,” said David Carter, executive director of USC's Sports Business Institute. “So the disappointment and outrage is slightly different.”

The Union-Tribune also lists a detailed history that goes team-by-team.

The problem may have started before Aug. 29, 1989, but that's when the NFL's problem became public.