ABSTRACT
In the conclusion to one of the most high-profile investigations into steroid use in sport, US Senator George Mitchell wrote: ‘There has been a great deal of speculation about this report. Much of it has focused on players’ names: how many and which ones’ (2007: 310). Although he was fully aware of the history of ‘naming names’ in American history (see Navasky 1980), Mitchell decided it was appropriate and necessary. At the same time, he hoped that the media and the public would ‘look beyond the individuals to the central conclusions and recommendations of this report’ (2007: 310). That turned out to be wishful thinking.
