"Remember the Mitchell Report"

I can't put my finger on it, but something in all the coverage the last two days of the release of the Mitchell Report is missing. There's just something not there.
Maybe this article by Howard Bryant on ESPN.com gets at it..

By not addressing the statistics produced during more than a decade of drug use, Mitchell left his report open to the notion that the sensation produced by the names in the report is more important than the long-term implications of how this period in history is interpreted.

I've not really composed my thoughts on this coherently.. and I've only scratched the surface on all the material that's been produced in the wake of the report..

But here, in very brief, are my basic reservations:
1) Bryant uses the phrase more than a decade of drug use... Does everyone think the 'doping' in baseball started only in 1997 or so? Does no one remember how people were talking about Jose Canseco as early as 1987? Remember the Bash Brothers? We all knew what was happening in that A's clubhouse. Maybe it goes back even farther than that year, but I can't recall anyone with that much muscle mass in baseball prior to that time. This has been in baseball, and noticeably so, for two solid decades. Period.

2) so much focus on the Yankees and the Championships. Are they tainted? Undeniably. More tainted than EVERY RECORD BROKEN SINCE 1987? No way. Not even close.