Ortitz...Roid user

All 3 are very close, arguments pro and con...and thats the beauty of it...thats why they have a veterans committee too. But the HoF has always had borderline guys...and always will I suspect.

But the good news is that Trammell, Blyleven, and Murphy are not being kept out based on current players who abused they are being kept out because under the scrunity of their numbers in comparison to the existing HoF members they are borderline. Perhaps the Veterans committee see its differently than BBWAA. That often is the case. We will see.

 

Right, but it was still a PED. I don't disagree that he should be in the Hall, just that he's one guy we KNOW was using drugs that were later banned.

 

McGwire, Bonds, Palmeiro, Sosa and others broke exactly ZERO rules while they played. None. Well, that's not true; Sosa was once suspended for a corked bat. But you get the idea. Not a single one of the substances they allegedly took was illegal in baseball at the time. Why are we punishing them for it now? Are we going to go through the Hall and start removing all the players who took amphetamines over the years? Because their accomplishments were just as tainted, and amphetamines were subsequently banned, too, you know.

You have to judge players against the standards in which they played and the rules at the time. We can't go back and say "you know what, I don't like that, even though it was the rule at the time." Are Babe Ruth's 714 home runs cheapened because he never hit one of them off a black pitcher? Should we deduct a hundred or so from Cy Young's win total because he didn't pitch during the days of 4 or 5 man rotations? Should we beef up the home run totals of the guys who played in the Dead Ball Era? Logically, they're all just as valid as the argument of "PEDs are bad, even though they were the standard of the time, therefore we're going to omit anyone who ever used PEDs from the Hall."

 

The BBWAA want the list released so they have something to write about.

Here's the thing with McGwire though, you're basing it on Canseco's comments thats it. Granted he's been spot on so far but Canseco also has taken pay outs from other players in exchange for him to keep quiet and not mention them. He's hardily a saint but that right there hurts his credibility. The fact is McGwire never failed a drug test nor is there any proof he ever did it outside of one man's claims. In court the case wouldn't even go to trial.

The problem is is that there will be guys that get in the HOF who have used PEDs. And hey maybe there already are, who's to say that Nolan Ryan or Cal Ripken never used them? People want to call Schilling a user because he pitched well late in his career but so did Ryan. Ripken played all those games in a row and one of the positives of steriods is it helps you recover from injury quicker. See what I mean? It's a very slippery slope here.

The writers can't pick and choose which guys go in and which guys don't when there's no proof of it, just suspecison. It's wrong and not fair.

 

How about guys that get Lasik eye surgery or TJ surgery? Those things weren't available to players back then. Does it give players now an advantage? That's why you can't really compare eras, there are also flaws in the system.

 

Palmerio was suspended for his PED use...wasnt he...after lying to Congress (apparently)?

 

If your name is one of the 104....yup that works for me!

 

Well, if the BBWAA passed on every one of the 104 as an example...I would be fine...then the Veterans Committee gets to vote on who they feel are equal to them and worthy.

Thats the best way to handle it...let the members vote for who they feel didnt cheat the integrity of the membership.

I would be OK with that. The 104 sweat it out, and the VC gives them their day in Baseball Court so to speak. That works for me.

 

Absolutely. Should we equalize the stats for guys who played at ridiculous parks like the Polo Grounds, which was something like 250 feet to left field but 500 to dead center? How about the fact that playing in Denver's thin altitude turned Todd Helton into a borderline Hall of Fame candidate? What about spitballs, which were long since rendered illegal? Can we pull Gaylord Perry from the Hall? We KNOW Perry used the spitball after it was made illegal. He freely admitted it. Can we give Ted Williams back the three years that World War II cost him (and the one year that the Korean War cost him) and many others? I mean, it's probably Adolf Hitler's fault that Williams didn't hit more home runs, and Hitler's a bad guy, so let's not punish the Splendid Splinter for that.

 

so basically let everyone take steriods and cheat as much as possible right? i mean, cuz other players in the past have had other advantages, who cares if MLB players take an illegal substance that makes them so much better right?

 

The problem is that list isn't complete. It's just 104 names, it's not a list of every single player who ever used a PED in baseball. So just because a player isn't on that list doesn't mean he never cheated, either before the list or even afterwards.

 

All 30 owners and people in the front offices of the MLB would agree. Because that's what happened and made everyone from the owners to the players to the clubhouse guys very very rich.

And no that's not what we mean by it. It's just that people are going to be unfairly treated by the system, whether they deserve it or not. People are basically just picking and choosing which players should or shouldn't go when they don't have all the facts.

 

This is about telling folks that CHEATING THE STATS is wrong....even to the point of making an example...its not about looking the other way...comparing it to Lasik, or greenies, or spitballs...its about INFLATED STATS.

The HISTORY OF THE GAME has already figured out how to measure performance from era to era...and until this SELF INFLATED STEROID ERA the game was never tarnished to belittle and mock the entrance to being viewed the BEST OF THE BEST....the less than 1% of the game that are HoFers.

So, let the BBWAA pass on every single one of them.....the best group to determine if these 104 (or anyone recently caught and suspended for PEDs) are the HOF Veterans. Maybe they say its ok, if so. fine...but I have no issues with the BBWAA telling all 104 to F-off and wait your turn to the VC and stew in your juices for awhile.

 

Nothing is perfect, but its a damn good start to say if you were dumb enough to get caught you are automatically on the outside looking in.

We havent caught every bank robber or speeder either....but folks know if they are bank robbers, speeders by definition. All caught bank robbers and speeders pay the price accordingly.

These 104 are most likely not all...but they are 104 KNOWN abusers. Works for me, cut and dry.

 

Of course not. Baseball outlawed steroids in 2005. Therefore, any player busted for roids after that time should be punished. Before 2005, they should not. That's a thick, black line. To punish a guy for steroid abuse prior to 2005 is to judge him unfairly. To punish him for SUSPECTED steroid abuse prior to 2005 is really, really unfair.

 

Of course...because bank robbery and speeding are illegal! Prior to 2005, roids were not.

 

Again, if we're talking about inflating stats, I reiterate: why don't we shave a bunch of wins off Cy Young's total? Surely the 2 and 3 man pitching rotations of the day had a huge impact on his win totals. What about the Dead Ball Era? That inflated pitching totals beyond any reasonable comprehension. What about ridiculous, homer-happy parks that made Coors Field look positively reasonable by comparison? And what about the fact that many of the best players around couldn't play the game because they were black? You think those things didn't screw with the numbers?

 

Thats not true, STEROIDS have always been illegal in society...Baseball just didnt have a specific rule about them or assoicated penalty. Once DESIGNER DRUGS and PEDS were being used in addition masking agents making them harder to detect, and including common ROIDS, rules and penalties were put in place.

Baseball didnt have a rule about Cocaine either until the scandal in the 70's and early 80's either...even though society said Coke was illegal. Same with Greenies and Uppers that were tied to the scandal.

The fact is, Cheating the Game is Cheating the Game. Its simple to understand. And once you are caught, the "well, I knew it was wrong, but it wasnt specifically illegal and no penalty was defined by Baseball so its ok" is a weak cop-out in my book.

 

it wasnt on the banned substance list of MLB, but it was illegal drug that boosted ones performance dramatically over ones that did not break the law and use that this illegal drug.

 

Hey I said all along that guys like Bonds, Clemens and Manny should have on their placque that they were caught/suspended/suspected PED users. The HOF is a museum of baseball history, baseball can't erase or black out the PED era, I'm not saying they should celebrate it either but those guys should absolutely be in the HOF. If they want to punish those guys that took PEDs fine, don't give them a cermony or a speech. But they should be in there.

 

Baseball is a STATS sport and game...always has been and always will be...and the beauty is that not every ballpark, or rotation, or dimension of wall height is cookie cutter...but the Hall of Fame voters have always figured out a way to compare and contrast which players were a cut-above the rest and did things under the circumstances that if put in any other era would hold their own. Its the beauty of the game of baseball and the beauty of the HoF debates each year.

Again, let the Veterans vote when the time has come to pass on the 104 and all other known PED abusers...I am fine with that...why arent you?

 

While it definitely helped, that's not always the case.

 

Why, every convicted member of the BlackSox scandal was kicked out and banned forever.....never elected into the HOF but their story is referenced and known with memorabilia, etc in the HOF.

Baseball would be well served if we had Kennesaw Mountain Landis in charge.

So, these 104 and anyone caught using, can easily be kept out of ever having a personal plaque and being viewed as HoF member, but I sure hope Cooperstown has their story plastered in a special wing to show and tell the story of "infamous one-oh-four" how they Abused the integrity of the game and I hope young kids of today and tomorrow read about it, know the story, and it gives them pause to never risk it themselves. Thats what its about as well.

AROD, PAPI, MANNY should feel blessed to not be kicked out of the game immediately for CHEATING! They should count their lucky stars they still are paid to play the game....but never be in the HoF until the VC gives them final thumbs up or down.

 

You mean the Comissioner that wouldn't let African Americans play in the MLB? Or him trying to stop the use of the minor leagues?

Agreed on the special wing. The HOF should have a wing explaining to fans about the era and who were known users. Absolutely.

Disagreed on Arod, Ortiz, Manny etc being blessed to not be kicked out of the game. That's just a dumb comment (but I mean that in the most respectful way, I just can't think of a better word at the moment).

 

Hahaha...you take the good you take the bad....I would love Roosevelt to run our wars, but dont want him for the Social Welfare state he started!

Wing or stories/memorabilia/sections fine, but I just assume leave it up to the Veterans Committee about allowing a PED guy get a plaque, etc.

Well, my point is, to really prove how Baseball wants to rid itself of the PED era (and taking into account how 30 owners, commish office, and players policing themselves all conspired to allow it to happen in the first place) banning Caught Cheaters would seem like a fair step.

It is how BETTING ON THE GAME as a clear no-no got the support it did. KML put his foot down and made it clear and simple to understand. Every clubhouse has the "sign" hanging...and Pete Rose is the current modern day poster child.

Now, I would let Rose in....but would also let Shoeless Joe in at the same time; based on what they did during the play of the game on the field.

So if Baseball said, PEDs are a no-no, and all folks caught were banned for life, dont you think it would nip it in the bud immediately????

Players Union be damned!

 

Because the 1919 White Sox threw a WS for money. They intentionally changed the outcome of a game(s).

And there's no way Shoeless Joe should be in. He took the money, I don't care that he had a great series, he still took the money and was in on it.

 

Wow, between the two of us, we sure have plenty of double-standards to go around dont we....hahaha...I am quilty of it for sure, but you joined the crowd here.

 

How is it a double standard? Throwing a game by intentionally making errors or making outs and making sure your team lost while taking money for it isn't the same as taking a PED.

Guys took PEDs to get better. The Black Sox threw the WS and took money because they were mad at their owner for being cheap.

I just don't see it.

 

"They intentionally changed the outcome of games....and I dont care if he (they) had a great series, (or put up huge numbers during a season, etc), he (they) still took the money and was in on it."

Replace "Money" with Roids or PEDs and thats how I feel about that group. They were in on it, and they intentionally changed the outcome of the game (big picture), I dont care that they put up huge inflated numbers.

Just saying you can view one group of demeaning the game (cheating/gambling/excepting payouts, or in Joe's case, accepting cash but still producing to win) and I can view PED guys the same way. On the flip side, those that were bribed and their performance showed it to be fact (as well as testimony) I dont want in the Hall, just like PED guys.

But a Shoeless Joe where the facts dont back it up regardless of accepting $$$ which he is quilty of, or a Pete Rose during his playing days producing on the field with no hint of betting on the outcome (accept to win as Manager, and speculation as a player), etc I could accept in the Hall...but never a PED guy.

Just saying....

 

That's fine if you feel that way, I disagree but its ok. Trying to compare PEDs to gambling is apples to oranges but they're still both fruits.

I just don't see how you can defend Jackson. Sure he had great numbers but who's to say the 2 times he K'ed it wasn't on purpose or any of his at bats he made outs in? Or a ball in the OF that he got a bad jump or late break or threw to the wrong side of the cut off man etc. The thing that kills him is he took the money, which shows he was in on it. The fact that he played well in the series shouldn't matter.

Out of anyone between him, Rose, the PED guys. He'd be the last guy I'd put in (along with the other Black Sox obviously).

 

We agree to disagree on gambling and PED comparison, thats ok, while it may be apples and oranges to some, to me its still cheating which is apples to apples to others. (the gray area is Cheating to throw a game, cheating/betting to win a game I suppose)

I am not saying I want or dont want Jackson explicitly in the HoF, but I would be behind the effort to allow him to be eligible and let the Veterans Committee bring him to vote. Just like Rose...and let them decide his fate.

But they both need to be eligible for that next step.

Are you opposed to the BBWAA passing over the 104 or caught PED users since the rules went into effect, and leaving it up to the Veterans committee?

 

I'm opposed to the BBWAA voting period. The Veterans Committee should be the ones to vote on the players on whether they should go in or not.

 

Somebody please explain this to me, and im not a big follower of sport by any means, i just know the game, and some history.
The whole roiding thing...If the dude fails a test in 2003, why the hell it comes out six years later? Him, AROD and im sure many more.

 

Because someone (or more than one person) is leaking the information to the press. Those tests were suppose to be anonymous and the players were promised by the union that their names would never be released, that's the only reason why the union even agreed to the testing in the first place. The test was just a sample to see just how many players were using PEDs and whether there were enough players to justify a testing system be put in place.

Frankly it's not fair that guys like Arod, Manny, Ortiz and Sosa's names are out there. However is doing it is breaking the law.

 

Whats the point of taking the tests if they won't bust the guys who don't pass them?

 

There was no drug test in place in 2003. It was a sample test. MLB wanted to see just how many players were using PEDs. If there was more than like 5% of the players than they were going to set up a drug test, the union was cocky and didn't think there was a problem so they agreed and it ended up being more than 5%. The players were promised their names wouldn't be announced and their would be no penalty for a failed test. So the union kept the list of players who failed because they wanted to see if any of them were false positives to try and lower the numbers under 5% so there wouldn't be testing. The union never destroyed the test results and someone got their hands on the file with the names.

 

So let me get this straight.
They tested guys just "to prove a point" without even dosclosing it?

 

Correct, the test was a "Litmus" to justify putting rules in place about PED use and associated penalties. Thats how the rules and penalties were agreed to between the Players Union and the MLB Commissioners office and Owners.

The 5% rule was the line in the sand...and the initial so-called "anonymous" testing was a measuring stick to prove or disprove the 5% theory....the 104 blew the 5% out of the water, thus Players Union had to cave and agree to the banning of the substances and penalties (3 strikes are you are out ladder so to speak).

The problem as stated above, while "anonymous" in theory they had to track who's samples were who's...frankly the Union should have destroyed all records, but they didn't. Then during the whole BALCO and Bonds investigations, the FBI in searching the lab that did the test found the full list.

Slowly, over the last few years, names have been leaking to the press, etc. Some feel its the Justice Dept that is behind it...but who knows. Bottom line, the screw up is putting names out their and since the Testing was free of penalty since none existed at the time, the names are simply embarrassment at this point in time. (Arod, Papi, Sosa, Manny, etc)

Going forward, and several have been caught, anyone testing positive is suspended for 50 games (i.e several Minor League players, a RP for Phils, and most recently Manny again). A 2nd penalty would equal 100 games or season cant remember?, and 3rd would be banishment from game I believe.

So far, thank goodness, its only been 50gm suspensions (sadly folks are still doing it).

Thats the scoop to date....

 

More or less. MLB front offices wanted a real drug test but the player's union said no. They both agreed that if more than 5% of the players failed a test there would be real testing starting.

 

2 new updates:

http://ow.ly/jpXY

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/press_relea...ent_id=6315950&vkey=pr_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Basically as suspected, 104 names appear, but not necessarily 104 people (could include duplicates, etc)...and 96 positives (some of which could be false positives, etc).