Mark McGuire: HOF chances look bleak! (1 Viewer)

[oso diablo]

this first year will be a statement vote. McGwire will get about 35%, then climb to the necessary 75% within 5 years.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Do we kick Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson out of the Hall of Fame for admitting that they have no doubts that if steroids were available in their era they, and the vast majority of their peers would have used them?

No, because they didn't. Big difference between would've and did.

What is his crime against baseball again? How did he cheat the game by doing what it took to make him the best player he could be? Making himself into a reluctant star that was heavily marketed by the game.

Are you implying that cheating is not cheating when it makes you better? This question makes little to no sense.

 

[BassNBrew]

If he is kept out it would be a travesty

Minus roids, McCwire never hits 400 home runs....would never have sniffed the hall.

You have proof that he did roids???

congressional appearance down??

I don't remember him admitting to anything....If I recall correctly he took the 5th no?

what does that tell you?Hopefully the same thing it's telling the voters.

How can you ban someone for something they never admitted to and that wasn't illegal at the time even if he did partake? Baseball community loves the kangaroo courts...

Not ban, just not vote for an honor. While andro wasn't illegal (or even against the rules) while he was using it, steriods were illegal during the time he used them. No I cannot prove that he used steroids, but I fail to see why that's necessary. We are not trying to convict him of anything.

No you are just trying to keep him out of baseballs highest institution for something he never admitted to doing nor is there any proof he did...

Do you honestly think he didn't?Suppose I have a 3 scholarship to give away and I interviewed 10 or so of the best candidates. One of my questions is whether they ever cheated to get the good grades they got. One guy says to me: "I'm not going to talk about that."I choose not to give a scholarship to that guy bc I suspect, but cannot prove, that he cheated. Does that guy have a legit beef with me?

That depends, is said scholarship for the conference of women's champions?

 

[Thorn]

That depends, is said scholarship for the conference of women's champions?

Is that a LHUCKS joke?

 

[dparker713]

Do we kick Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson out of the Hall of Fame for admitting that they have no doubts that if steroids were available in their era they, and the vast majority of their peers would have used them?

No, because they didn't. Big difference between would've and did.

What is his crime against baseball again? How did he cheat the game by doing what it took to make him the best player he could be? Making himself into a reluctant star that was heavily marketed by the game.

Are you implying that cheating is not cheating when it makes you better? This question makes little to no sense.

Steroids were not cheating until 2002. Before that there was absolutely no rule in baseball that prohibited them. Yes, they were illegal, but were not banned by the league. And steroid use was unlikely to be restricted to just the best of players.And the morals clause for the HOF is laughable when you have Ty Cobb who beat and choked fans and was a suspected murderer. Or how about Gaylord Perry, who has admitted to doctoring balls in all sorts of manners. Plus the numerous reports of players from the 60s and 70s that took speed through their baseball lives. Not voting for him first ballot is one thing, but keeping him out of hte hall indefinitely is ridiculous. He, Ripken, and Sosa resurrected baseball after their bonehead labor meltdown, yet the writers seem to have completely forgotten that.

 

[PatsWillWin]

There's no baseball rule against doing coke in the baseball rulebook, so I guess that's okay too.

Use your head. TIA.

 

[dparker713]

There's no baseball rule against doing coke in the baseball rulebook, so I guess that's okay too. Use your head. TIA.

Ok, so Coke and steroids bad. Crank and speed ok. Got it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Do we kick Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson out of the Hall of Fame for admitting that they have no doubts that if steroids were available in their era they, and the vast majority of their peers would have used them?

No, because they didn't. Big difference between would've and did.

What is his crime against baseball again? How did he cheat the game by doing what it took to make him the best player he could be? Making himself into a reluctant star that was heavily marketed by the game.

Are you implying that cheating is not cheating when it makes you better? This question makes little to no sense.

Cheating implies that he specifically broke a rule that the powers that be wanted enforced. There was a one paragraph memo sent out a decade ago that stated that steroids were illegal in baseball while everyone winked. I'm implyingstating that he didn't cheat by the only relevant definition of the word.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Do we kick Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson out of the Hall of Fame for admitting that they have no doubts that if steroids were available in their era they, and the vast majority of their peers would have used them?

No, because they didn't. Big difference between would've and did.

What is his crime against baseball again? How did he cheat the game by doing what it took to make him the best player he could be? Making himself into a reluctant star that was heavily marketed by the game.

Are you implying that cheating is not cheating when it makes you better? This question makes little to no sense.

Cheating implies that he specifically broke a rule that the powers that be wanted enforced. There was a one paragraph memo sent out a decade ago that stated that steroids were illegal in baseball while everyone winked. I'm implyingstating that he didn't cheat by the only relevant definition of the word.

Memo issued by the Commissioner on May 15, 1997, and sent to all major league teams.Excerp:

"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is striclty prohibited. Major League baseball players or personnel involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract.

This prohibitation applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids

or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."

Link to location: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm...egsPlayerAgentsDirect link to PDF: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs/199...ion_Program.pdf

 

[Tom Servo]

Perhaps it would make everyone feel better if HoF voters were required to include his brother Dan's passing yardage and TDs when considering voting for him.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

If he is kept out it would be a travesty

Minus roids, McCwire never hits 400 home runs....would never have sniffed the hall.

You have proof that he did roids???

congressional appearance down??

I don't remember him admitting to anything....If I recall correctly he took the 5th no?

what does that tell you?Hopefully the same thing it's telling the voters.

How can you ban someone for something they never admitted to and that wasn't illegal at the time even if he did partake? Baseball community loves the kangaroo courts...

His non-admission was an admission in the eyes of the voters, I happen to agree with them.

Mark McGwire = Conference of Champions

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Do we kick Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson out of the Hall of Fame for admitting that they have no doubts that if steroids were available in their era they, and the vast majority of their peers would have used them?

No, because they didn't. Big difference between would've and did.

What is his crime against baseball again? How did he cheat the game by doing what it took to make him the best player he could be? Making himself into a reluctant star that was heavily marketed by the game.

Are you implying that cheating is not cheating when it makes you better? This question makes little to no sense.

Cheating implies that he specifically broke a rule that the powers that be wanted enforced. There was a one paragraph memo sent out a decade ago that stated that steroids were illegal in baseball while everyone winked. I'm implyingstating that he didn't cheat by the only relevant definition of the word.

Memo issued by the Commissioner on May 15, 1997, and sent to all major league teams.Excerp:

"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is striclty prohibited. Major League baseball players or personnel involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract.

This prohibitation applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids

or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."

Link to location: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm...egsPlayerAgentsDirect link to PDF: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs/199...ion_Program.pdf

Ok, so I was wrong in that the memo was only sent out nine years ago. Then everyone immediately winked and nodded to the players and celebrated the accomplishments and profits that the steroid users generated. There was no attempt to enforce this policy. It didn't even rise to the "joke" level of enforcement that scuffed balls and doctored bats receive. If you feel cheated in that these accomplishments were tarnished then the blame shouldn't be on the players but the management that allowed the environment that steroids were an everyday, out in the open part of baseball clubhouse culture.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Do we kick Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson out of the Hall of Fame for admitting that they have no doubts that if steroids were available in their era they, and the vast majority of their peers would have used them?

No, because they didn't. Big difference between would've and did.

What is his crime against baseball again? How did he cheat the game by doing what it took to make him the best player he could be? Making himself into a reluctant star that was heavily marketed by the game.

Are you implying that cheating is not cheating when it makes you better? This question makes little to no sense.

Cheating implies that he specifically broke a rule that the powers that be wanted enforced. There was a one paragraph memo sent out a decade ago that stated that steroids were illegal in baseball while everyone winked. I'm implyingstating that he didn't cheat by the only relevant definition of the word.

Memo issued by the Commissioner on May 15, 1997, and sent to all major league teams.Excerp:

"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is striclty prohibited. Major League baseball players or personnel involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract.

This prohibitation applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids

or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."

Link to location: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm...egsPlayerAgentsDirect link to PDF: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs/199...ion_Program.pdf

Ok, so I was wrong in that the memo was only sent out nine years ago. Then everyone immediately winked and nodded to the players and celebrated the accomplishments and profits that the steroid users generated. There was no attempt to enforce this policy. It didn't even rise to the "joke" level of enforcement that scuffed balls and doctored bats receive. If you feel cheated in that these accomplishments were tarnished then the blame shouldn't be on the players but the management that allowed the environment that steroids were an everyday, out in the open part of baseball clubhouse culture.

So now it WAS cheating but it wasn't his fault? Ignore the fact that the Players Union is the reason that testing was not allowed for years.

Let me know when you make a final decision on the excuse you're going to use. TIA.

 

[JuniorNB]

I don't think McGwire gets in. Same goes for Palmiero, Sosa, and even Bonds.

Many of the voters for the hall are old-timer sportswriters and ex-athletes. They, like the rest of us, had to sit by and watch all of baseball's traditional numbers be destroyed, one by one. 61 no longer means anything. 700 is no longer and huge deal, and, sadly, 755 will soon mean nothing.

On the list of the top 16 best single-season home run totals, 11 of them were accomplished between 1997 and 2002. That "steroid era" completely scewed all numbers from that point on. Old records were made to look insignificant, and, more detrimental yet, any future big accomplishments were and will continue to be looked at with a suspicious eye. Ryan Howard hit 59 home runs last year. It was never even a big deal. Is it because that's nothing compared to Bonds' 73, or did people just figure he cheated? either way, it's a disgrace.

Voters can do nothing about it. The numbers are the numbers. Classic, legitimate records have fallen by the wayside. The only way they have to show their displeasure is to deny them the ultimate crowning achievement- induction into the Hall of Fame. I'm willing to bet that they use their votes to make a statement.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Do we kick Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson out of the Hall of Fame for admitting that they have no doubts that if steroids were available in their era they, and the vast majority of their peers would have used them?

No, because they didn't. Big difference between would've and did.

What is his crime against baseball again? How did he cheat the game by doing what it took to make him the best player he could be? Making himself into a reluctant star that was heavily marketed by the game.

Are you implying that cheating is not cheating when it makes you better? This question makes little to no sense.

Cheating implies that he specifically broke a rule that the powers that be wanted enforced. There was a one paragraph memo sent out a decade ago that stated that steroids were illegal in baseball while everyone winked. I'm implyingstating that he didn't cheat by the only relevant definition of the word.

Memo issued by the Commissioner on May 15, 1997, and sent to all major league teams.Excerp:

"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is striclty prohibited. Major League baseball players or personnel involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract.

This prohibitation applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids

or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."

Link to location: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm...egsPlayerAgentsDirect link to PDF: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs/199...ion_Program.pdf

Ok, so I was wrong in that the memo was only sent out nine years ago. Then everyone immediately winked and nodded to the players and celebrated the accomplishments and profits that the steroid users generated. There was no attempt to enforce this policy. It didn't even rise to the "joke" level of enforcement that scuffed balls and doctored bats receive. If you feel cheated in that these accomplishments were tarnished then the blame shouldn't be on the players but the management that allowed the environment that steroids were an everyday, out in the open part of baseball clubhouse culture.

So now it WAS cheating but it wasn't his fault? Ignore the fact that the Players Union is the reason that testing was not allowed for years.

Let me know when you make a final decision on the excuse you're going to use. TIA.

I'm not condemning anyone for not being caught breaking a rule that no one was interested in enforcing. I don't need an excuse to say that McGwire didn't cheat baseball or baseball fans. If you feel cheated (deceived) the guilty party is baseball itself. And while the player's union takes a popularity hit being against testing, you'll be happy to know that in the mid '80's I was posting on The Grandstand on Q-Link arguing that testing for drugs is a personal freedom that players should not give up without a fight. My position is consistent and correct, sorry! Singling out the recent generation of player that achieved Hall of Fame consideration for behaving exactly the same way as players have for 100+ years, for behaving the same way as 85% (per José Canseco) of their peers is not consistent.
link

After the strike, I think Major League Baseball needed a shot in the arm," says Canseco. "And they got it with Mark McGwire, the Sammy Sosa show. The owners said, ‘Wow, this is good.’"

And, Canseco says no one was willing to break baseball's code of silence on steroids. "Who was to lead the way? Who was to make that first step, and put their career in jeopardy," says Canseco. "Or not even that, Major League Baseball in general in overall jeopardy? Who really wanted to take that stance? It’s a tough position. Very delicate position."

"At some level, everybody in baseball benefited from steroid use. Everybody -- players, the writers, the fans, the owners," says sports reporter Howard Bryant, who has covered baseball for six years. He's now writing a book about what some call baseball's "Steroid Era."

"Everybody rode along. Because the owners made more money than they’d ever made before, the players saw the advent of the $20 million ballplayer,"says Bryant. "The writers got to cover stories that they had never envisioned, of record-breaking seasons. The fans bought more tickets than they ever had in any 10-year period in the history of the game."

So again how was McGwire cheating baseball?

 

[dparker713]

Do we kick Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson out of the Hall of Fame for admitting that they have no doubts that if steroids were available in their era they, and the vast majority of their peers would have used them?

No, because they didn't. Big difference between would've and did.

What is his crime against baseball again? How did he cheat the game by doing what it took to make him the best player he could be? Making himself into a reluctant star that was heavily marketed by the game.

Are you implying that cheating is not cheating when it makes you better? This question makes little to no sense.

Cheating implies that he specifically broke a rule that the powers that be wanted enforced. There was a one paragraph memo sent out a decade ago that stated that steroids were illegal in baseball while everyone winked. I'm implyingstating that he didn't cheat by the only relevant definition of the word.

Memo issued by the Commissioner on May 15, 1997, and sent to all major league teams.Excerp:

"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is striclty prohibited. Major League baseball players or personnel involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract.

This prohibitation applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids

or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."

Link to location: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm...egsPlayerAgentsDirect link to PDF: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs/199...ion_Program.pdf

Ok, so I was wrong in that the memo was only sent out nine years ago. Then everyone immediately winked and nodded to the players and celebrated the accomplishments and profits that the steroid users generated. There was no attempt to enforce this policy. It didn't even rise to the "joke" level of enforcement that scuffed balls and doctored bats receive. If you feel cheated in that these accomplishments were tarnished then the blame shouldn't be on the players but the management that allowed the environment that steroids were an everyday, out in the open part of baseball clubhouse culture.

So now it WAS cheating but it wasn't his fault? Ignore the fact that the Players Union is the reason that testing was not allowed for years.

Let me know when you make a final decision on the excuse you're going to use. TIA.

Well, under the CBA of the time, there was NOTHING the league could do for violating that memo or that "rule". The owners were powerless to enforce it. I just don't understand the outrage over steroids and corked bats, when its a nudge and a wink about pitchers doctoring balls. I mean, Greg Maddux - come on. Gaylord Perry even bragged about it.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Do we kick Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson out of the Hall of Fame for admitting that they have no doubts that if steroids were available in their era they, and the vast majority of their peers would have used them?

No, because they didn't. Big difference between would've and did.

What is his crime against baseball again? How did he cheat the game by doing what it took to make him the best player he could be? Making himself into a reluctant star that was heavily marketed by the game.

Are you implying that cheating is not cheating when it makes you better? This question makes little to no sense.

Cheating implies that he specifically broke a rule that the powers that be wanted enforced. There was a one paragraph memo sent out a decade ago that stated that steroids were illegal in baseball while everyone winked. I'm implyingstating that he didn't cheat by the only relevant definition of the word.

Memo issued by the Commissioner on May 15, 1997, and sent to all major league teams.Excerp:

"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is striclty prohibited. Major League baseball players or personnel involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract.

This prohibitation applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids

or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."

Link to location: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm...egsPlayerAgentsDirect link to PDF: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs/199...ion_Program.pdf

Ok, so I was wrong in that the memo was only sent out nine years ago. Then everyone immediately winked and nodded to the players and celebrated the accomplishments and profits that the steroid users generated. There was no attempt to enforce this policy. It didn't even rise to the "joke" level of enforcement that scuffed balls and doctored bats receive. If you feel cheated in that these accomplishments were tarnished then the blame shouldn't be on the players but the management that allowed the environment that steroids were an everyday, out in the open part of baseball clubhouse culture.

So now it WAS cheating but it wasn't his fault? Ignore the fact that the Players Union is the reason that testing was not allowed for years.

Let me know when you make a final decision on the excuse you're going to use. TIA.

Well, under the CBA of the time, there was NOTHING the league could do for violating that memo or that "rule". The owners were powerless to enforce it. I just don't understand the outrage over steroids and corked bats, when its a nudge and a wink about pitchers doctoring balls. I mean, Greg Maddux - come on. Gaylord Perry even bragged about it.

Well that's fine if you don't understand it. But obviously most people do understand it. Just because the owners were powerless to enforce the rule (again, because of the PA) doesn't mean it wasn't a rule.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Do we kick Mike Schmidt and Bob Gibson out of the Hall of Fame for admitting that they have no doubts that if steroids were available in their era they, and the vast majority of their peers would have used them?

No, because they didn't. Big difference between would've and did.

What is his crime against baseball again? How did he cheat the game by doing what it took to make him the best player he could be? Making himself into a reluctant star that was heavily marketed by the game.

Are you implying that cheating is not cheating when it makes you better? This question makes little to no sense.

Cheating implies that he specifically broke a rule that the powers that be wanted enforced. There was a one paragraph memo sent out a decade ago that stated that steroids were illegal in baseball while everyone winked. I'm implyingstating that he didn't cheat by the only relevant definition of the word.

Memo issued by the Commissioner on May 15, 1997, and sent to all major league teams.

Excerp:

"The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players and personnel is striclty prohibited. Major League baseball players or personnel involved in the possession, sale, or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game. In addition to any discipline this office may impose, a Club may also take action under applicable provisions of and special covenants to the Uniform Player's Contract. This prohibitation applies to all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids

or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."

Link to location: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs.htm...egsPlayerAgents

Direct link to PDF: http://www.businessofbaseball.com/docs/199...ion_Program.pdf

Ok, so I was wrong in that the memo was only sent out nine years ago. Then everyone immediately winked and nodded to the players and celebrated the accomplishments and profits that the steroid users generated. There was no attempt to enforce this policy. It didn't even rise to the "joke" level of enforcement that scuffed balls and doctored bats receive. If you feel cheated in that these accomplishments were tarnished then the blame shouldn't be on the players but the management that allowed the environment that steroids were an everyday, out in the open part of baseball clubhouse culture.

So now it WAS cheating but it wasn't his fault?

Ignore the fact that the Players Union is the reason that testing was not allowed for years.

Let me know when you make a final decision on the excuse you're going to use. TIA.

I'm not condemning anyone for not being caught breaking a rule that no one was interested in enforcing. I don't need an excuse to say that McGwire didn't cheat baseball or baseball fans. If you feel cheated (deceived) the guilty party is baseball itself. And while the player's union takes a popularity hit being against testing, you'll be happy to know that in the mid '80's I was posting on The Grandstand on Q-Link arguing that testing for drugs is a personal freedom that players should not give up without a fight. My position is consistent and correct, sorry! Singling out the recent generation of player that achieved Hall of Fame consideration for behaving exactly the same way as players have for 100+ years, for behaving the same way as 85% (per José Canseco) of their peers is not consistent.

link

After the strike, I think Major League Baseball needed a shot in the arm," says Canseco. "And they got it with Mark McGwire, the Sammy Sosa show. The owners said, ‘Wow, this is good.’" And, Canseco says no one was willing to break baseball's code of silence on steroids. "Who was to lead the way? Who was to make that first step, and put their career in jeopardy," says Canseco. "Or not even that, Major League Baseball in general in overall jeopardy? Who really wanted to take that stance? It’s a tough position. Very delicate position."

"At some level, everybody in baseball benefited from steroid use. Everybody -- players, the writers, the fans, the owners," says sports reporter Howard Bryant, who has covered baseball for six years. He's now writing a book about what some call baseball's "Steroid Era."

"Everybody rode along. Because the owners made more money than they’d ever made before, the players saw the advent of the $20 million ballplayer,"says Bryant. "The writers got to cover stories that they had never envisioned, of record-breaking seasons. The fans bought more tickets than they ever had in any 10-year period in the history of the game."

So again how was McGwire cheating baseball?

So Bud Selig says it's cheating, but Jose Canseco says it's okay? I guess a McGwuire apologist will use any excuse.

McGwuire helped baseball a LOT during a time it needed it most. I'm aware of that. He was paid a huge amount of money and received a great deal of fame for it. Baseball benefited from it too. Fine. McGwuire was well compensated for that.

Still doesn't justify him being in the Hall as a cheater. If you need to seriously ask how he was a cheater, I can link you to Selig's memo again.

 

[The Z Machine]

Plus the numerous reports of players from the 60s and 70s that took speed through their baseball lives.

I love thstory about Dock Ellis pitching a no-hitter while on LSD."I was in Los Angeles, and the team was playing in San Diego , but I didn't know it. I had taken LSD..... I thought it was an off-day, that's how come I had it in me. I took the LSD at noon. At 1pm, his girlfriend and trip partner looked at the paper and said, "Dock, you're pitching today!"

"That's when it was $9.50 to fly to San Diego. She got me to the airport at 3:30. I got there at 4:30, and the game started at 6:05pm. It was a twi-night doubleheader.

I can only remember bits and pieces of the game. I was psyched. I had a feeling of euphoria.

I was zeroed in on the (catcher's) glove, but I didn't hit the glove too much. I remember hitting a couple of batters and the bases were loaded two or three times.

The ball was small sometimes, the ball was large sometimes, sometimes I saw the catcher, sometimes I didn't. Sometimes I tried to stare the hitter down and throw while I was looking at him. I chewed my gum until it turned to powder. They say I had about three to four fielding chances. I remember diving out of the way of a ball I thought was a line drive. I jumped, but the ball wasn't hit hard and never reached me.

I wonder where I can find game film of this one. I also wonder if anyone noticed that he was a bit "off" that night. They probably thought it was the no-hitter he had going.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So Bud Selig says ....

This is suppose to support your argument?

but Jose Canseco says it's okay?

Without Caneseco where is your case against McGwire? Selectively picking and chosing your facts again?

McGwuire helped baseball a LOT during a time it needed it most. I'm aware of that. He was paid a huge amount of money and received a great deal of fame for it. Baseball benefited from it too. Fine. McGwuire was well compensated for that.

How is that not the very definition of a what a Hall of Famer should be?

Still doesn't justify him being in the Hall as a cheater. If you need to seriously ask how he was a cheater, I can link you to Selig's memo again.

Selig's memo proves that baseball was, a year after the fact able to produce a CYA document. It proves nothing about how the game was governed during that time and what the actual enforced rules for the players were during that period. If this memo was so damn important in defining the rules of the game, then why wasn't Canseco fined or suspended for his OPEN steroid use? Why wasn't anyone?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Well that's fine if you don't understand it. But obviously most people do understand it.

History has clearly demonstrated that being on the side of the ignorant masses during a witch hunt is a winning bet!

Just because the owners were powerless to enforce the rule (again, because of the PA) doesn't mean it wasn't a rule.

Looking the other way while 85% of the players were ignoring an obscure memo doesn't prove anything either. Marketing the game around these players also doesn't prove anything.

 

[PatsWillWin]

So Bud Selig says ....

This is suppose to support your argument?

but Jose Canseco says it's okay?

Without Caneseco where is your case against McGwire? Selectively picking and chosing your facts again?

McGwuire helped baseball a LOT during a time it needed it most. I'm aware of that. He was paid a huge amount of money and received a great deal of fame for it. Baseball benefited from it too. Fine. McGwuire was well compensated for that.

How is that not the very definition of a what a Hall of Famer should be?

Still doesn't justify him being in the Hall as a cheater. If you need to seriously ask how he was a cheater, I can link you to Selig's memo again.

Selig's memo proves that baseball was, a year after the fact able to produce a CYA document. It proves nothing about how the game was governed during that time and what the actual enforced rules for the players were during that period. If this memo was so damn important in defining the rules of the game, then why wasn't Canseco fined or suspended for his OPEN steroid use? Why wasn't anyone?

The Hall of Fame is based on performance, character, and contributions to the game. McGwuire's performance is largely dependent on HR's, which are inflated by steroids. This also affects his character as did his ridiculous performance in front of the Senate. Saying that Canseco hasn't been fined is ridiculous, and you know it. You cannot retroactively fine someone for doing something that they did while they played baseball. Also, there's a huge difference between what Canseco says about McGwuire and what he says about all of the players in the league.He has first-hand experience with McGwuire taking steroids because he provided them to him, dealt them to him, and helped to teach him how to take them. The 85% is an ESTIMATE, and in that respect, Canseco is not much more qualified to answer than most players. He, in fact, might be less, since he actively spread steroids himself he would be more inclined to think that more people took them based on the sample size he was exposed to.I'm not saying baseball wasn't, in a few ways, complicit. They did look the other way to an extent. But it was largely due to the Player's Union not allowing testing, so while the rule WAS in place in 1997 at the latest, it could not be easily enforced with testing. That doesn't mean it's not a rule and not cheating if you violate it.Yes, McGwuire benefited baseball. Again, I'm not denying that. What I am saying is that is not enough to put him in the hall despite the fact that we now know he's a cheater. The impression he's made of his character making himself a spectacle in front of Congress, and the fact that he wasn't that good before the 'roids means he doesn't deserve to get in despite the cheating.Yes, baseball looked the other way at the time. Yes, he could not be tested at the time and nobody looked down on him AT THE TIME of the HR chase. BUT......I'm not here to talk about the past.

 

[Daisuke Matsuzaka]

Mark McGwuire has no honor.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes, baseball looked the other way at the time. Yes, he could not be tested at the time and nobody looked down on him AT THE TIME of the HR chase.

So now that we can no longer profit from his exploits we throw him under the bus as we pound on our chests and shout "Cheater! Cheater! Cheater!" as we spit in his face. Pretty sad!

 

[PatsWillWin]

Yes, baseball looked the other way at the time. Yes, he could not be tested at the time and nobody looked down on him AT THE TIME of the HR chase.

So now that we can no longer profit from his exploits we throw him under the bus as we pound on our chests and shout "Cheater! Cheater! Cheater!" as we spit in his face. Pretty sad!

Yeah, McGwuire was used and exploited. That's why he lives in a castle.He was duly rewarded for what he did for baseball. Cheating got him $ and fame. It doesn't get him into the Hall evidently. I agree with that, you don't. Fine.

 

[massraider]

Yes, baseball looked the other way at the time. Yes, he could not be tested at the time and nobody looked down on him AT THE TIME of the HR chase.

So now that we can no longer profit from his exploits we throw him under the bus as we pound on our chests and shout "Cheater! Cheater! Cheater!" as we spit in his face. Pretty sad!

Him not getting in the Hall is not spitting in his face. It just means he isn't getting in the Hall.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Yes, baseball looked the other way at the time. Yes, he could not be tested at the time and nobody looked down on him AT THE TIME of the HR chase.

So now that we can no longer profit from his exploits we throw him under the bus as we pound on our chests and shout "Cheater! Cheater! Cheater!" as we spit in his face. Pretty sad!

Him not getting in the Hall is not spitting in his face. It just means he isn't getting in the Hall.

Nobody's trying to arrest him or steal his children or take his money or kick his dog.He just can't get immortalized in to the Hall of Fame. Cry me a river, cheater.

 

[Snotbubbles]

When Congress asked McGwire if he took steriods why did he dance around the question?

If he didn't take them the answer should be "no" plain and simple. The fact that he didn't deny the use of steriods when he was under oath has to make a reasonable person believe that he didn't want to perjure himself.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When Congress asked McGwire if he took steriods why did he dance around the question?If he didn't take them the answer should be "no" plain and simple. The fact that he didn't deny the use of steriods when he was under oath has to make a reasonable person believe that he didn't want to perjure himself.

Does any intelligent person with competent representation who doesn't let his ego get in the way answer those questions without first being granted immunity from prosecution?

 

[PatsWillWin]

When Congress asked McGwire if he took steriods why did he dance around the question?If he didn't take them the answer should be "no" plain and simple. The fact that he didn't deny the use of steriods when he was under oath has to make a reasonable person believe that he didn't want to perjure himself.

Does any intelligent person with competent representation who doesn't let his ego get in the way answer those questions without first being granted immunity from prosecution?

Yeah, people who would not have to answer in such a way that would incriminate himself. See Curt Schilling.Besides, I believe you had already conceded that McGwuire took steroids and that it was against the rules and had moved on to defending him by blaming it on the evil owners. Please continue.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Does any intelligent person with competent representation who doesn't let his ego get in the way answer those questions without first being granted immunity from prosecution?

A person who didn't take steriods wouldn't need immunity from prosecution. A simple "no" would suffice.Ergo, McGwire's actions that day indicate that he did use steriods.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When Congress asked McGwire if he took steriods why did he dance around the question?If he didn't take them the answer should be "no" plain and simple. The fact that he didn't deny the use of steriods when he was under oath has to make a reasonable person believe that he didn't want to perjure himself.

Does any intelligent person with competent representation who doesn't let his ego get in the way answer those questions without first being granted immunity from prosecution?

Yeah, people who would not have to answer in such a way that would incriminate himself. See Curt Schilling.Besides, I believe you had already conceded that McGwuire took steroids and that it was against the rules and had moved on to defending him by blaming it on the evil owners. Please continue.

Did I make any claims one way or the other about McGwire's usage in that reply? Where have I called baseball owners evil? I'm merely calling the current witch hunt to appease Congress hypocritical at best. And that to judge someone's character by retroactively condemning him because public opinion has shifted from celebrating "American Gladiators" to a "Steroids are evil" perspective is simply not fair.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Does any intelligent person with competent representation who doesn't let his ego get in the way answer those questions without first being granted immunity from prosecution?

A person who didn't take steriods wouldn't need immunity from prosecution. A simple "no" would suffice.Ergo, McGwire's actions that day indicate that he did use steriods.

So taking the fifth is an automatic admission of guilt?

 

[Snotbubbles]

So taking the fifth is an automatic admission of guilt?

You can only take the fifth when your answers might incriminate you and may later be used against you. So yes, in this case, when McGwire refuses to answer the question he is saying one of two things:1.) I took steriods and I don't want to admit it for fear that this admission will be used against me in a future prosecution; or2.) I took steriods and I don't want to deny it for fear that the denial will be used against me in a future prosecution (as a prior inconsistent statement).

 

[the moops]

So taking the fifth is an automatic admission of guilt?

You can only take the fifth when your answers might incriminate you and may later be used against you. So yes, in this case, when McGwire refuses to answer the question he is saying one of two things:1.) I took steriods and I don't want to admit it for fear that this admission will be used against me in a future prosecution; or2.) I took steriods and I don't want to deny it for fear that the denial will be used against me in a future prosecution (as a prior inconsistent statement).

Or he is saying "screw you", I like this country and this constitution thing and, ummm, "screw you".

 

[David Yudkin]

My theoretical question for guys like Big Mac or Bonds is that even if they did do steroids, at the time they were doing them they were not specifically prohibited and were not tested for.

So, in theory, how can we hold it against them after the fact? I know that they were illegal, but a lot of athletes have used many, many substances that are illegal (yet no one seems to care).

If Big Mac had said to Congress that he had used a wide range of things, supplements, Ando, etc. (but not in great detail) would that have hurt or helped his HOF chances? Suppose he apologized for some of the things he did (again not in detail) and wanted to evangelize the effects of steroid use to young athletes. Would that have gotten him more votes?

Similarly, with the witch hunt surrounding Bonds, what would happen if they found that he did take something when it was not specifically outlawed by MLB (and no standard of penalty set)? I believe by rule that they could not suspend him unless it was after the timeline that established a penalty phase that was agreed upon by the Player's Union.

ANd if it comes out that have the league was juiced, should no players be elected tot he HOF from that era?

 

[the moops]

I don't think McGwire gets in. Same goes for Palmiero, Sosa, and even Bonds.

Many of the voters for the hall are old-timer sportswriters and ex-athletes. They, like the rest of us, had to sit by and watch all of baseball's traditional numbers be destroyed, one by one. 61 no longer means anything. 700 is no longer and huge deal, and, sadly, 755 will soon mean nothing.

On the list of the top 16 best single-season home run totals, 11 of them were accomplished between 1997 and 2002. That "steroid era" completely scewed all numbers from that point on. Old records were made to look insignificant, and, more detrimental yet, any future big accomplishments were and will continue to be looked at with a suspicious eye. Ryan Howard hit 59 home runs last year. It was never even a big deal. Is it because that's nothing compared to Bonds' 73, or did people just figure he cheated? either way, it's a disgrace.

Voters can do nothing about it. The numbers are the numbers. Classic, legitimate records have fallen by the wayside. The only way they have to show their displeasure is to deny them the ultimate crowning achievement- induction into the Hall of Fame. I'm willing to bet that they use their votes to make a statement.

Have you seen these writers? Yes, they are old time sportswriters (although that is changing), almost all of them are certainly not ex-athletes.Ex athletes dont become columnists/beat writers for baseball teams. They become radio color guys, or tv analysts.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If Big Mac had said to Congress that he had used a wide range of things, supplements, Ando, etc. (but not in great detail) would that have hurt or helped his HOF chances? Suppose he apologized for some of the things he did (again not in detail) and wanted to evangelize the effects of steroid use to young athletes. Would that have gotten him more votes?

If McGwire directly or indirectly admitted to using a drug on the FDA banned substance list he would have faced prosecution. Maybe when the federal statute of limitations has expired he'll come clean. But then again why should he have to?

 

[Snotbubbles]

My theoretical question for guys like Big Mac or Bonds is that even if they did do steroids, at the time they were doing them they were not specifically prohibited and were not tested for.So, in theory, how can we hold it against them after the fact? I know that they were illegal, but a lot of athletes have used many, many substances that are illegal (yet no one seems to care).If Big Mac had said to Congress that he had used a wide range of things, supplements, Ando, etc. (but not in great detail) would that have hurt or helped his HOF chances? Suppose he apologized for some of the things he did (again not in detail) and wanted to evangelize the effects of steroid use to young athletes. Would that have gotten him more votes?Similarly, with the witch hunt surrounding Bonds, what would happen if they found that he did take something when it was not specifically outlawed by MLB (and no standard of penalty set)? I believe by rule that they could not suspend him unless it was after the timeline that established a penalty phase that was agreed upon by the Player's Union.ANd if it comes out that have the league was juiced, should no players be elected tot he HOF from that era?

I believe that there was leaked Grand Jury testimony in the BALCO case where Bonds admitted to taking "the clear", but he says he didn't know it was steriods.

Or he is saying "screw you", I like this country and this constitution thing and, ummm, "screw you".

What you say here and what I said are the same thing. McGwire is saying screw you to Congress. I'm not gonna help you for fear of incriminating myself. If he didn't take steriods he would have no fear of incrimination.

 

[PatsWillWin]

My theoretical question for guys like Big Mac or Bonds is that even if they did do steroids, at the time they were doing them they were not specifically prohibited and were not tested for.So, in theory, how can we hold it against them after the fact? I know that they were illegal, but a lot of athletes have used many, many substances that are illegal (yet no one seems to care).If Big Mac had said to Congress that he had used a wide range of things, supplements, Ando, etc. (but not in great detail) would that have hurt or helped his HOF chances? Suppose he apologized for some of the things he did (again not in detail) and wanted to evangelize the effects of steroid use to young athletes. Would that have gotten him more votes?Similarly, with the witch hunt surrounding Bonds, what would happen if they found that he did take something when it was not specifically outlawed by MLB (and no standard of penalty set)? I believe by rule that they could not suspend him unless it was after the timeline that established a penalty phase that was agreed upon by the Player's Union.ANd if it comes out that have the league was juiced, should no players be elected tot he HOF from that era?

As per the memo I posted above from 1997, any controlled substances are prohibited in the MLB as per the commissioner Bud Selig.As if we actually need to tell players that if it's illegal in the country it's prohibited in the game anyway. But it's moot. Read the memo.And the fact that they couldn't test for it is irrelevant.a) The Player's Union is the entity that prohibited testing.b) Since when is the validity of the law based on the ability of an agency to enforce it to that extent? Drugs are illegal in society - the police don't go around testing people for drugs. But, if you happened to get caught using/possessing/selling drugs, it's still illegal.

 

[dparker713]

Does any intelligent person with competent representation who doesn't let his ego get in the way answer those questions without first being granted immunity from prosecution?

A person who didn't take steriods wouldn't need immunity from prosecution. A simple "no" would suffice.Ergo, McGwire's actions that day indicate that he did use steriods.

You're either extremely naive about our legal system or completely uninformed. So, in your world only quilty people are investigated and prosecuted?Sorry, but it wasn't just the PA fault there was no testing. The owners never cared nor made this an issue until Congress threatened their anti-trust exemption. And the same press that now seeks to condemn this man never investigated him or the other prolific HR hitters of their time until they had Canseco's commercially successful book.The evidence against McGuire consists of a non-statement, a freakish build, and the statements of Canseco.The evidence for McGuire are his large frame, long record of HR power, and fairly gradual weight gain. Neither side is exactly convincing. Add in the admitted cheaters and men of less then admirable moral fiber in the HOF, and stick figure ptichers like Mota testing positive for steroids. Combine these factors with McGuire being largely responsible for resurrecting baseball and I'll gladly side with his admittance into the HOF.

 

[dparker713]

So taking the fifth is an automatic admission of guilt?

You can only take the fifth when your answers might incriminate you and may later be used against you. So yes, in this case, when McGwire refuses to answer the question he is saying one of two things:1.) I took steriods and I don't want to admit it for fear that this admission will be used against me in a future prosecution; or2.) I took steriods and I don't want to deny it for fear that the denial will be used against me in a future prosecution (as a prior inconsistent statement).

This is the problem with juries, they contain people like you that have absolutely no understanding of the law.

 

[Daisuke Matsuzaka]

My theoretical question for guys like Big Mac or Bonds is that even if they did do steroids, at the time they were doing them they were not specifically prohibited and were not tested for.

They were prohibited. The fact that they could not institute tests is irrelevant. A rule/law is not dependent on the ability to test for violations of it.

So, in theory, how can we hold it against them after the fact? I know that they were illegal, but a lot of athletes have used many, many substances that are illegal (yet no one seems to care).

Obviously people do care since McGwuire will not be voted in.

If Big Mac had said to Congress that he had used a wide range of things, supplements, Ando, etc. (but not in great detail) would that have hurt or helped his HOF chances? Suppose he apologized for some of the things he did (again not in detail) and wanted to evangelize the effects of steroid use to young athletes. Would that have gotten him more votes?

It definitely would've helped his HOF changes if he came clean about it. We're a very forgiving society when it comes to athletes - too forgiving, IMO. But instead of coming clean, he chose the dispicable and insulting path of taking the 5th without actually taking the 5th. Right or wrong, he IS judged by that as "character" is one of the things that sports writers with votes are told to consider.

Similarly, with the witch hunt surrounding Bonds, what would happen if they found that he did take something when it was not specifically outlawed by MLB (and no standard of penalty set)? I believe by rule that they could not suspend him unless it was after the timeline that established a penalty phase that was agreed upon by the Player's Union.

No, they probably couldn't suspend him. But that's very different than the HOF. You need a large amount of evidence to committ someone of a crime. You need a lower, but still substantial amount of evidence, to suspend someone and fine them. You need a MUCH lower standard to decide if you think he did steroids and if he should be allowed entry into the Hall.That is because the first two have to do with infringing on someone's rights - the third is a privilege, and you don't need any more evidence than the gut feeling a sports writer with a vote has after looking at the body of evidence against Bonds.

ANd if it comes out that have the league was juiced, should no players be elected tot he HOF from that era?

It would be impossible to determine that every single player was juiced. The HOF votes are a case by case thing, you would look at each player individually. No one player is completely defined by the "Era" they played in. Yes it is a factor in examining performance and whatnot, but it is just a piece of the puzzle, and ultimately everyone is judged individually.

 

[David Yudkin]

If you happened to get caught using/possessing/selling drugs, it's still illegal.

But the police won't do something years after the fact if you had used/possessed/sold the drugs. Randy Moss said he uses marijuana. He didn't get arrested or suspended.I highly doubt that any of these players would be charged 8 years later with anything for simple possesion or use of banned substances. If they were involved in distribution, that may be a different story.What would happen if it cam out now that Dave Winfield used steroids. Would they send him to jail? Would there be a movement to RETRACT his HOF membership?To be clear, I am not advocating the use of performace enhancement drugs. But what's done is done and all sports need to police players from here on out.Lots of players did what they could throught the years to get a competitive advantage. That could be pitchers loading up the ball, players getting addicted to painkillers, guys playing loaded up on cocaine, players using corked bats. All of those could be considered cheating, and the way to cheat in the late 90s was to use the juice because they didn't test for it.That's why I asked if no one from that era should get HOF consideration because there are so many clouds lingering over you was using what at the time.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And the fact that they couldn't test for it is irrelevant.a) The Player's Union is the entity that prohibited testing.

You have labeled me a Mark McGwire apologists because I say that the blame for steroid usage of his era should fall on baseball itself and not individual players because baseball did nothing to prevent the usage while actively profiting from the accomplishments of these players. If the integrity of the baseball played during that era should be question, the fault should lie with those that sent out memos while turning a blinds eye to what was happening in the club house. To you that is merely making excuses and apologizing for the players.What the hell is the difference between that charge against me and your constant apologizing for baseball owners, Bud Selig, etc., etc. by claiming that they were helpless against the "evil" Player's Union?

 

[Daisuke Matsuzaka]

If you happened to get caught using/possessing/selling drugs, it's still illegal.

But the police won't do something years after the fact if you had used/possessed/sold the drugs. Randy Moss said he uses marijuana. He didn't get arrested or suspended.I highly doubt that any of these players would be charged 8 years later with anything for simple possesion or use of banned substances. If they were involved in distribution, that may be a different story.What would happen if it cam out now that Dave Winfield used steroids. Would they send him to jail? Would there be a movement to RETRACT his HOF membership?To be clear, I am not advocating the use of performace enhancement drugs. But what's done is done and all sports need to police players from here on out.Lots of players did what they could throught the years to get a competitive advantage. That could be pitchers loading up the ball, players getting addicted to painkillers, guys playing loaded up on cocaine, players using corked bats. All of those could be considered cheating, and the way to cheat in the late 90s was to use the juice because they didn't test for it.That's why I asked if no one from that era should get HOF consideration because there are so many clouds lingering over you was using what at the time.

There is a huge difference between arresting someone and keeping them out of the Hall of Fame. I assume you realize that. Mark McGwuire does not have the implicit right to get into the HOF - everyone has a right to not get thrown in jail with due process.The Hall of Fame is a subjective process - that is how it is built. Saying that people shouldn't hold it against "after the fact" is ridiculous - NOW is when McGwuire is being considered for entrance into the Hall of Fame. I'm not talking about going back and taking McGwuire OUT of the Hall of Fame.Huge difference between charging someone with a crime and keeping them out of the Hall. I think that's pretty obvious.

 

[PatsWillWin]

And the fact that they couldn't test for it is irrelevant.a) The Player's Union is the entity that prohibited testing.

You have labeled me a Mark McGwire apologists because I say that the blame for steroid usage of his era should fall on baseball itself and not individual players because baseball did nothing to prevent the usage while actively profiting from the accomplishments of these players. If the integrity of the baseball played during that era should be question, the fault should lie with those that sent out memos while turning a blinds eye to what was happening in the club house. To you that is merely making excuses and apologizing for the players.What the hell is the difference between that charge against me and your constant apologizing for baseball owners, Bud Selig, etc., etc. by claiming that they were helpless against the "evil" Player's Union?

I'm not apologizing for the owners. I've said numerous times they've looked the other way. That doesn't change the REALITY that the owners could not test for steroids because of the Player's Union. That is not opinion.McGwuire physically put steroids into his body. Saying that that's okay because the owners didn't test him IS being a McGwuire apologist. McGwuire is guilty of cheating independent of what the owners can or could or will or would not do.The owners were, to an extent, complicit with the presenct of steroids. That has nothing to do with the fact that McGwuire still DID them, and thus should not be allowed into the Hall of Fame. I don't see what is so complicated about that. McGwuire didn't HAVE to do steroids because the owners couldn't test - he still CHOSE to do them. That, in my book, and evidently the book of the majority of writers who have a vote, is enough to keep him out of the Hall.

 

[massraider]

And the fact that they couldn't test for it is irrelevant.a) The Player's Union is the entity that prohibited testing.

You have labeled me a Mark McGwire apologists because I say that the blame for steroid usage of his era should fall on baseball itself and not individual players because baseball did nothing to prevent the usage while actively profiting from the accomplishments of these players. If the integrity of the baseball played during that era should be question, the fault should lie with those that sent out memos while turning a blinds eye to what was happening in the club house. To you that is merely making excuses and apologizing for the players.What the hell is the difference between that charge against me and your constant apologizing for baseball owners, Bud Selig, etc., etc. by claiming that they were helpless against the "evil" Player's Union?

Who cares where the blame goes. Yeah, baseball enabled McGwire. Does this mean we have to reward McGwire with a Hall induction? I don't think so. It's one thing to make McGwire a scapegoat. It's another to make him a martyr.

 

[Snotbubbles]

This is the problem with juries, they contain people like you that have absolutely no understanding of the law.

Oh please educate me on the law and the rights of a person to assert the fifth amendment. Oh and just to fill you in, there was no jury at the congressional hearings.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There is a huge difference between arresting someone and keeping them out of the Hall of Fame. I assume you realize that. Mark McGwuire does not have the implicit right to get into the HOF - everyone has a right to not get thrown in jail with due process.The Hall of Fame is a subjective process - that is how it is built. Saying that people shouldn't hold it against "after the fact" is ridiculous - NOW is when McGwuire is being considered for entrance into the Hall of Fame. I'm not talking about going back and taking McGwuire OUT of the Hall of Fame.Huge difference between charging someone with a crime and keeping them out of the Hall. I think that's pretty obvious.

No you are talking about applying a new harsher standard for McGwire because he played during an era where the means to enhance his performance artificially were greater then the means of previous generations. The fact is that he approached his profession exactly the same way as those mentioned in Jim Bouton's Ball Four using amphetameans, and those that used whatever "miracle cure" of previous eras. He should be judged for his contributions to the sport in exactly the same way as all other players considered for the Hall of Fame. Singling him out as a cheater when he was not doing anything different from his peers, anything different from players of previous generation is creating a double standard. He performed to the best of his capabilities on the level playing field of his era. If steroids were used out in the open in major league club houses, then McGwire did nothing to give himself an unfair advantage.