Mark McGuire: HOF chances look bleak! (2 Viewers)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The owners were, to an extent, complicit with the presenct of steroids.

Once they looked the other way to protect their bottom line and steroid usage was rampant among both position players and pitchers, exactly how did McGwire's alleged usage provide him with an unfair advantage over his competition. And without that unfair advantage how did he cheat?

 

[PatsWillWin]

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.

When did I say it had anything to do with an advantage relative to the rest of the players? That is irrelevant. He cheated by BREAKING THE RULES. That is INDEPENDENT of what everyone else was doing.

You sound like a 10 year old kid who gets caught shop-lifting and his excuse is "Well everyone else was doing it."

The PLAYERS IN THE MLB are NOT up for the HOF consideration. MARK MCGWUIRE is. He can hide behind bis BS statements in Congress, he and his apologists like you can, like the 10 year old shop-lifter, say that "Everyone else was doing it to", but he cannot hide behind his piers when getting considered for the Hall of Fame.

He is an individual person, and individual player, and is individually responsible for the decisions HE made. HE decided to cheat and take steroids, and thus HE will not be allowed in the HOF. It was nothing to do with how much of an advantage he may or may not have had against "the field". HE broke the rules, HE is not going to get in because of it.

 

[PatsWillWin]

The owners were, to an extent, complicit with the presenct of steroids.

Once they looked the other way to protect their bottom line and steroid usage was rampant among both position players and pitchers, exactly how did McGwire's alleged usage provide him with an unfair advantage over his competition. And without that unfair advantage how did he cheat?

He doesn't need an "unfair advantage" to cheat. Cheating is about two things. 1. An action.2. The rules.If an action is against the rules, it's cheating. It is not subject to his "competition".Which is stupid anyway. Are you going to tell me that every single pitcher he played against through his entire career was on steroids? No? 90%? 80%? Where is the line between "unfair advantage" and "everyone else was doing it"?

 

[dparker713]

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.

When a person takes the fifth, it is evidence of nothing in any way shape or form. If you were allowed to infer from someone using it, that amendment would offer absolutely no protection at all. I know full well that there was no jury at the Congressional hearings. My comment was directed towards people with no knowledge of the law making legal conclusions.

 

[massraider]

And when did this guy start spelling his last name differently?

 

[David Yudkin]

HE broke the rules, HE is not going to get in because of it.

Here's the problem as far as I see it. I understand that the only thing that matters is the perception of the voters, but Big Mac is no more guilty or innocent than Barry Bonds is. Yet many voters have already said that Bonds will get their vote. Both of these guys broke the rules, and if breaking the rules is what should be the deternining factor, NEITHER of them should get HOF votes. At this point there seems to be far greater damning evidence against Bonds.I know the argument for Bonds is that he was a legit HOF candidate BEFORE he started using steroids. But Pete Rose was a legit HOF candidate before he started betting on baseball.I definitely see a huge double standard developing over the next few years in which voters will scream chapter and verse about keeping certain players out on character issues and cheating while looking the other way to let other players in.So IMO you either penalize the entire lot of them or you ignore the performance enhancement issue altogether. At this point, it would be very difficult to prove guilt or innocence for a wide range of potential HOF candidates. The only fair thing to due is call ALL the candidates before Congress so they could not answer their questions (or lie about it).

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

HE broke the rules, HE is not going to get in because of it.

Here's the problem as far as I see it. I understand that the only thing that matters is the perception of the voters, but Big Mac is no more guilty or innocent than Barry Bonds is. Yet many voters have already said that Bonds will get their vote. Both of these guys broke the rules, and if breaking the rules is what should be the deternining factor, NEITHER of them should get HOF votes. At this point there seems to be far greater damning evidence against Bonds.I know the argument for Bonds is that he was a legit HOF candidate BEFORE he started using steroids. But Pete Rose was a legit HOF candidate before he started betting on baseball.I definitely see a huge double standard developing over the next few years in which voters will scream chapter and verse about keeping certain players out on character issues and cheating while looking the other way to let other players in.So IMO you either penalize the entire lot of them or you ignore the performance enhancement issue altogether. At this point, it would be very difficult to prove guilt or innocence for a wide range of potential HOF candidates. The only fair thing to due is call ALL the candidates before Congress so they could not answer their questions (or lie about it).

I find it sickening that the same voters that will keep McGwire out say that they will vote for Bonds.

 

[massraider]

HE broke the rules, HE is not going to get in because of it.

Here's the problem as far as I see it. I understand that the only thing that matters is the perception of the voters, but Big Mac is no more guilty or innocent than Barry Bonds is. Yet many voters have already said that Bonds will get their vote. Both of these guys broke the rules, and if breaking the rules is what should be the deternining factor, NEITHER of them should get HOF votes. At this point there seems to be far greater damning evidence against Bonds.I know the argument for Bonds is that he was a legit HOF candidate BEFORE he started using steroids. But Pete Rose was a legit HOF candidate before he started betting on baseball.

I definitely see a huge double standard developing over the next few years in which voters will scream chapter and verse about keeping certain players out on character issues and cheating while looking the other way to let other players in.

So IMO you either penalize the entire lot of them or you ignore the performance enhancement issue altogether. At this point, it would be very difficult to prove guilt or innocence for a wide range of potential HOF candidates. The only fair thing to due is call ALL the candidates before Congress so they could not answer their questions (or lie about it).

I find it sickening that the same voters that will keep McGwire out say that they will vote for Bonds.

So we counter one mistake with another?I don't think Bonds deserves it, either. But just because one cheater gets a prize, doesn't mean some other cheater deserves one.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

HE broke the rules, HE is not going to get in because of it.

Here's the problem as far as I see it. I understand that the only thing that matters is the perception of the voters, but Big Mac is no more guilty or innocent than Barry Bonds is. Yet many voters have already said that Bonds will get their vote. Both of these guys broke the rules, and if breaking the rules is what should be the deternining factor, NEITHER of them should get HOF votes. At this point there seems to be far greater damning evidence against Bonds.I know the argument for Bonds is that he was a legit HOF candidate BEFORE he started using steroids. But Pete Rose was a legit HOF candidate before he started betting on baseball.

I definitely see a huge double standard developing over the next few years in which voters will scream chapter and verse about keeping certain players out on character issues and cheating while looking the other way to let other players in.

So IMO you either penalize the entire lot of them or you ignore the performance enhancement issue altogether. At this point, it would be very difficult to prove guilt or innocence for a wide range of potential HOF candidates. The only fair thing to due is call ALL the candidates before Congress so they could not answer their questions (or lie about it).

I find it sickening that the same voters that will keep McGwire out say that they will vote for Bonds.

So we counter one mistake with another?I don't think Bonds deserves it, either. But just because one cheater gets a prize, doesn't mean some other cheater deserves one.

Solution? Don't let either of them in, along with Palmeiro and Sosa and any others that there is a doubt about. The sad thing is, that list would probably include 30%-60% of this generation's HOF canidates.

 

[oso diablo]

And when did this guy start spelling his last name differently?

seriously. is that some sort of weird protest? "I'll show that cheater; i'll purposely misspell his name on an internet message board."

 

[duker47]

He is a career .263 hitter with only 1,626 hits and 1,414 RBI over 16 years.

Those numbers should be enough to say "no". Whether or not he cheated/used steroids/his performance in front of Congress etc. should not even come into consideration when you look at the rest of his numbers aside from home runs.

 

[MarshallRob]

I don’t envy the voters on this one. Playing devil’s advocate, is it so clear-cut that steroids are the reason for McGwire’s awesome homerun production from 1996-1999? A few notes:

1) Babe Ruth wasn’t using steroids in 1920 when he doubled a home run mark that had stood from 1884-1918, a 34-year period.

2) Roger Maris wasn’t using steroids when he hit 61 in ’61 although his second-best single-season home run total was only 39.

3) Much like Maris, Barry Bonds (who we know has used steroids) has never approached the home run mark he set in his record-breaking year. He never topped 50 before or since. He wasn’t using for just that one year.

4) I believe there have been 40 total seasons of 50 or more home runs in MLB history. About half of those have come since 1996 but at least a few of those recent players, Griffey, A-Rod, Howard, haven’t seriously been linked to any steroid usage.

5) Despite the large numbers of players who have probably used steroids over the last decade, still only 3 players have ever topped 60 since 1961: Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire. Why have no other juicers gotten to 60?

6) As previously noted, McGwire hit 49 as a rookie. Also, he only played in 178 games from 1993-1995 but hit 57 home runs in that time and slugged .638. He was slugging .628 in 1997 before he was traded to the Cardinals and went on a late season tear. Perhaps the new ballpark in a different league played a role in his improvement. Or maybe whatever he might have been taking helped him stay healthy and remain in the lineup rather than improve his playing ability.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When did I say it had anything to do with an advantage relative to the rest of the players? That is irrelevant. He cheated by BREAKING THE RULES. That is INDEPENDENT of what everyone else was doing.

Please provide a list of players who did not break any rules during their careers. What makes their indescretions a lesser crime then McGwires?

You sound like a 10 year old kid who gets caught shop-lifting and his excuse is "Well everyone else was doing it."The PLAYERS IN THE MLB are NOT up for the HOF consideration. MARK MCGWUIRE is. He can hide behind bis BS statements in Congress, he and his apologists like you can, like the 10 year old shop-lifter, say that "Everyone else was doing it to", but he cannot hide behind his piers when getting considered for the Hall of Fame.

Have you yet replied to one of my post without resorting to some level of personal insult?

He is an individual person, and individual player, and is individually responsible for the decisions HE made. HE decided to cheat and take steroids, and thus HE will not be allowed in the HOF. It was nothing to do with how much of an advantage he may or may not have had against "the field". HE broke the rules, HE is not going to get in because of it.

Where in the criteria does it say anything about breaking a rule makes one ineligible for the Hall of Fame? Why is this rule more damning then say the rules Gaylord Perry routinely broke? If this is in the same league as gambling then why do current caught steroid users merely get suspensions and not permanently banned?

 

[massraider]

HE broke the rules, HE is not going to get in because of it.

Here's the problem as far as I see it. I understand that the only thing that matters is the perception of the voters, but Big Mac is no more guilty or innocent than Barry Bonds is. Yet many voters have already said that Bonds will get their vote. Both of these guys broke the rules, and if breaking the rules is what should be the deternining factor, NEITHER of them should get HOF votes. At this point there seems to be far greater damning evidence against Bonds.I know the argument for Bonds is that he was a legit HOF candidate BEFORE he started using steroids. But Pete Rose was a legit HOF candidate before he started betting on baseball.

I definitely see a huge double standard developing over the next few years in which voters will scream chapter and verse about keeping certain players out on character issues and cheating while looking the other way to let other players in.

So IMO you either penalize the entire lot of them or you ignore the performance enhancement issue altogether. At this point, it would be very difficult to prove guilt or innocence for a wide range of potential HOF candidates. The only fair thing to due is call ALL the candidates before Congress so they could not answer their questions (or lie about it).

I find it sickening that the same voters that will keep McGwire out say that they will vote for Bonds.

So we counter one mistake with another?I don't think Bonds deserves it, either. But just because one cheater gets a prize, doesn't mean some other cheater deserves one.

Solution? Don't let either of them in, along with Palmeiro and Sosa and any others that there is a doubt about. The sad thing is, that list would probably include 30%-60% of this generation's HOF canidates.

I'm with you.And if some known cheaters, like Bonds, get in, well that sucks, but I don't think that makes McGwire a victim. The Hall of Fame is not a right, it's a reward.

That's the only point I'm trying to make.

I do wonder why the same people that would vote for Bonds wouldn't vote for McGwire. Seems strange to me. I know they have different careers and such, and Bonds was a better overall player, but were his pre-roid stats good enough? And how do we know for sure when he started taking steroids? We don't. It does seem sort of arbitrary.

I will say this: Who is using and not using in the majors is not a huge, huge secret. There's a lot of players in the majors, they all have lives, and friends, and are pretty open about what's going on. Not to mention team employees. That's a lot of people talking to their friends and such. I know a few pro athletes in a very casual manner, and have heard all kinds of stuff.

 

[David Yudkin]

He is a career .263 hitter with only 1,626 hits and 1,414 RBI over 16 years.Those numbers should be enough to say "no". Whether or not he cheated/used steroids/his performance in front of Congress etc. should not even come into consideration when you look at the rest of his numbers aside from home runs.

I'll use that line that people throw out at me all the time. It's the Hall of FAME not the Hall of STATS.Even statistically, when you consider that McGwire missed huge chunks of 6 seasons (only 10 years did he play in 130 games), his numbers are strong in the time he played.His 162 game averages were 50 HRs and 122 RBI with a .982 OBP. (Bonds 162 game totals are 42 HRs and 109 RBI).

 

[PatsWillWin]

When did I say it had anything to do with an advantage relative to the rest of the players? That is irrelevant. He cheated by BREAKING THE RULES. That is INDEPENDENT of what everyone else was doing.

Please provide a list of players who did not break any rules during their careers. What makes their indescretions a lesser crime then McGwires?

No - you come up with a list of players that also cheated. I will support not voting for each one if they come up for HOF consideration. McGuire, like I said, just like every other player that comes up for the HOF, is judged individually. This "everyone else was doing it" is BS.

You sound like a 10 year old kid who gets caught shop-lifting and his excuse is "Well everyone else was doing it." The PLAYERS IN THE MLB are NOT up for the HOF consideration. MARK MCGWUIRE is. He can hide behind bis BS statements in Congress, he and his apologists like you can, like the 10 year old shop-lifter, say that "Everyone else was doing it to", but he cannot hide behind his piers when getting considered for the Hall of Fame.

Have you yet replied to one of my post without resorting to some level of personal insult?

Actually I believe this is the first one. Feel free to show me another one.

He is an individual person, and individual player, and is individually responsible for the decisions HE made. HE decided to cheat and take steroids, and thus HE will not be allowed in the HOF. It was nothing to do with how much of an advantage he may or may not have had against "the field". HE broke the rules, HE is not going to get in because of it.

Where in the criteria does it say anything about breaking a rule makes one ineligible for the Hall of Fame? Why is this rule more damning then say the rules Gaylord Perry routinely broke? If this is in the same league as gambling then why do current caught steroid users merely get suspensions and not permanently banned?

a. It says in the directions for voting for the hall of fame to consider character. Cheating and breaking the rules is a pretty relevant insight into what kind of character they had.b. Gaylor Perry has nothing to do with Mark McGuire. The current group of voters is not bound by precedent set by voters in the past. Feel free to start a thread talking about how Gaylord Perry should not be in the HOF, but it still has no relevance to McGuire's candidacy.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Solution? Don't let either of them in, along with Palmeiro and Sosa and any others that there is a doubt about. The sad thing is, that list would probably include 30%-60% of this generation's HOF canidates.

The sad part is that this would allow into the Hall of Fame players who didn't have any of the stereotypical signs of steroids usage - like about half of those suspended so far despite their usage, while at the same time exclude players unlucky enough to have their careers condemned because "we just know" without any real evidence that are actual innocent of any of the alleged crimes. Witch hunts usually aren't an effective means to seperate the guilty from the innocent.

 

[PatsWillWin]

HE broke the rules, HE is not going to get in because of it.

Here's the problem as far as I see it. I understand that the only thing that matters is the perception of the voters, but Big Mac is no more guilty or innocent than Barry Bonds is. Yet many voters have already said that Bonds will get their vote. Both of these guys broke the rules, and if breaking the rules is what should be the deternining factor, NEITHER of them should get HOF votes. At this point there seems to be far greater damning evidence against Bonds.I know the argument for Bonds is that he was a legit HOF candidate BEFORE he started using steroids. But Pete Rose was a legit HOF candidate before he started betting on baseball.I definitely see a huge double standard developing over the next few years in which voters will scream chapter and verse about keeping certain players out on character issues and cheating while looking the other way to let other players in.So IMO you either penalize the entire lot of them or you ignore the performance enhancement issue altogether. At this point, it would be very difficult to prove guilt or innocence for a wide range of potential HOF candidates. The only fair thing to due is call ALL the candidates before Congress so they could not answer their questions (or lie about it).

I agree. I wouldn't vote Bonds in either. I understand that there is another argument for Bonds because he really WOULD'VE been a HOF'er without 'roids. But in my mind, that is irrelevant. Once you take steroids you foreit the privilege of gaining access to the HOF.So yeah, I agree with you.

 

[oso diablo]

He is a career .263 hitter with only 1,626 hits and 1,414 RBI over 16 years.Those numbers should be enough to say "no". Whether or not he cheated/used steroids/his performance in front of Congress etc. should not even come into consideration when you look at the rest of his numbers aside from home runs.

that's ridiculous. 12-time all star. 13th best OPS in history. 10th best slugging %. A career OB% of 394. If you want to ttera:, you can look at OPS+, which puts production into an all-time context. McGwire's OPS+ was 163, good for 11th best all-time. Ahead of such players as Stan Musial, Hank Greenberg, Tris Speaker, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Joe DiMaggio, Frank Robinson, Willie McCovey, Mike Schmidt, Harmon Killebrew, and on and on.You might counter that most of those stats include his HR, and that's correct. But surely no one is arguing that Mark McGwire would have hit zero HR without steriods. You can't just ignore his slugging numbers.Of the top 20 HR hitters of all-time, McGwire's OBP ranks 7th, behind only Ruth, Bonds, Mantle, Foxx, Williams, and Mel Ott.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Solution? Don't let either of them in, along with Palmeiro and Sosa and any others that there is a doubt about. The sad thing is, that list would probably include 30%-60% of this generation's HOF canidates.

The sad part is that this would allow into the Hall of Fame players who didn't have any of the stereotypical signs of steroids usage - like about half of those suspended so far despite their usage, while at the same time exclude players unlucky enough to have their careers condemned because "we just know" without any real evidence that are actual innocent of any of the alleged crimes. Witch hunts usually aren't an effective means to seperate the guilty from the innocent.

The sad part is people will defend a cheater by saying that you can't catch ALL the cheaters and think that that is a reasonable and honorable defense.

 

[PatsWillWin]

He is a career .263 hitter with only 1,626 hits and 1,414 RBI over 16 years.Those numbers should be enough to say "no". Whether or not he cheated/used steroids/his performance in front of Congress etc. should not even come into consideration when you look at the rest of his numbers aside from home runs.

that's ridiculous. 12-time all star. 13th best OPS in history. 10th best slugging %. A career OB% of 394. If you want to ttera:, you can look at OPS+, which puts production into an all-time context. McGwire's OPS+ was 163, good for 11th best all-time. Ahead of such players as Stan Musial, Hank Greenberg, Tris Speaker, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Joe DiMaggio, Frank Robinson, Willie McCovey, Mike Schmidt, Harmon Killebrew, and on and on.You might counter that most of those stats include his HR, and that's correct. But surely no one is arguing that Mark McGwire would have hit zero HR without steriods. You can't just ignore his slugging numbers.Of the top 20 HR hitters of all-time, McGwire's OBP ranks 7th, behind only Ruth, Bonds, Mantle, Foxx, Williams, and Mel Ott.

Why do you think that HR is the only stat that would benefit from steroids? It's power numbers across the board. All McGuire has on his resume is historical powers, which was inflated by 'roids. No way he's a HOF'er without the juice.

 

[David Yudkin]

The problem with trying to decipher when players started juicing is that some guys you can tell and some guys you can't.

Palmiero had 10 seasons with 30+ HRs (including 9 years in a row). But he didn't have his first year with 30+ HRs until his 8th season.

Through his first 7 years, Raffy only had 95 HR in his first 3,270 ABs (or one every 34.4 ABs). From that point on, he hit 474 HRs in 7,202 ABs (or one every 15.1 ABs).

Hmmm . . . what would explain such a dramatic change?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Solution? Don't let either of them in, along with Palmeiro and Sosa and any others that there is a doubt about. The sad thing is, that list would probably include 30%-60% of this generation's HOF canidates.

The sad part is that this would allow into the Hall of Fame players who didn't have any of the stereotypical signs of steroids usage - like about half of those suspended so far despite their usage, while at the same time exclude players unlucky enough to have their careers condemned because "we just know" without any real evidence that are actual innocent of any of the alleged crimes. Witch hunts usually aren't an effective means to seperate the guilty from the innocent.

The sad part is people will defend a cheater by saying that you can't catch ALL the cheaters and think that that is a reasonable and honorable defense.

I ask again how did he cheat baseball? How did he cheat his peers from his era? Oh, yeah he is suspected of probably breaking a rule that no one cared about.

 

[oso diablo]

Why do you think that HR is the only stat that would benefit from steroids? It's power numbers across the board. All McGuire has on his resume is historical powers, which was inflated by 'roids. No way he's a HOF'er without the juice.

The previous poster was making the argument that McGwire was not a HOF even without the steriod question. That's what i was responding to.That said, no one knows how much benefit was derived from steriod use. no one. There's no rational way you can make that last statement, other than pure subjective opinion.Going back to the previous question... There are 27 1B in the HOF. They averaged 101 runs and 107 rbi per 162 games. McGwire averaged 101 runs and 122 RBI per 162 games. Sure, he's no Gehrig, but that's not the standard for the HOF. McGwire was most similar to Killebrew & McCovey. That's a HOFer.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Solution? Don't let either of them in, along with Palmeiro and Sosa and any others that there is a doubt about. The sad thing is, that list would probably include 30%-60% of this generation's HOF canidates.

The sad part is that this would allow into the Hall of Fame players who didn't have any of the stereotypical signs of steroids usage - like about half of those suspended so far despite their usage, while at the same time exclude players unlucky enough to have their careers condemned because "we just know" without any real evidence that are actual innocent of any of the alleged crimes. Witch hunts usually aren't an effective means to seperate the guilty from the innocent.

The sad part is people will defend a cheater by saying that you can't catch ALL the cheaters and think that that is a reasonable and honorable defense.

I ask again how did he cheat baseball? How did he cheat his peers from his era? Oh, yeah he is suspected of probably breaking a rule that no one cared about.

What is "cheat baseball"? What is "cheat peers from his era"? Why do you keep making #### up that I never said?He BROKE a RULE by using an ILLEGAL substance. The EVIDENCE that he broke this rule is substantial enough for the voters to keep him out. That is all the evidence they need or I need since this is a discussion about the HOF.Seriously, you're a broken record. We get that you don't think it's a big deal. Just say it. Stop asking the same idiotic questions over and over.

 

[PatsWillWin]

The problem with trying to decipher when players started juicing is that some guys you can tell and some guys you can't.Palmiero had 10 seasons with 30+ HRs (including 9 years in a row). But he didn't have his first year with 30+ HRs until his 8th season.Through his first 7 years, Raffy only had 95 HR in his first 3,270 ABs (or one every 34.4 ABs). From that point on, he hit 474 HRs in 7,202 ABs (or one every 15.1 ABs).Hmmm . . . what would explain such a dramatic change?

Palmiero's 8th season that you speak of was in Texas in 1993.Guess who came to Texas in 1992.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Seriously, you're a broken record. We get that you don't think it's a big deal. Just say it.

If you are playing under the same rules as your peers you are not cheating. If your employers are celebrating your job performance and ignoring their own rules in the process, you aren't guilty of cheating your employers either. I get it that the integrity of the sport's history from the steroid era is rightfully questioned and condemned, but to retroactively single out Hall of Fame worthy players for the sins of the entire industry to make some kind of moral stand is wrong, and not moral.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Seriously, you're a broken record. We get that you don't think it's a big deal. Just say it.

If you are playing under the same rules as your peers you are not cheating. If your employers are celebrating your job performance and ignoring their own rules in the process, you aren't guilty of cheating your employers either. I get it that the integrity of the sport's history from the steroid era is rightfully questioned and condemned, but to retroactively single out Hall of Fame worthy players for the sins of the entire industry to make some kind of moral stand is wrong, and not moral.

There are opinions.And then there's just being wrong. The highlighted part is just wrong. Go look up the word "cheat" in the dictionary. It will say that breaking rules, laws, or regulations is cheating. There will NOT, I'm sure, be any mention about "peers" or "employers".

Seriously. You're a McGuire apologist through and through to the point of changing the definition of words in the English language. Seek help elsewhere for I am done with thee.

Have a nice season, guy.

 

[dparker713]

The EVIDENCE that he broke this rule is substantial enough for the voters to keep him out. That is all the evidence they need or I need since this is a discussion about the HOF.

The evidence is severely lacking. The evidence is that he was prolific and had freakish physical talent. He was "outted" by a malcontent pariah that was in desperate need of money. He declined to answer questions about any and all steroid use that he may have seen or done in the past. Well, the first piece of evidence fits all top players of any era. So, Maddox, Clemens, Griffey, Smoltz, ARod, Pedro, RJohnson, et al need to be suspect as well. And its not like Bonds where he suddenly gained 25 lbs of pure muscle and grew 3 hat sizes in one winter when he was 37. At the very least, he was more subtle.The second bit of evidence depends entirely on the amount of credibility you afford Canseco. Personally, I find him and his admissions suspect but not incredulous. The third piece of evidence is the most publicly damning, but also entirely based on perception and in no way based in fact. Do I suspect he used steroids? Yes I do. But I prefer to be able to more then merely suspect something when using it as the sole basis for judgment. I'd need it to be more likely then not that he more then tried steroids, that he was a habitual user with no remorse. If the main problem you have is that McGwire broke a rule and therefore he should not be in the hall of fame, how is that any different from Gaylord Perry having broken a rule - something he has openly admitted btw. One is steroids, the other is putting all manner of junk on the baseball. Both were rules, and being caught doing the later could actually get you suspended. Any stance other then all rule breakers/cheaters should not be in the hall of fame is hypocritical. Then again, without the people that broke rules, the HOF would be a very lonely place.In the end, all you have is speculation.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Seriously, you're a broken record. We get that you don't think it's a big deal. Just say it.

If you are playing under the same rules as your peers you are not cheating. If your employers are celebrating your job performance and ignoring their own rules in the process, you aren't guilty of cheating your employers either. I get it that the integrity of the sport's history from the steroid era is rightfully questioned and condemned, but to retroactively single out Hall of Fame worthy players for the sins of the entire industry to make some kind of moral stand is wrong, and not moral.

There are opinions.And then there's just being wrong. The highlighted part is just wrong. Go look up the word "cheat" in the dictionary. It will say that breaking rules, laws, or regulations is cheating. There will NOT, I'm sure, be any mention about "peers" or "employers".

Seriously. You're a McGuire apologist through and through to the point of changing the definition of words in the English language. Seek help elsewhere for I am done with thee.

Have a nice season, guy.

So when Chad Johnson went out on the field with Ocho Cinco on the back of his uniform, breaking a rule resulting in a fine he was cheater? That is your relevant definition of cheating in this context?Oh, and I assume this is also the first time you replied in this thread with a personal insult.

 

[dparker713]

Seriously, you're a broken record. We get that you don't think it's a big deal. Just say it.

If you are playing under the same rules as your peers you are not cheating. If your employers are celebrating your job performance and ignoring their own rules in the process, you aren't guilty of cheating your employers either. I get it that the integrity of the sport's history from the steroid era is rightfully questioned and condemned, but to retroactively single out Hall of Fame worthy players for the sins of the entire industry to make some kind of moral stand is wrong, and not moral.

There are opinions.And then there's just being wrong. The highlighted part is just wrong. Go look up the word "cheat" in the dictionary. It will say that breaking rules, laws, or regulations is cheating. There will NOT, I'm sure, be any mention about "peers" or "employers".

Seriously. You're a McGuire apologist through and through to the point of changing the definition of words in the English language. Seek help elsewhere for I am done with thee.

Have a nice season, guy.

This is like condemning people driving with the flow of traffic in a 55mph zone going 65 mph right past a patrol car that is merely sitting there watching everyone go by. Cheating is hardly as cut and dried as you make it out to be, especially in the world of pro sports, where if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'. And its only cheating if you get caught. He was never caught.

Barkley was right, athletes arent role models, so stop expecting them to have impeccable moral fiber.

 

[Snotbubbles]

If you are playing under the same rules as your peers you are not cheating. If your employers are celebrating your job performance and ignoring their own rules in the process, you aren't guilty of cheating your employers either. I get it that the integrity of the sport's history from the steroid era is rightfully questioned and condemned, but to retroactively single out Hall of Fame worthy players for the sins of the entire industry to make some kind of moral stand is wrong, and not moral.

The argument that McGwires peers were cheating as well so therefore it's ok for him to is a poor argument because it assumes the following:1. That EVERY MLB player is taking steriods, HGH or some other performance enhancing drug. I doubt this is true.

2. That they are all taking the same drug. Not all steriods are equal so taking clenbuterol will have a different effect on you than taking winstrol.

3. That they are all taking the same amounts of the drug. Player A could be stacking different steriods while Player B may only be taking 1 at a time.

4. That the body chemistry of all the players are the same. I know this is not true. Some people have greater effects on steriods then other.

 

[Daisuke Matsuzaka]

A lot of BS I just read though.

Look, if anyone here doesn't think that McGuire took 'roids, then you haven't been paying attention. You can argue about whether "everyone" was doing it or if the owners "enabled" it, but McGuire did it HIMSELF. He's a cheater, there's really no way to get around that.

@ someone comparing Chad Johnson's jersey patch to taking steroids. Get real.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If you are playing under the same rules as your peers you are not cheating. If your employers are celebrating your job performance and ignoring their own rules in the process, you aren't guilty of cheating your employers either. I get it that the integrity of the sport's history from the steroid era is rightfully questioned and condemned, but to retroactively single out Hall of Fame worthy players for the sins of the entire industry to make some kind of moral stand is wrong, and not moral.

The argument that McGwires peers were cheating as well so therefore it's ok for him to is a poor argument because it assumes the following:1. That EVERY MLB player is taking steriods, HGH or some other performance enhancing drug. I doubt this is true.

2. That they are all taking the same drug. Not all steriods are equal so taking clenbuterol will have a different effect on you than taking winstrol.

3. That they are all taking the same amounts of the drug. Player A could be stacking different steriods while Player B may only be taking 1 at a time.

4. That the body chemistry of all the players are the same. I know this is not true. Some people have greater effects on steriods then other.

Doesn't assume any of this. And my argument is that McGwire, even if used steroids didn't cheat at all. No one cheated by using steroids until baseball implemented a policy to formally sanction those caught - memo or not. And if a significant number of players (at least 7% - correct?) didn't test positive there wouldn't be testing today.

 

[dparker713]

If you are playing under the same rules as your peers you are not cheating. If your employers are celebrating your job performance and ignoring their own rules in the process, you aren't guilty of cheating your employers either. I get it that the integrity of the sport's history from the steroid era is rightfully questioned and condemned, but to retroactively single out Hall of Fame worthy players for the sins of the entire industry to make some kind of moral stand is wrong, and not moral.

The argument that McGwires peers were cheating as well so therefore it's ok for him to is a poor argument because it assumes the following:1. That EVERY MLB player is taking steriods, HGH or some other performance enhancing drug. I doubt this is true.

2. That they are all taking the same drug. Not all steriods are equal so taking clenbuterol will have a different effect on you than taking winstrol.

3. That they are all taking the same amounts of the drug. Player A could be stacking different steriods while Player B may only be taking 1 at a time.

4. That the body chemistry of all the players are the same. I know this is not true. Some people have greater effects on steriods then other.

Actually, the only assuption is that the players had access to some form of enhancement and that there was zero enforcement. That it was a dirty secret that was not condemned by the league and available to those that chose to do so without any reprecussions.Also, since HOFers are compared both historically and to their peers for outstanding performance his numbers historically may be in question. This is where you also need to consider other performance enhancing that was historically available to baseball players.

Despite the historical questions, he still dominated during his era while playing among players that had similar access to performance enhancers.

As for character, most evidence points both historically and during his playing years that professional athletes would in general do whatever they could, both inside and outside of the rules, to gain any edge available to them.

Just don't pretend that McGwire is an exception either way. He's a ball player, and he wanted to win at all costs. Ty Cobb was both revered and reviled for that and was nearly unianimously elected into the HOF.

 

[dparker713]

A lot of BS I just read though.Look, if anyone here doesn't think that McGuire took 'roids, then you haven't been paying attention. You can argue about whether "everyone" was doing it or if the owners "enabled" it, but McGuire did it HIMSELF. He's a cheater, there's really no way to get around that. @ someone comparing Chad Johnson's jersey patch to taking steroids. Get real.

Believe and prove are two entirely different beasts. I prefer to make jugments on facts and knowledge, as opposed to gut feelings.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

Seriously, you're a broken record. We get that you don't think it's a big deal. Just say it.

If you are playing under the same rules as your peers you are not cheating. If your employers are celebrating your job performance and ignoring their own rules in the process, you aren't guilty of cheating your employers either. I get it that the integrity of the sport's history from the steroid era is rightfully questioned and condemned, but to retroactively single out Hall of Fame worthy players for the sins of the entire industry to make some kind of moral stand is wrong, and not moral.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Doesn't assume any of this. And my argument is that McGwire, even if used steroids didn't cheat at all. No one cheated by using steroids until baseball implemented a policy to formally sanction those caught - memo or not. And if a significant number of players (at least 7% - correct?) didn't test positive there wouldn't be testing today.

By saying that McGwire EVEN IF he used steriods didn't cheat because MLB wasn't testing is weak. For one, how do you implement testing for a steriod specifically designed to be undetectable under current testing procedures? (see "the clear"). The IOC which probably has the most stringent testing procedures couldn't even detect this steriod without a sample of it.Second, how do you implement a test for a drug where there is no scientific test available? (see HGH)Finally how do you implement a testing policy to catch users (or at least the one's who are taking detectable drugs) when you need the approval of those who you are trying to catch. That's like having to obtain consent from a drug dealer to wire-tap his phone.

Despite the historical questions, he still dominated during his era while playing among players that had similar access to performance enhancers.

Here you go with the assumptions. Having "access to" and "taking" are two different things. If McGwire gained a competitive advantage by taking steriods and thus "dominated" as you say how can your defense of McGwire be that everyone had "access" to them. In order to counter-balance the competitive advantage McGwire gained from using steriod, EVERY MLB would have had to use steriods. And then you get into the other assumptions that are required to have everyone on a level playing field (ie, they are taking the same drugs, in the same amounts and they are getting the same benefit).

 

[Thorn]

A lot of BS I just read though.Look, if anyone here doesn't think that McGuire took 'roids, then you haven't been paying attention. You can argue about whether "everyone" was doing it or if the owners "enabled" it, but McGuire did it HIMSELF. He's a cheater, there's really no way to get around that. @ someone comparing Chad Johnson's jersey patch to taking steroids. Get real.

Believe and prove are two entirely different beasts. I prefer to make jugments on facts and knowledge, as opposed to gut feelings.

In this case you have something in between. And again, why should proof beyond a reasonable doubt be required? This is not a criminal court.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Doesn't assume any of this. And my argument is that McGwire, even if used steroids didn't cheat at all. No one cheated by using steroids until baseball implemented a policy to formally sanction those caught - memo or not. And if a significant number of players (at least 7% - correct?) didn't test positive there wouldn't be testing today.

By saying that McGwire EVEN IF he used steriods didn't cheat because MLB wasn't testing is weak. For one, how do you implement testing for a steriod specifically designed to be undetectable under current testing procedures? (see "the clear"). The IOC which probably has the most stringent testing procedures couldn't even detect this steriod without a sample of it.Second, how do you implement a test for a drug where there is no scientific test available? (see HGH)Finally how do you implement a testing policy to catch users (or at least the one's who are taking detectable drugs) when you need the approval of those who you are trying to catch. That's like having to obtain consent from a drug dealer to wire-tap his phone.

I agree that it is stupid to have unenforceable rules! Maybe you should read up on Gene Doping.

Despite the historical questions, he still dominated during his era while playing among players that had similar access to performance enhancers.

Here you go with the assumptions. Having "access to" and "taking" are two different things. If McGwire gained a competitive advantage by taking steriods and thus "dominated" as you say how can your defense of McGwire be that everyone had "access" to them. In order to counter-balance the competitive advantage McGwire gained from using steriod, EVERY MLB would have had to use steriods. And then you get into the other assumptions that are required to have everyone on a level playing field (ie, they are taking the same drugs, in the same amounts and they are getting the same benefit).

You are the one making the assumptions! The MLB players of today have equal access to nutrionist, conditioning programs, LASIK procedures, etc., etc. Do those that seek out and take advantage of the opportunities cheat? Since some players have sought out advantages either legal or illegal, and others haven't in every generation is the playing field ever level? If McGwire through stupidity used a steroid that hindered his performance rather then helped it was he cheating? Was Alan Wiggins' illegal drug usage that first destroyed his career and then resulted in his death in the 80's cheating? If you have the same opportunities to better yourself within the limitations of your genes then everyone else then the playing field is level. And soon enough the genetic limitations will be going away.

 

[dparker713]

A lot of BS I just read though.Look, if anyone here doesn't think that McGuire took 'roids, then you haven't been paying attention. You can argue about whether "everyone" was doing it or if the owners "enabled" it, but McGuire did it HIMSELF. He's a cheater, there's really no way to get around that. @ someone comparing Chad Johnson's jersey patch to taking steroids. Get real.

Believe and prove are two entirely different beasts. I prefer to make jugments on facts and knowledge, as opposed to gut feelings.

In this case you have something in between. And again, why should proof beyond a reasonable doubt be required? This is not a criminal court.

Im not seeking proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I've asked for a perponderance, 50.1%. I dont have that. I have him having freakish talent - a given for sure fire HOFer; refusal to answer - which I make no judgment on; Jose Canseco - somewhat credible, but not exactly without motive. All that sums up to probable cause for me, yet there hasn't been an investigation and even if there was I doubt it would get anywhere. Now, in my gut, yeah I think he used steroids. But my gut doesn't weight in on logical observations, and given the complicity of everyone in baseball Im willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

 

[dparker713]

Despite the historical questions, he still dominated during his era while playing among players that had similar access to performance enhancers.

Here you go with the assumptions. Having "access to" and "taking" are two different things. If McGwire gained a competitive advantage by taking steriods and thus "dominated" as you say how can your defense of McGwire be that everyone had "access" to them. In order to counter-balance the competitive advantage McGwire gained from using steriod, EVERY MLB would have had to use steriods. And then you get into the other assumptions that are required to have everyone on a level playing field (ie, they are taking the same drugs, in the same amounts and they are getting the same benefit).

Actually, you're making the assumptions. You're assuming McGwire took steroids, for which there is no definitive proof. Its a fact that he dominated during his era. Its fact that steroids were available to the general public. Its a fact that even a MLB player making the minimum during this time was making several times the average salary of an American worker. All of these provide for similar access. I never said identical and thats hardly revelant - name me one, just one, sporting event where the opponents were completely evenly matched. Outside of video games and having the same teams play each other, that just isnt possible and so thats a poor standard.

 

[Statorama]

Good grief guys, Gaylord Perry's in the hall.

 

[Thorn]

A lot of BS I just read though.Look, if anyone here doesn't think that McGuire took 'roids, then you haven't been paying attention. You can argue about whether "everyone" was doing it or if the owners "enabled" it, but McGuire did it HIMSELF. He's a cheater, there's really no way to get around that. @ someone comparing Chad Johnson's jersey patch to taking steroids. Get real.

Believe and prove are two entirely different beasts. I prefer to make jugments on facts and knowledge, as opposed to gut feelings.

In this case you have something in between. And again, why should proof beyond a reasonable doubt be required? This is not a criminal court.

Im not seeking proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I've asked for a perponderance, 50.1%. I dont have that. I have him having freakish talent - a given for sure fire HOFer; refusal to answer - which I make no judgment on; Jose Canseco - somewhat credible, but not exactly without motive. All that sums up to probable cause for me, yet there hasn't been an investigation and even if there was I doubt it would get anywhere. Now, in my gut, yeah I think he used steroids. But my gut doesn't weight in on logical observations, and given the complicity of everyone in baseball Im willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Ok, that I can understand. But would you allow that it's acceptable for another person (say one with a vote) to say - in my gut, and bc of his refusal to answer questions, I think he used steriods and therefore I won't vote to put him in the hall, bc even presuming that baseball was complicit, that complicity doesn't excuse the fact that he chose to use steroids.

 

[thayman]

HE broke the rules, HE is not going to get in because of it.

Here's the problem as far as I see it. I understand that the only thing that matters is the perception of the voters, but Big Mac is no more guilty or innocent than Barry Bonds is. Yet many voters have already said that Bonds will get their vote. Both of these guys broke the rules, and if breaking the rules is what should be the deternining factor, NEITHER of them should get HOF votes. At this point there seems to be far greater damning evidence against Bonds.I know the argument for Bonds is that he was a legit HOF candidate BEFORE he started using steroids. But Pete Rose was a legit HOF candidate before he started betting on baseball.

I definitely see a huge double standard developing over the next few years in which voters will scream chapter and verse about keeping certain players out on character issues and cheating while looking the other way to let other players in.

So IMO you either penalize the entire lot of them or you ignore the performance enhancement issue altogether. At this point, it would be very difficult to prove guilt or innocence for a wide range of potential HOF candidates. The only fair thing to due is call ALL the candidates before Congress so they could not answer their questions (or lie about it).

Yeah but Pete Rose was suspended for life INCLUDING the HOF, so the comparisons are a bit different.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

HE broke the rules, HE is not going to get in because of it.

::

I know the argument for Bonds is that he was a legit HOF candidate BEFORE he started using steroids. But Pete Rose was a legit HOF candidate before he started betting on baseball.

:

:

Yeah but Pete Rose was suspended for life INCLUDING the HOF, so the comparisons are a bit different.

However, in Pete Rose's case the rules for the Hall of Fame were changed to specifically exclude those from the banned list. Joe Jackson on the other hand was eligible for election up until this time but was simply never voted in. The thing about Pete Rose is that despite the evidence (the public evidence was strong but highly slanted) that he violated baseball's #1 rule the writers whom he charmed throughout his playing and managing careers were dangerously close to being about to vote him in when the rule changed. The same writers who now are taking a high and mighty moral position about McGwire were vocally upset that the right to place Rose in the HOF was taken from them. The same fans that claim McGwire's performance before congress "prove" that he used steroids never figured out that Rose's agreeing to a lifetime ban and the heart attack of the Giamatti soon after were actually pretty strong evidence that Rose betted on Baseball. Rose's guilt was defended by many until he confessed.The interesting thing about Rose is that he bet meet his gambling buddies at the gym, and they eventually went to prison for selling steroids.

Edit to fix Freudian slip...

 

[acapella]

Keep them all out.

No way does scum like this deserve to be in the HOF.

 

[dparker713]

A lot of BS I just read though.Look, if anyone here doesn't think that McGuire took 'roids, then you haven't been paying attention. You can argue about whether "everyone" was doing it or if the owners "enabled" it, but McGuire did it HIMSELF. He's a cheater, there's really no way to get around that. @ someone comparing Chad Johnson's jersey patch to taking steroids. Get real.

Believe and prove are two entirely different beasts. I prefer to make jugments on facts and knowledge, as opposed to gut feelings.

In this case you have something in between. And again, why should proof beyond a reasonable doubt be required? This is not a criminal court.

Im not seeking proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I've asked for a perponderance, 50.1%. I dont have that. I have him having freakish talent - a given for sure fire HOFer; refusal to answer - which I make no judgment on; Jose Canseco - somewhat credible, but not exactly without motive. All that sums up to probable cause for me, yet there hasn't been an investigation and even if there was I doubt it would get anywhere. Now, in my gut, yeah I think he used steroids. But my gut doesn't weight in on logical observations, and given the complicity of everyone in baseball Im willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Ok, that I can understand. But would you allow that it's acceptable for another person (say one with a vote) to say - in my gut, and bc of his refusal to answer questions, I think he used steriods and therefore I won't vote to put him in the hall, bc even presuming that baseball was complicit, that complicity doesn't excuse the fact that he chose to use steroids.

The writers are free to do whatever they want. But they better be consistent. Allow them all except for those with actual proof, or else keep them all out. But I'll be amazed if they select the latter - after all they admitted Gaylord Perry AFTER he bragged about doctoring balls. In the end, I think each person with the steroids cloud but that has a HOF resume gets in within 5 years of being on the ballot, but few if any make it in on the first ballot, certainly not Bonds, maybe not even Clemens.

 

[dparker713]

Keep them all out.

No way does scum like this deserve to be in the HOF.

If McGwire is scum, what's Gaylord Perry in your book? How about Ty Cobb?