O/T If McGwire Doesn't Go Into Hall then Clemens ... [Archive]

Archive

01-12-2007, 11:48 AM

Posted By: DJI disagree. If we don't allow Clemens in, then we should simply close the Hall down and refuse to allow any more inductions. It's impossible to separate who cheated and who did and what one thinks is cheating, another doesn't. While McGwire hides like a nancyboy (guilt?), Clemens hasn't been indicted in anything. If closing the Hall is a bit drastic, then we should simply begin inducting those who didn't play during the juiced era. You will have more like next year's class, players that can't make it during a good year, but can make it during a slow year. That makes no sense to me. If Goose isn't good enough to be in five years ago, why is he good enough in 2008? DJ

Archive

01-12-2007, 11:50 AM

Posted By: Cobby33Peter C: My observation was not mine alone. Most in the media acknowledge that had McGwire been more forthcoming at the hearings and had not played stupid, he would be in the Hall now. I'm not sure I disagree with that. As others have pointed out, off-the-field conduct should matter as well and perjury and/or being too coy, should factor into the ultimate decision.

Archive

01-12-2007, 11:53 AM

Posted By: peter ullmandj and cobby...i agree!!! pete in mn

Archive

01-12-2007, 12:04 PM

Posted By: peter chaoPeter U, I agree that there are moral requirements to becoming a member of HOF. But being likeable is not a requirement and if it was then Cobb, Evers and whole bunch others would have to be thrown out. Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 12:20 PM

Posted By: warshawlawIf he'd come clean or denied it, one way or the other, I think he'd have been voted in. Weaseling around was the worst thing he could do. I still think he will make it next time around. This time was a protest vote and next year is a lousy class. I don't see Clemens as equivalent to Bonds or McGwire. He hasn't been caught using illegal and banned drugs (Bonds, Palmiero) and he didn't dissemble in front of Congress.

Archive

01-12-2007, 12:33 PM

Posted By: peter chaoAdam, Pete in Mn, guys, You are now telling me it's important to be popular (likeable) in order to get into the Hall. Then BBonds might as well hang up his spikes right now because he will never get in. Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 12:48 PM

Posted By: peter ullmanpeter...I think "character" is considered in hof voting. That said...Adam is right...if Big Mac admitted one way or the other most people would have some/more respect for him and he's be more likely to be voted in. No matter what stats Bonds ends up with...if he's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he's guilty...he may not ever get in. I'm not saying I agree with this...but the late 80's-90's and beyond in baseball will be known as the steroid years and the greatest players of the era...should be admitted to the hall. I personally think the different characters and circumstances of the era that helped shape the players adds spice to the history of the game and makes it interesting. If all players were as boring as Awad...how lame would baseball be? pete in mn

Archive

01-12-2007, 12:48 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellAdam, I will give you 10 to 1 odds against him making it next year--my $100 against your $10. Jim

Archive

01-12-2007, 12:52 PM

Posted By: BrettSteroid users should be banned from baseball.

Archive

01-12-2007, 12:52 PM

Posted By: peter chaoJim, I like it, let's convert this forum into a black market gambling den. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 12:54 PM

Posted By: Joe D.Maybe Griffey Jr. should get some more respect today. I know he is oft injured. But the guy has always remained skinny - doesn't look like he ever touched roids. He and his numbers may be unmatched by current ballplayers who have not taken performance enhancing junk. A newfound respect for Griffey Jr and his accomplishments?

Archive

01-12-2007, 01:15 PM

Posted By: peter chaoPete in Mn, Character is part of HOF standards, however, that is even more slippery than popularity. There are places where terrorists are held in high esteem, but obviously not here in the U.S. The above was not a politcal statement. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 01:21 PM

Posted By: peter ullmantouche Pete...I'm just saying different times call for different standards and values and ideals change over time. That said...what is perceived as acceptable by society changes over time and thus standards for applicants of most institutions change as well. pete in mn

Archive

01-12-2007, 01:27 PM

Posted By: peter chaoPete in Mn, guys, I agree with you but the ballplayers need to be informed. A young Cal Ripken may be thinking I'd like to get into the HOF someday, but I have no idea of how popular or what they mean by high character. And yes, Junior Griffey is a no doubt HOF. Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 01:31 PM

Posted By: PCPete: given the inflated prices some are paying for the cardboard we collect, I'd venture that there is already quite a bit of gambling going on here.

Archive

01-12-2007, 01:35 PM

Posted By: JayClemens has been the model ballplayer. There is no evidence that he has taken any drugs, ever. He just works harder than anyone else in baseball. He is argueably the greatest pitcher ever and we should enjoy what he does on the field instead of making up stories about what he has done off the field. Actually, if you want to talk about what he does off the field look up the Roger Clemens Foundation and see all the good he does.

Archive

01-12-2007, 01:36 PM

Posted By: Jason Lexactly right ! often obscured by his injuries...if he had a stronger (meaning more durable) body, that would have allowed full seasons of play, I strongly believe Junior would be thought of as one of the top 3 to ever play the game. Totally off the cuff, obviously, as I don't know the guy, but honestly, does it look like he even knows where the weight room is? I think he is the best pure talent in the game, over the last 10+ years. What he was doing in the mid 90s was a pure joy to watch

Archive

01-12-2007, 01:39 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI say start throwing guys out with marginal stats who are already in- George Kell, Bill Mazeroski, et al. Just call up their families and tell them to come down and pick up their ancestor's plaques because we've reconsidered and we've yanked them off the wall. Then the Hall would be filled with only the truly great!

Archive

01-12-2007, 01:44 PM

Posted By: peter chaoOkay Barry, That's a great idea, why don't you just go and call Maz and tell him that he's been thrown out of the Hall. I'm behind you......way behind you. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 01:46 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI don't want to do it, he'll beat me up...let some big guy do it <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

01-12-2007, 01:49 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackThe honest players who didn't use drugs shouldn't blame the sports writers or suspicious fans. They should blame the players who used drugs then lied about it. They should blame the lockerroom culture that prevented players from being honest (tell the truth and you're a snitch). They should blame Don Fehr. Do you know what Dusty Baker's problem with Jason Grimsley talking about the drugs he used and where he got them? Grimsely was a 'snitch.' Do you know what Jeff Nelson's and Ozzie Guillen's issue with Grimsley talking about steroids? Grimsley was a snitch. 'Snitch' is the word they used. Do you know why players got mad at Ken Caminitti? Because he was candid about steroids. If he lied and denied like Rafael Palmiero, players would have had no issue with Caminitti. And non-using players blame the fans and sportswriters for doubting the honesty and candidness of players? Even MLB managers see red when a player dares be candid about steroids. My problem with the 'but it wasn't against the rules' argument, is that it was the players who voted for the rules. The rules couldn't have existed without being okayed by the players. Players knew steroids was cheating, and they and their union wrote the rules to allow steroid use. If rules are forced upon you, that's one thing. If you are in the power and write or okay the rules, you can't later say "It's not our fault. It's the rules' fault." Say as a card player I wrote rules that intentionally allowed me to have an unfair advantage and soon own my opponents' money. When the advantage is revealed, you can bet they players won't accept the "Don't blame me, as I was just following the rules." It's likely they will expect to receive their money back, via their physical force if needed. They will consider the act of writing the unfair rules to be a form of cheating. As I said once before, steroid using baseball players made a contract with the Devil. In a contract with the Devil, you get something from the Devil and the Devil later returns to get something from you. And if at payment time you complain that the contract terms aren't fair, the Devil says "I know."

Archive

01-12-2007, 01:49 PM

Posted By: warshawlawI don't gamble, Jim. Personal reasons. But I think he will get in next year barring a revelation that sticks to him conclusively. Barry, it isn't the Hall of Greats, it is the Hall of Fame. And I think Maz belongs based on his being the best ever at fielding his position. But what do I know; I'm just quoting Bill James.

Archive

01-12-2007, 02:01 PM

Posted By: Chris CountsI read an article today by HOF voter Gwen Knapp of the San Francisco Chronicle where she explains why she voted for ... (gasp!) ... Ken Caminiti! Caminiti, you might recall, had one legitimate HOF season ... which attributed to, in a remarkable case of honesty, steroids. Knapp, by the way, didn't vote for McGuire ... for the simple reason "he wasn't honest." This comes just a day after one of the voters announced he was turning in a blank ballot as a protest against the steroid era. Apparently, he didn't notice a well-deserving handful of players were on the ballot — like Jim Rice, Goose Gossage, etc. — who pre-dated the steroid era ... I bring this up as tangible evidence that the HOF is truly broken. They've got people voting for HOFers who seem to have only a passing interest or knowledge of the game. No amount of ranting and raving about its quirks is going to fix anything. And by the way, I rant and rave about it as much as anyone ... P.S. ... I am convinced that we on the Vintage Card Forum ... despite our vast political differences, could do a far better job electing HOFers than the clowns currently entrusted with the task ... Now there's a fun thread waiting to happen!

Archive

01-12-2007, 02:06 PM

Posted By: peter chaoChris, That's a great idea, don't be shy, go ahead and start the thread. No.1 on my list would be Lou Gehrig. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 02:28 PM

Posted By: peter chaoChris, No. 3 would be Babe Ruth, No. 4 would be Walter Johnson, No.5 would be Nolan Ryan. There you go the first tier HOF, now who would be in the second tier. Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 02:32 PM

Posted By: John H."I agree with you but the ballplayers need to be informed." Peter C., How could anyone have advised McGwire on how to act at the 2005 hearings? That's where he screwed his HOF chances. He made a conscious decision to sit there and say nothing of substance. "I'm not here to talk about the past." Okay then, you baby, go home and kiss your plaque in Cooperstown goodbye. He should have faced the music like a man. It was a pathetic performance and he's justifiably paying the price for it. He should have come clean. If Andro was all he was ever on, he should have said it. Andro isn't illegal and it wasn't banned in MLB at the time. If he was on the juice, he should have admitted it and apologized. As it turns out, it clearly looks like the container of Andro he so proudly displayed in his locker, for all to see, was just a cover to deflect suspicion that he might be on illegal steroids. John

Archive

01-12-2007, 02:38 PM

Posted By: peter chaoJohn, However, it was clear that he was honest. He did not want to talk about the past. So if somebody is evasive they should not be a member of the HOF. Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 02:42 PM

Posted By: NoelPete, I am close with you as far as your top 4 but No. 5, are you kidding? Certainly a HOFer by todays standards but nowhere near a first tier. Think i would probably nominate at least 10 other pitchers ahead of him just off the cuff.

Archive

01-12-2007, 02:45 PM

Posted By: peter chaoNoel, Your right No.5 is kinda of weak, Ryan never even won a Cy Young...who's in your top 5. Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 02:52 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackLiterally correct evasiveness may not by lying but it isn't honesty. Moms who have quizzed kids about the missing cookies from the cookie jar will testify to this.

Archive

01-12-2007, 03:02 PM

Posted By: NoelPete, Ryan was great but just incredibly inconsistent. This is subject to be revised but i am sure Mays would be in there. 1) Ruth 2) Cobb 3) Mays 4) Williams 5) Gehrig Dont hold me to these but i think it would be pretty close to that order. I would also think Matty, Johnson, Dimaggio, Hornsby, Wagner, Speaker, Musial and some Negro League players would deserve some serious attention. I would love for the HOF to be held up to the standards of the inital class, it is so watered down now that i have lost some interest in many of the recent inductions.

Archive

01-12-2007, 03:03 PM

Posted By: peter chaoDavid, I'm pretty sure that McGwire did not say what he wanted to say. It appears that an attorney advised him to be evasive. Is somebody morally unfit to go into the HOF if he follows the advice of an attorney. Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 03:12 PM

Posted By: peter chaoNoel, I like your picks except for Cobb. I'm not sure if he would meet today's high moral standards (cough, cough). There were people who thought he was a rascist. There where people who saw him cheat by not touching 3rd base when he scored. Quite a list of moral weaknesses... Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 03:18 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackPeter, If Mark McGwire never used steroids or other illegal drugs, his lawyers would have allowed him to testify that he never used steroids or other illegal drugs. If you think his answers were a tactic by he and his lawyers to conceal that he never used steroids or other illegal drugs, I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

Archive

01-12-2007, 03:20 PM

Posted By: fkwClemens juiced? Might want to look at Mr. Ryan too?? Add Jim Rice, Ricky Henderson, Mike Schmidt, Lee Smith, Eddie Murray, Reggie Jackson, Garry Carter, Carlton Fisk, Steve Garvey, and a few others from the era too! The whole steroid thing should be dropped. It wasnt against the rules until 2003. The only HOF caliper player to break the rule is Palmeiro, period! And andro (McGwires magic stuff) was not illegal too. It was banned in the Olympics, NCAA, and football only.....not baseball. To give an example......... I know for a fact John Wetteland took steroids in High School, he was a teammate of mine for 5 years. It was everywhere back then. The only reason he stopped then was because he was told (by scouts and coaches) to get out of the gym and stop lift weights, because he was getting too bulky to be a pitcher. Bottom line it was common in the 1980s and any player in the late 70's-80's had their chance to take them or not. And why wouldnt you think about it as a pro player, if big power numbers = more $$.

Archive

01-12-2007, 03:32 PM

Posted By: NoelI would certainly agree that Cobb was not a model for moral behavior in baseball but i dont think entering the Hall is based on that. Illegal and immoral behavior are completely different. If it was based on moral behavior you would have players like Dale Murphy and GlenAllen Hill leading up the first tier of HOFers. Ruth's behavior was reprehensible in most any era but his numbers dont lie. Neither do Cobbs. As far as the steroids debate i would certainly agree that it was not illegal until just a few years ago. For those who did steroids after it was illegal then i would be all for banning them for life. For those who have lied or tried to evade the question of some performance enhancing drugs before it was illegal, well lets let history be the judge. As far as McGwire is concerned i think the first ballot results are pretty clear.

Archive

01-12-2007, 03:35 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldA word about Congressional hearings... I think the entire hearing about steroid use in baseball was crap, an abuse of power. The Constitution is a strange document. It is not a power-giving or right-giving document. That is how it is taught, it is taught wrong. The Constitution doesn't give you rights. Read it. It doesn't say you have freedom of speech. What it says is that Congress shall not abridge your freedom of speech. The Constitution is a power limiting document. It limits the power of the federal government. The federal government was formed by the states, that pre-existed the federal government. The states gave the federal government limited power. The 13 colonies wanted a united front in international affairs, they wanted the feds to regulate commerce between the colonies/states, the language says to "maintain" a navy, and to raise an army when necessary (gotta have a navy, only an army when necessary, the two are not on equal footing), declare war... and just about everything else was left back in the hands of the states. That isn't how it is taught in high school, but if you calmly read the Constitution it is obvious. Congress and the federal government have no business meddling in baseball. I'm satisfied that baseball should ban steroids, but it is baseball's concern. Not congress'. If Ted Z and I meet every weekend to pitch horseshoes, each game we both put up a HOF preWWI card, winner gets both... and we're reall serious about it, we get to working out, exercising, and taking steroids so we can out-pitch the other, that is no business of congress. If Ted and I sell you guys tickets to watch us pitch (we're that good) it is still no business of congress. Same for baseball. If you don't think this is right, Congress knows it is. They didn't do anything. Because they can't. They can't just pass a law about that or against this, there has to be some Constitutional justification for their action. Without that, the courts will declare the law unconstitutional (and I think that should be with a capital U). Congress did nothing. They were powerless to do so. It was merely a feelgood show so the public would think they cared, and to get our peanut minds off of Americans fighting wars other side of the world. I'd like to see Mr. McGuire show up next time, answer ALL of their questions, and then sue them for abuse of power, plus his costs for traveling to DC first time around, litigation costs, and punative damages. I don't think he'd win all of that, but I'd like the suit styled that way. And I know he wouldn't sue them. But that is what SHOULD happen. Should steroids be in baseball? NO. Should Congress be in baseball?? NO!!! Frank W., (Sometimes wrong, seldom in doubt.)

Archive

01-12-2007, 03:42 PM

Posted By: warshawlawwe can't make Gehrig #1, Williams #2, etc. Gehrig has to be #4 and Williams has to be #9. Ruth can stay as #3. Of course, I'm referencing their uniform #s not their values as players.

Archive

01-12-2007, 04:21 PM

Posted By: peter chaoNoel, Instead of Cobb on your list why don't we insert Honus Wagner. Honus did outplay Cobb in the 1907 (?) World Series. Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 04:50 PM

Posted By: E, DanielIs there any sense of the years or induction classes where the trend went to giving really good players, as opposed to really special players - a ticket into the HOF? I'm too recent an immigrant to know innately - and too hazy on which players were 'second tier' hofers to work it out...... Was there a specific time, changes to the rules of induction, or other that watered down the concept? Thanks for any erudition. Daniel

Archive

01-12-2007, 05:05 PM

Posted By: peter chaoDaniel, Bill James (stats guru) believes it all started with the advent of the Veteran's Committee. Perhaps, that is one of the reasons why the current Veteran's Committee only meets every 2 years instead of one. So far, this new version of the Veteran's Committee hasn't elected anybody. So it will be interesting to see whether Santo or Gil Hodges gets in this time. Gil probably couldn't care less since he's long gone. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Peter

Archive

01-12-2007, 06:00 PM

Posted By: DylanBob I actually bodybuild, and have competed before and have a good knowledge of drugs in sports. There is no proven test to detect either HGH, insulin, or IGF-1 peptides. So when you say why isn't baseball doing something about this, what the hell are they supposed to do?? There's no way to test for these compounds, educate yourself please before posting such things. And by the way those saying that illegal and immoral behavior are two different things. Well prior to the anabolic control act of 1990 it was not illegal to have in your possesion or take anabolic steriods, IT WAS NOT a controlled substance. So any athlete taking steroids prior to that date was NOT in violation of the law. So maybe you can take some of those names of your lists from a couple decades prior, for it makes no difference if they used or not according to the law.

Archive

01-12-2007, 07:15 PM

Posted By: NoelDylan, I agree with you that taking these substances before it was considered illegal is just fine. No big deal there. There is a big difference however between illegal and immoral behavior. If you doubt that compare the behaviors of Pete Rose and Babe Ruth. For many of those who did banned substances prior to them being banned i have mixed emotions. All knew that it was giving them a very big advantage and many did it very secretly knowing very well that once the genie was out of the bottle it wouldnt be long before it was banned.

Archive

01-12-2007, 09:04 PM

Posted By: James GalloThis should not be that difficult to determine. There are players like Bonds, McGwire and Clemens (Amoung some others)that it is painfully obvious they took something that really pumped them up. These guys were skinny nothings when they came up and all of a sudden one year they were all built and rock solid. If you don't think they all juiced then you are only fooling yourself. I also think it is just as easy to detect the people that haven't used. Griffey Jr, Jeter, Ryan. These guys still look the same as they did years ago. Griffey is always hurt, Jeter is still a stick and it is my understanding that Ryan was an insane work horse and always in the weight room even after a start. fkw "Might want to look at Mr. Ryan too?? Add Jim Rice, Ricky Henderson, Mike Schmidt, Lee Smith, Eddie Murray, Reggie Jackson, Garry Carter, Carlton Fisk, Steve Garvey". Are you kidding me? Can I say for sure these guys didn't juice, no but it is unliekly. Schmidt was hurt a ton towards the end of his career, Carter never showed enough change in mass or in power that would lead me to believe he juiced. The other guys on your list are similar to the above. I think you just lumped everyone you could think of in one group. I would say it is likely they took some type of upper, but hell those have been around stil the 60s or even befire. I don't think any of the above were juiced players. As for the HOF in the 1990s I would go each year and there would be 3-5 or more player put in with a couple from the committe. At some point the jack asses that vote decided they had all this power and control. As a result we are stuck with a bunch of dumb ass writers that vote based on whatever floats thier boat at the moment. It is STUPID that a guy can be on the ballot for 5 years and then all of a sudden he gets in. Nothing has changed except the people and how they vote. The whole system is seriously flawed and I would agree that the people on this board would be better suited voting for people in the hall then 75% or more of the writers. For my part I don't think McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Palmerio and anyone else that shows either physical or some other proof they juiced should all be banned from baseball. I think these guys should just disapear from the records and everything else. Selig is a jack ass and always has been, hopefully some day we will get a comissioner with a set of balls and he will straighten some issues out. Till then we are stuck. For the record I don't think McGwire will get in next year. Palmerio will never get in. If they can't nail Bonds then I think he will get in at some point but not on the first ballot. Same thing for Clemens. I care a lot about the game and its history. I am not blind to how the players were in the past, but it isn't like Cobb was the only racist at the time, and he certainly isn't the only cheater in the hall. That being said I think there is a fine line between cheating to win a few games and taking drugs with the knowledge and intent that it will increase you recovery time, and ability to play better. Its a pain and you will get 100 different answers to the same question, but hopefully sooner or later someone will have to sort it out. James Gallo Looking for 1915 Cracker Jacks and 1909-11 American Caramel E90-1.

Archive

01-12-2007, 10:36 PM

Posted By: fkwJames, A (big) player hurt often is a player that I would look closer at as might be on the juice. I didnt say they were on Steroids, Im saying they have the look of someone who may have at the time. Murray was a skinny 185# at the beginning of his carrer and by the time he was a Dodger he was very big. Ryan worked out like crazy, but thats what steroids do, they help you recover faster and enable you to workout more often and for longer periods with heavier weights. Ryans body was in far better shape at 45 than 25 or 35 (ie Bonds). The whole reason I have thrown out names is I would put good $$ that a higher % of players from the 1980-90s were juiced up compared to players in 2000. So dont try to tear down players now just because the truth is comeing out. Also to respond to your "Carter" quote (above).... steroids does not = more power. You didnt see power from Carter because he wasnt that powerful. Example.... little 150# 5'7" Joe Morgan out homer 6'3" 240# Luzinski in less ABs in 1976. Its talent (hand-eye/bat speed), Morgan a HOFer, Luzinski not. Brian Downing, Luzinski, Dave Henderson, Baylor, Ted Simmons, Bobby Grich, Kirk Gibson, Tony Armas, Burroughs, Parrish, G. Thomas, Bob Horner, and the others I already listed, have the "look". Bottom line for my posts is.... People need to accept that it was an era of steroids and weight rooms. Quite trying to say they cheated, they took full advantage of anything that would improve their play, and make them more $$. And at the time, it was not against the rules! Period!

Archive

01-12-2007, 10:55 PM

Posted By: DylanWell from a bodybuilders perspective its likely that some of the players in question used anabolic properties. But please dont base that assumption only on their body structure. When I was 19 years old ( roughly the same age many of these guys come into the league) i weighed about 160 pounds. Now I am 23 and have bulked up to 205 at my heaviest. i have trained seriously and taken my diet seriously and there are many who have amazing physiques who compete drug free. And believe me the first 20-30 pounds can come very quickly drug free. An untrained body adapts very quickly to proper stimuli. Also some men have genetics that allow them to put on an extreme amount of muscle mass very quickly. Without real proof meaning positive drug tests, or the like, you really dont know what each individuals genetics, training, and diet consist of. So how can you know if his weight gain is from training or a combo of training and anabolic compounds? You don't. Now what if i were a pro baseball player hitting more home runs due to hard work i put in in the gym. you may be throwing me in that guilty list as well. There has to be more then just conjecture and heresay. There has to be proof.

Archive

01-12-2007, 11:28 PM

Posted By: fkwDylan when your 40 you will be 230# <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> The average person gains a # a year from 20-40. I was 190# in college (playing days), Im now 40 years old, 230# at 6'2" and not much is fat. I have never touched steroids, I do use creatine. I have been in training rooms, dorm rooms, gyms, and have seen steroids many a time when I played ball. Most came from Mexico, easily obtained on a short trip across the SoCal border. Does it look like I take steroids, to some... yes, but I obvously know I didnt and dont. I have never shown a picture of myself, so why not now <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Lame Hawaii Surf trip pic from last summer. <img src="http://members.aol.com/canofprimo/5-15-05b.jpg"> Right now....Im the same height and weight as Bonds and 2 years younger. When I played against him In High School/Am.Legion he was 5# lighter than me.

Archive

01-13-2007, 10:02 AM

Posted By: peter ullmanwell spoken gallo! pete in mn

Archive

01-13-2007, 10:35 AM

Posted By: E, DanielI'm not rapt in including Clemens amongst the roid takers for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there has never even been a hint, or whiff of a hint, from any ex player regarding his being a doper. There is, however, a huge number of players who testify to his being a weights and workout nut. And he doesn't just turn up to the club ripped, he spends his time working out in gyms with other players, where using steroids would be easy enough to slip out in jokes, or asides, or even sharing. Remember, users of these substances tend to search eachother out, both for supply reasons and because they realize they are in a minority not exactly celebrated by society, and thus can relieve a feeling of seperation and isolation by at least sharing the experience with others. And secondly, looking at his 85' donruss - which I have in BGS9, the kid was obviously a big lummox even at his younger years. Looks farm fed, big boned, all the things that as you age, put on muscle and mass, and stick to a power pitching workout that specifically builds such size, could comfortably lead to his overall size today. And to be frank, the guy is no longer exactly ripped and there's a little extra water weight and fat in there that plumps his overall look. If out of the sport for 12 months, and without the working out and diet and such, I have no doubt he would slim down alot, even without a perceived stoppage in roid use. So, he could have done them I guess. But there's no real reason to belive he did other than the era he's played in, and success he's enjoyed. To me, he's a top 10 pitcher all time, and a jowly face/bigger cap is no reason to belive the worst of him. My own caps fit differently as I go up and down the 20 pounds that has become my norm since I turned 35, and I ASSURE YOU, I have zero interest in testicle shrinking substances. Anyone take a look at the Babe's physique in his 15' sporting news, and then his body shape only a few years later? You wouldn't think it was the same guy, and not all of it was fat <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Well, probably not.... Daniel

Archive

01-13-2007, 10:44 AM

Posted By: howardI disagree that steroids does not equal more power. Maybe it does not in every case but HR power does involve strength as well as the other things FKW mentioned. There are exceptions of course but I think it is telling that you picked Morgan's best HR year and one of Luzinski's worst to use as a comparison. I do agree with FKW and Dylan though that you cannot judge steroid use just on physique. I'm not as big as them but I am near FKW's age and in, by far, the best shape of my life. I'm not a body builder but I work out hard, am mostly muscle and my only fuel is a good diet and creatine. As I was scrawny for most of my life some of my friends "joke" that I'm on steroids. I take it as a compliment but it goes to show how easily faulty conclusions can be made. I'm guilty of such conclusions myself. The first player I remember being suspicious of was Lenny Dykstra. He arrived at spring training one year looking so beefed up that I immediately thought he was on steroids.

Archive

01-13-2007, 10:45 AM

Posted By: peter chaoDaniel, Clemens was mentioned in Canseco's book as being a steroid user. By the way, as a trial attorney, my opinion on why McGwire's testimony was "I don't want to discuss the past" is because Canseco was present at the Congressional Hearing. His attorney didn't want the Congressmen to question both him and Canseco about their playing days with the A's and their workout regimen. Peter

Archive

01-13-2007, 11:34 AM

Posted By: John H.While steroids don't help a batter make contact with the ball, it can increase bat speed, which obviously increases power. Thus, you have guys with good power like Bonds or warning track power like Brady Anderson suddenly hitting massive amounts of homeruns. John

Archive

01-13-2007, 11:40 AM

Posted By: E, DanielPeter, does Canseco say he had direct knowledge, as in supplied, shot up with, saw shoot up, was told by Clemens, or other? I'm interested, as I haven't read the book. Thanks Daniel

Archive

01-13-2007, 11:44 AM

Posted By: Mark Burkewere used as early as the 30s. They were rampant in baseball, but available over the counter until 1956, i.e. legal. some people say that this drug enhanced performance, albeit indirectly, by making players more alert during a long season. Many players have admitted using amphetamines. To say that somebody's record should be "grandfathered" because something was not "illegal" at the time is arguable but understandable. However, you can't argue that the player's performance was not enhanced artifically. My humble and probably controversial opinion is that you draw the line in the sand and say that from this point forward, anyone caught (i.e. tests positively through some 3rd party lab, not tested positively in someone's book or considered guilty in the court of popular and oft times mistaken opinion, is banned from the hall and possibly the sport altogether. But, you can't ban players you "think" used steroids because they got bigger over time or someone wrote a book about it and made allegations. Even testing will be problematic - just look at cycling. But, there has to be some objective and scientific way to look at this and not just a bunch of opinions based on whether based on someone's size, you think they must have taken steroids.

Archive

01-13-2007, 11:46 AM

Posted By: peter chaoDaniel, Jose in his book says that he would go with McGwire to the rest room stall and take turns shooting each other up with steroids. If Jose's testimony is credible it is the only direct evidence which links Mark McGwire with steroids. All the other evidence I've heard is circumstantial. Peter

Archive

01-13-2007, 11:55 AM

Posted By: E, DanielSorry Peter, I was referring to you saying that Clemens was mentioned as a steroid user in Canseco's book. In what context does Canseco reference him (Clemens), if you know? Daniel

Archive

01-13-2007, 12:06 PM

Posted By: peter chaoDan, Jose never saw Clemens use steroids, but he strongly suspects because...actually I don't remember his reasons. But I'm sure there are other Board Members that might know. Jose's book was fun to read, but I gave it away during Christmas. Peter

Archive

01-13-2007, 03:08 PM

Posted By: peter chaoMark, Yours is a rational approach to this "steroid mess." Hopefully, some version of the approach will be adopted by MLB and the HOF. Peter

Archive

01-14-2007, 05:12 AM

Posted By: DylanAmphetimine use was rampent in baseball during the 40's, and 50's. And use has continued to this day(they only started testing for it last year, because they knew how widespread use was). Amphetimines have been shown to improve athletic performance, reduce recovery time, and has shown a significant increase in muscle performance and cariovascular output. Ofcourse these are short term effects(4-8 hours) if used prior to an athletic event. So if you want to accost todays athletes for steroid use PLEASE dont ignore what yesteryears athletes were doing to gain any advantage available to them as well. It seems most everyone is willing to ignore this fact, and refuse to respond to this point. If you want to keep todays athletes out of the HOF for perfomance enhancing drug use then it would only be fair to investigate players of prior decades for the same thing. I dont want this, i know what baseball is and never expected it to have a squeeky clean image. Tests are finally being done, lets move on, and this will all go down in history as an abberation years later. If we hold people out of the Hall of Fame there will always be a discussion like Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose not being in the Hall. Lets put it all behind us and hope baseball learned from its past.

Archive

01-14-2007, 07:36 AM

Posted By: peter chaoDylan, I agree with you, it's like Charles Barkley would say, "I ain't no role mode." It is a Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the Squeaky Clean. Peter

Archive

01-14-2007, 09:00 AM

Posted By: Mark Burkelet's not forget that of the top 30 HOFers, in terms of LT B.A., only 5 were modern players if you count Musial and Williams. And, until last week, no modern player except for Williams was even in the top 20. I'm not saying any of those players used anything although it is possible some used amphetamines. They were not banned but that doesn't mean the players performance was not enhanced in some way. There were other, more obvious reasons why some of them did better than modern players but I don't accept the premise that they were just plain better hitters in those days. What other sport could you say that about? Bottom line is there is already too much subjectivity in the voting process and by speculating about who took what, it makes it even worse. Some people get bigger over time. Does that mean they took steroids? If so, we must have a lot of Americans taking steroids. Maybe it isn't all those Big Mac's after all. Baseball turned the other way and they need to step up and be accountable for creating this mess. It is faaaaaaaaaaaaaar worse in football and what do you hear about the NFL HOF?? The reason it is so visible in baseball is you have very sacred records held by players most people knew nothing about but they were revered like gods and the thought of having someone as despicable (to some) as Barry Bonds break one of these records is more than they can take. So, like I said, draw the line in the sand and make it clear that going forward, none of this will be tolerated and the first offense means you're automatically banned from the HOF voting.

Archive

01-14-2007, 11:14 AM

Posted By: peter chaoGuys, Both MLB and the HOF better get their voting standards established, cause when Barry's time comes the "...will hit the fan." Talk about controversial, as a matter of fact BBonds baseball cards are still dropping. All those guys from the other thread who said they would buy at the low...here's your chance to buy BBonds cards at a low. Remember Barry's probably going to be the All-time Home Run King and some time down the road will become an important member of the Hall of Fame. Peter

Archive

01-15-2007, 10:28 AM

Posted By: peter chaoDaniel, You got me curious so I went down to Borders after church this morning. On the West Coast Borders and Barnes and Noble are the biggest bookstore chain. Anyway I browsed through their copy of Canseco's book and I reviewed Canseco's story about Rocket. Remember both of them played for the Red Sox for a while. At any rate, many times they joked about taking B12 shots, among steroid users this was code for taking a special cocktail of steroids. Not only that according to Jose, he says the team trainer was even giving shots of B12 to the ballplayers. Now most of the ballplayers knew that they were taking steroids, bu's t some of the players didn't have a clue about what was in the shots...I don't know I have to take Jose's revelations with a grain of salt. Peter

Archive

01-15-2007, 11:14 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackCopied directly and unabridged from the 'Rules for Election to the (Baseball) Hall of Fame,' below are the rules for voters: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played." My interpretation of the rules is that every quality isn't required for enshrinement (it's not a case of you have to get 5 of 5 or you can't be a HOFer), but that all are supposed to be considered. One can't fault the voters for considering more than a player's on the field performance when they are required to. I believe it is the Pro Football Hall of Fame that has the voters not consider a player's consider charecter, etc. It is commonly said in defense of Pete Rose, 'How can the murderer O.J. Simpson be in the Hall of Fame and Pete Rose not be?" As you can see this question involves a logical fallacy (straw man argument), as Simpson's enshrinement and Rose's enshrinement (or lack there of) are based on distinctly different rules. The question is comparing apples with oranges ... A response to the question could be, "How could Rose be elected to the Hall of Fame with Simpson? Rose never played pro football" ... Also note that Paul Hornung, an athlete whose popularity was comparable to Rose, was suspended for a year by the NFL for betting and is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame and currently heartily embraced by the NFL establishment. So the NFL, MLB and their HOFs are different animals.

Archive

01-15-2007, 12:50 PM

Posted By: Mark Burkecharacter keeps people out of the hall of fame? I guess if you think Pete Rose and Joe Jackson were the only HOFers with questionable character, one might accept this argument.

Archive

01-15-2007, 12:56 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanThere's obviously not a bright-line rule when it comes to character and HOF voting. I think it's more like whatever feels right at the time. That's why Ty Cobb got in first ballot and why McGwire didn't. Keep in mind that Cobb was more of a lout than McGwire and, unlike McGwire, was accused of fixing games.

Archive

01-15-2007, 01:31 PM

Posted By: Rob NYCI never saw Pete Rose do steroids.

Archive

01-15-2007, 06:18 PM

Posted By: peter chaoDavid, Your right each of the HOFs are different. Each sport is also different. In baseball there has always been tolerance for legal cheating. Like if you scuff the ball so that your pitcher can throw a better sinker. Or if your taking a lead off 2nd base and you pick-off the sign then you can relay the info to a coach who will relay the infor to the batter. This is what you would call legal cheating. Illegal cheating is if you clearly break the rules in order to win. Steroids are clearly illegal cheating because almost every baseball contract says specifically that you are not allowed to take drugs (alcohol, amphetamines, steroids) in order to improve performance. So it is very clear that ballplayers that do so are violating the terms of their contract. Even if you call the cheating improper there is the issue of catching the cheater and the proper punishment. If you are going to exclude somebody from the HOF for steroids you should say so. Look at Pete Rose, he was given many opportunities to reform but he was too hardheaded so he deserved to be banned. But the question is what is the proper punishment. Suppose your caught corking the bat like Sammy Sosa was, does that mean he should be excluded from the HOF. Then there is the even more difficult question of whether a HOF can be kicked out if people find out that they are are cheating later on. There is absolutely no precedent for kicking somebody out of the HOF. Look at the Gaylord Perry situation. After he got into the HOF, he admits that he was loading up the ball. As far as I know, there wasn't a single sportswriter that was outraged. Even the HOF didn't bat an eye. I don't remember anybody saying that Gaylord should be kicked out of the Hall. As a matter of fact most people were thinking that Gaylord was pretty clever for managing to get away with cheating for such a long time. Clearly there was no penalty. Peter

Archive

01-15-2007, 11:55 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackPeter, An interesting thing about the players union's prevention of steroid testing is that is made it near impossible, barring admission, to 100% prove a player used steroids but impossible to prove he didn't. In other words, it's impossible for a player to prove a negative if he never tested negative.

Archive

01-16-2007, 01:00 AM

Posted By: RC McKenzieMcGwire and Clemens are no-brainers. Funny thing is if you ask the average person sitting next to you at a baseball game if they know about Roger Maris, they say things like "..he's a great hall of famer", or "He was great!" They don't say, "Who's he?" If a player is famous to the average fan 50 yrs after he played he should be in the hall of fame. Maybe they should take hof voting away from sportswriters and let the fans vote like they do in the all-star games.

Archive

01-16-2007, 07:41 PM

Posted By: peter chaoDavid, Guys Just browse through the HOF's roster and you will realize that the voters are pretty lax on the moral and character requirement to the Hall. However, for Mark Mcgwire they made an exception and came down hard. As far as I can tell, there are two reasons for this: 1) this was first time Mark was on the ballot, and 2) Mark was the first ballplayer heavily suspected of using steroids. So it was pretty clear that the voters were using him as an example. It probably wouldn't have made much difference if he came clean. Just look at Jose Canseco, he only got a few votes. His career merited more than that. Peter