Hi, the source isnt the mitchell report as you stated. You stand corrected. I know its hard to believe. Maybe take some time off.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The source was the NY Times article. Stop playing stupid, you know the source, you even said it yourself.

Are you that much in love with Ortiz, you can't even think its possible he took steroids?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...fame/91442256/

Hard to keep the story straight, did he test positive but it might have been a false positive, or did he not test positive at all? In any case, he is clearly going into the Hall and a great player and fan favorite.

After reading some more, there was an agreement that any test results were to remain confidential, so you are correct, Ortiz was not named in the Mitchell Report. Some of the positive results were leaked to the NYT, thats where Ortiz name comes up. The same article also names Manny Ramirez, so the article does appear to have some validity.

Nothing you said here disputes that Ortiz might have failed the 2003 test and, sorry I don't put any weight in Manfred's quote.

I'm skeptical about Ortiz using for a few reasons. First, as others have mentioned, the test itself was suspect. Then throughout his career, he had a dad bod. You're telling me that the same drug that made Bonds, Sosa, and Mcgwire go from looking like twigs to jacked, when Ortiz took it, turned him into the Pillsbury doughboy instead? If steroids caused him to gain fat as he aged, then practically every male between the ages of 22-40 must be juicing too, as most of them similarly gained body fat (guilty as charged). And around the same time he was having some of his best seasons, A-Rod was getting caught a second time. The same testing regimen that nabbed him also would've caught Ortiz, but didn't.

If it comes out from a reliable source, not a test that had all sorts of issues and was supposed to remain private anyways, that he was juicing, I'll eat my words, but for now, I don't see it.

Feel free to correct me but ARods 2nd suspension was from the Biogenesis scandal, not a failed drug test.

Ortiz' failed test came from a New York Times report. Ortiz then claimed his test result was leaked because too many Yankees were testing positive and claimed he did not know he had tested positive. Here's one of many mainstream news sources summarizing and linking: https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/d...sted-positive/

That his test was supposed to be anonymous seems utterly irrelevant to the actual debate. I don't think anyone holds the position that steroid players should be kept out of the Hall of Fame only if A) they tested positive and B) that test was intended to be public knowledge. The argument is those for whom compelling evidence of use is present do not belong in the Hall of Fame (again, I am not in this camp).

If Clemens is guilty on the testimony of others, if Bonds is guilty on the testimony of others, then Ortiz' failed drug test seems compelling enough evidence to put him in the same boat.

I do not see a rational basis for twisting the argument to be that Ortiz should be treated in a completely different matter because his failed test wasn't supposed to become public. This is relevant to an ethical argument about privacy perhaps, and other things, but not Hall of Fame selection.

Hey Jim, No one really knows the complete truth, and after all this time, we never will. My understanding is that Jackson was not the brightest bulb in the package, and supposedly was working with and doing what he was told to say and do by Comiskey and Comiskey's attorneys during the initial grand jury testimony and Black Sox trial. So when he brought the lawsuit later on in 1924 against Comiskey, gee, guess what attorneys would likely be defending Comiskey in that trial? The same ones that had probably coached and told Jackson what to say and do in the first trial. So Comiskey's attorneys already knew when Jackson was likely telling the truth during the second trial, what didn't exactly agree with what he had been told to say in the original trial. And it is my further understanding Jackson's attorney, Ray Cannon, was told by Comiskey's attorneys that the transcript of Jackson's 1920 grand jury testimony had disappeared, and there were no copies available anywhere. Yet somehow during Jackson's interrogation by Comiskey's attorneys in the midst of the second trial, the transcript miraculously appeared in the the hands of those same attorneys that had said it was gone. Gee, what a lucky coincidence for Comiskey and his attorneys. Coincidence, yeah, right! Lies and a setup is more like it. Yet despite any inconsistencies from his testimony in the earlier trial, the jury in the lawsuit against Comiskey still decided overwhelmingly in Jackson's favor. It was only after Comiskey lost that the judge stepped in and denied Jackson's claim, accusing Jackson of having committed perjury. If Jackson had committed perjury, why was he never charged? The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and the idea of someone like Comiskey having "taken care of the judge" wouldn't have surprised me in the least. Based on many things I've heard or read about Comiskey, it would actually surprise me more if he hadn't had the judge in his back pocket. And as to the inconsistencies in Jackson's testimonies over several years, I don't know about you, but some afternoons, I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast that day. And anyway, I still feel a lot of what Jackson said during the earlier trial was what he was being told to say by Comiskey and Comiskey's attorneys. Jackson never changed his saying that he didn't try to throw the series, but can maybe understand his not saying anything about the fix to anyone earlier than he finally did, and initially holding on to the money that was given to him, as he likely didn't want to see his teammates get in trouble with MLB, or worse from the gamblers. He seems to have involuntarily been stuck in the middle of something he didn't really want to do, and for which MLB had no specific rule for at that time, as it does today. It appears Jackson had been a pawn and a scapegoat in the whole affair, more than anything else, and for that I'm not so sure his punishment was so deserved and fit the alleged crime. Especially when he literally won two different trials, with two different juries, yet was still punished after both. Sounds an awful lot like what still happens today. I guess the old saying may be true after all - The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Well in fairness there was also the claim that there were numerous false positives among the group that included Ortiz's positive test. Manfred said that at some point.

It sounds like your argument is that everyone conspired against poor Joe Jackson. I don't buy that argument. Why would they do it? Wheres the evidence?

Joe Jackson lied over and over in statements to the press and in sworn testimony. He was charged with perjury and failed to show up for his court hearing and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Facts.The charge was never pursued, probably because it wasn't worth going from Wisconsin to SC for a simple perjury charge. If he was truly innocent, why not show up and fight the charge?

Read the articles on the 1919 Black Sox on the SABR website, those are fair and based in facts unlike the 8 Men Out book and movie, both of which are filled with so many myths and lies, they are basically works of fiction.

EGRI- so you've picked Hank Aaron, eh?
 

Egri- a heartfelt "thanks" for naming Hank Aaron, baseball's most
consistent HR and RBI producer and an American hero. You're helping
me....

I checked Hank's stats from 1966-70. His 1968 stats were slightly below
average in HR and RBI (29 and 87 rather than mid 30s and 100), with
batting average and games played normal. There was no "miracle jump" in
stats in 68,69, or 70. Alas, your guys Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds can't say
the same...

Bonds was a great player whose HR numbers ballooned in early 2000s
with 73(!) in 01, about FIFTY percent higher than his second best HR
total. Sosa's stats are jaw dropping, he went from a lower 30s HR guy to 4
consecutive seasons averaging 60! McGwire is tougher due to injury, but his
70 HR came- guess when?- during the same time frame. Smell what I'm
cooking?

Now on to Hank's "amphetamines". Did he use them to add pop to his
swing or to increase bat speed? Stats do NOT back that up, they say the
opposite. How about for the remarkable restorative/recuperative power of
1960s stimulants? I don't think so. I haven't read the book, so what was
the amphetamine exactly? A "greenie"? The equivalent of a Red Bull today?
See how they just don't quite feel the same? I would hope so. And again,
I am not arguing that yesterday's players are "saints" or "angels". I am
arguing that they did NOT engage in a long term, concerted clinical effort
that they knew was a serious violation of MLB policy, to beat a cherished HR
season record .

Finally, the phrases "straw man" and "ad hominem" sound impressive- but
it helps when you use them properly. My argument is direct and not straw,
and you are on the wrong end of it- at no time did I say "you're ugly and
your momma dresses you funny", which would have been ad hominem.
The PED guys rolled dice and lost- and STILL might make the Hall. End of
story. Trent King

Don't get Papi upset ...
 

As I recall he was furious not at one but at two bad calls, and got himself ejected.

The latter is entirely on Rob "It's just a piece of metal" Manfred. Never thought we'd get a worse commissioner than Selig, boy was I wrong. He makes Gary Bettman look competent

Speaking of dad bod ... Bartolo Colon tested positive for PEDs in 2012 and served a 50 game suspension.

The 8 Men Out book is horrible and a lot was made up, just like the movie, well saware of that. But a lot of the other things, like on SABR, are not 100% totally proven either. Why he didn't go back, I don't know either. But if had to guess, I would think maybe a lack of funds to fight Comiskey would have a lot to do with it. And everyone seems to just dismiss the idea that Jackson was possibly coached and told what to say and do in the initial trial. Comiskey was obviously looking out for himself first, and I can truly see him taking advantage of someone as naive and trusting as Jackson in all this. Plus, in everything I read, no one ever seems to bring up the fact that Jackson was basically Comiskey's indentured servant under MLB's old reserve clause, and he wouldn't be able to play in the majors if he went against what Comiskey and his attorneys were telling him to do. Still, you can put your your faith and trust in current articles, books, and SABR. I think I'd rather put my faith and trust in a jury of everyday people who sat through that trial and listened to Jackson in person, and could look him in the eyes as he recounted what had really happened. That jury heard about all the conflicting testimony that Jackson supposedly gave, and they also got to hear Comiskey, his high powered attorneys, and everyone else I'm guessing brought in to put down Jackson. And yet despite all that, the jury overwhelming found in favor of Jackson.

Now I wasn't there, you weren't there, and certainly no one from SABR was there. Yet why the total lack of faith in the findings of a jury, that was there, several years after Jackson's career and fame as an MLB player had ended, in a different state/city than he had played in, and that sat through all the evidence and testimony and still found for him, that to me is really and truly the biggest and only question I feel still needs to be answered by everyone so totally against Jackson................PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

I've seen Carney's stuff and feel he ignores the sway and influence Comiskey had over Jackson and his simple naive nature. I still feel he got caught in the middle by teammates who thrust him into this, and was quiet to protect them from career, and possible physical, harm. Everyone points to his admission of receiving $5K to seal his fate and determine his guilt, despite going to Comiskey with the money to potentially give it back now that he wasn't in fear of teammates or their wives being harmed since the series had ended, and yet Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up about it. Interesting how everyone automatically says yup, Jackson is 100% honest about the money he got, but we still think he was pretty much lying about everything else. Now just think how stupid that sounds, he's honest about the one thing that is the most incriminating and damaging to his case, so if there's anything you would expect him to lie about, it was him receiving the money. But no, he honestly tells about money, but all the naysayers still contend he lied about everything else!!!!!!!!!! Go figure.

This whole thing around Jackson stinks. Yet so many people just condemn him outright. Let me ask you a question. Put yourself in his shoes, and you have teammates and friends who come to you about throwing the WS series for money, and they need you in on it so the gamblers will pay them. And they tell you that by the way, you have to take what we give you so the gamblers don't think we're double crossing them. And then later on you hear one of your teammates, and possibly his wife as well, have their lives threatened by the gamblers. Oh, and there's no specific rule on MLB's books on what you are or aren't supposed to do in this situation. So, do you go running to Ban Johnson, the AL President, and tell him everything, only to find out your teammate and his wife are mysteriously found dead the day after the news hits the papers, and the rest of your teammates and friends get thrown off the team, never to play in the majors again and become your hated enemies for the rest of their lives, while the rest off MLB secretly brands you as a rat and shuns you forever after, or what?

Trust a jury? Seriously? The same jury also found Cicotte, Risberg, Felsch and the rest not guilty. Do you think Cicotte, Risberg, Felsch, etc were innocent too?

You got facts mixed up. Jackson claims he tried to tell Comiskey about the fix but Comiskey wouldn't talk to him. Where did you get "Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up about it"?

Johnson was not "100% honest about the money"" He lied over and over saying he was never offered money but finally had to admit it. Jackson claims he was never at any of the meetings but Cicotte says he was at at least one.

Jackson wasn't some dumb, trusting country bumpkin, AFAIK, 8 Men Out is the only book that shows him that way.

Please answer this question, Jackson was promised $20000 but was given only $5000, he complained he was double crossed. If he played to win, how was he double crossed?

The best part of this is when teams were doing send offs for Ortiz in his last game at whatever stadium, the Orioles presented him with a plaque/piece of wood with the broken phone reassembled. Not sure if the actual phone or another one they just broke apart for the occasion and reassembled, but it was pretty funny. Everybody got a good laugh out of that.

before 2004 it was only sort of against the rules.
For other sports yes, baseball had no specific rules and no testing program.
Steroids were made illegal in the early 90's, and Fay Vincent sent a memo that basically said "hey this stuff is illegal now so don't do it" But without a testing program that's pretty much meaningless.

That being said, it is cheating whether the rules haven't caught up to disallow it or not.

The "evidence" against him was an anonymous supposed positive test during the experimental testing period in 2003.
One that MLB wouldn't discuss with anyone in any meaningful way, including Ortiz who was exposed in a "report" that came out years afterward.

MLB wouldn't tell him which test was failed - not the date, place, nothing.
MLB wouldn't say what it was supposedly positive for.

The experimental testing program had lots of procedural issues with stuff like proper sample handling by the testers, and by the lab. Samples possibly not being identified by a tightly controlled code, but just the name written clearly. Chain of custody issues, like don't take a box full of pee samples home with you because it's been a long day and the office is "too far away"

To me that's a very sketcky claim that isn't much of anything.

I take essentially the same stuff for ADD. It is NOT like a red bull. Until you get used to it it's more like slamming several red bulls at once. (They didn't warn me to not drink my usual 8 cups of coffee before 10AM.... made for a very "interesting" first day!)
The early dose of the current stuff which is amphetamines was literally in green capsules. I had to explain to my doctor my comment about it making me feel like a ballplayer.

For me it helps me concentrate. Which if I had any small smidgen of talent might have made me a marginally better batter.
Ok, 1-1, maybe a curve coming... hey I think the pitcher shoelace is.. nope, just the angle. Hey that's an interesting cloud, and it's moving towards us while the wind is blowing out...
STRIKE TWO!
Darn it! Got to focus better...

From a not so scientific test done in the batting cages up the road a ways.
It does not help me hit a pitch moving more than about 50mph.
It does not help me hit the ball harder.

Some other stuff along with actual training would help hit harder, but probably wouldn't help with the coordintion or reflexes.

PEDs
 

Thank you, Steve B, that's interesting and aligns with my belief. I'll also
assume it didn't cause you to gain 30 pounds of muscle and for your head
to grow...and it didn't make you cork your bat as another advantage:)

The entire "the old timers did it too!" argument is pure sophistry. The 21st
century players have access to sophisticated PED technology (if that's the
word) and a network to provide it, that the vintage guys didn't- and
couldn't- access. It's like someone trying to persuade me that an M80 has t
he same destructive potential as a stick of dynamite. I was born during the
day, but it wasn't yesterday...

Sadly, I have a feeling some of the PED boys will slither their way into the
Hall of Fame, doubtless making some folks here really happy. Everyone will
know what they did to get there, though. Trent King

Exactly. I've also thought the writers have no business being the ones who get to vote players in. Who pays to go to the Hall? The fans. It should be a combination of fans and baseball people. Writers are too judgmental and will let their own personal pettiness get in the way of doing the right thing.

So you would punish more modern players because the drugs available to them got better, even though the old timers (well many of them) took whatever they could get hold of and in all likelihood would have taken anabolic steroids, HGH, etc. had they been available? What's the demarcation in your mind then? Is it a matter of you broke the rules or you didn't? Your personal definition of what enhances performance and what doesn't? Genuine question.

I don't believe for a minute the old timers were somehow morally superior/purer in their attitudes.

PEDs
 

Peter- No, swing and a miss. The modern players in question have enjoyed
fame (and infamy) and a TON of money, so the word "punish" seems a bit
of a reach, yes? The voters have "punished" them and, frankly, I'd be
stunned if many of them aren't laughing all the way to the bank. This isn't
a question of moral superiority, either. Put away all the debate and just
look at the stat lines! And, dare I say it, trust your eyes- LOOK at the
players and their metamorphosis. There is no question that these guys
engaged in a prolonged and deliberate series of MLB prohibited
"enhancements"- substantial ones- so they could claim a cherished
record that they couldn't possibly achieve on their own talent. Naturally,
fans have their favorites. I was 30 during the fake home run chase of
1998, the prime of fandom, and I don't miss those dudes a bit... Finally, I
don't hate these guys, I just find them desperate and pathetic. These are
not terms I associate with prospective HOF members. Trent King

For the most part amphetamines in the batting cage would be used at higher doses so you can hit way way longer. The smaller doses are for games so you are not tired while playing.

The steroids come in because they let you heal at an insane rate. You need them after the crazy intense workouts you can do from the amphetamines. Without the steroids your body breaks down really fast from the workouts the amphetamines allow you to do.

It is best if you can stack a few different PEDs that all do different things.

Steroids are like aspirin, the work different with different people. The problem is most think steroids and instantly picture roided to the gills Mark McGwire. That is not how they work for everyone. Just look at all the skinny pitchers that have been busted over the years. Another perfect example is the Canseco brothers. Jose was a super star and then you had Ozzie.

Right, but I am just curious where you draw the line, is it "cheating" which is a function of what the rules say, or is it "enhancing" which IMO is a slippery slope? Different people offer different justifications.

Don't anabolics directly promote muscle growth, or is it just that they let you work out much more than your body would otherwise tolerate?

In 20 years of personal experience different steroids do different things. The biggest thing is you can work out super hard and you don't get stiff and sore from that workout. It lets you workout more often and the amphetamines give you the energy to work out longer. They work amazing together, then add in some creatine to super load your cells with water so everything works better.

I am doubtless in a minority but at this point I find it hard to draw a clean line between so-called PEDs, amphetamines, cortisone, pain killers, whatever. If Sandy Koufax was having steroids shot into his elbow regularly and basically living on pain killers, did those "enhance" his performance? If a guy allegedly has hypogonadism and is prescribed testosterone supplements is he "enhancing" his performance?

i could go ahead and debunk every comment/question you directed back at me, or point out how you misunderstood or misinterpreted what I was saying. But I'm not going to waste the time as you clearly feel he's as guilty as everyone else and deserves the exact same punishment.

I've never said he wasn't guilty to some extent, had always been entirely truthful about everything, or that he didn't deserve some punishment, just that maybe he deserved some different treatment given his specific, rather unique circumstances. You also never answered back to my query about possibly putting yourself in Jackson's 'position, but don't even bother responding now. The non-response told me everything I needed to know.

One final comment. I sincerely hope you did not mean the very first thing you said in your last post. Because if so, you've just insulted every person that has ever served on a jury and are now calling into question their honesty and integrity. I know I've served on a jury before, and i found your implied comment/question reprehensible!!!

Good evening.

Stop trying to play the victim. I've served Jury Duty too. Juries get verdicts wrong all the time, OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Casey Anthony, etc. Not too mention the many verdicts that have been overturned using DNA. I mean it 100% that I don't trust juries, especially in celebrity trials, which this absolutely was.

I didn't answer your question because it was irrelevant to anthing. What would I do? Who cares? It just sounds like you're making excuses why Jackson lied.

You say "Comiskey tells him to keep the money and shut up" and when I ask you where the quote came from, you get in a huff.

You say "I never said he wasn't guilty to some extent" a person is either guilty or not, he can't be a little guilty.

This is exactly why I said I didn't want to debate Joe Jackson fans.

As we all know, we don’t live in a perfect world. Not everything is black or white. And where “grey area” is often used to excuse and/or justify things.

Let me start by saying yes, Arod is not a good guy for many reasons; but definitely not for using, lying, and conducting himself the way he did about his PED use. I don’t give him any credit for finally admitting he used; he got caught and had no choice but to do so. I hear others say that it is what it is; it was that era and many players were doing it. Well, that doesn’t mean Arod had to do it. We all make choices in our lives, whether good or bad, and we deal with the consequences of those choices. Nobody forced Arod to use PED’s. I have followed him since 1996. I’m still pissed he used and I don’t think he should be in the Hall of Fame. Period!

However, that all changed for me once they let one in - Pudge Rodriguez. No hard evidence has definitively linked “Pudge” to steroids, but Jose Canseco said he personally injected him in “Juiced.” Canseco has a track record of being right on these things. Rodriguez also declined to say whether he tested positive for PED’s in 2003, saying “Only God knows” if he is on that list. I believe Jose Canseco 100% that he injected Pudge Rodriguez. And Pudge’s response definitely shows that. I believe everyone is smart enough to see things clearly; it just depends on whether or not they want to do so.

When Frank Thomas was asked if he used PED’s, his immediate response was direct and clear: NO! That should have been Pudge’s response too (even if it was a lie), but it wasn’t. Most likely, Pudge wasn’t going to put himself out there, just in case some evidence or proof shows up later on. He definitely played it safe and lost credibility when doing so. “Only God knows” – Really? That’s a ridiculous response…you know Pudge.

If Bonds, Clemens, or Otriz get in, then I definitely don’t see how you keep others out. Yeah, they kept Bonds and Clemens out for 10 years, and Ortiz may get in on his first or second year, but for Bonds and Clemens, it was new and fresh on everyone’s mind when they retired, as most of us lived through that era of PEDs. Over the past 10 years, people have softened up, most likely due to all of the conversations and points like you all have made about past players using, who are in the Hall of Fame.

Put an asterisk next to their names and call it a day.

Tony

PEDs
 

Hi Tony- First off, I appreciate your measured and thoughtful response. We
don't completely agree, but that's okay. Your reply was as agenda-free as
any in this thread, it was refreshing...

I think it's clear that HOF inclusion/exclusion is a volatile topic among fans.
The PED in/out debate is especially controversial as seen in the replies. I
have a suggestion about these PED players, a test if you will, regarding their
suitability for HOF. All the test requires is 30 seconds of time and the
honesty of the participant- not toward me or net54, but to the test taker
him/herself.

Here's the test. Imagine the names of the PED players who you feel have a
decent chance of election to the Hall. Rodriguez? Bonds? McGwire? Then,
scroll their names in your mind's eye and ask yourself this question- what is
the FIRST thing you think of when you consider each name? If the honest(!)
answer includes words like "PED", "steroids", "scandal", etc, then I'd
strongly suggest he does NOT belong.

Given the nature of this thread, I'm sure some naysayers will try to twist
it. They'll say it's not fair, or that they wish we could apply it to players who
are already in the Hall and not about to come out, et cetera. But for the
players who aren't in and are, in some form or fashion, knocking on the door
it's a heck of an exercise. Trent King

It's the first thing that comes to mind with me for Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro, but for some reason not for ARod. The first thing that comes to mind for Arod is what a colossal jerk he was, or at least became.

Agree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately, the first thing I think about with those players (ARod and Clemens too) is steroids also. Its hard not too.

I said to not bother responding, but of course you couldn't understand and pay attention to that request either.

And the only one playing the victim seems to be you.

And of course, even though you weren't in the courtrooms to hear and see all of the testimony and evidence in each of those cases you referenced, you know as an incontrovertible fact those juries were all wrong. I am just floored when I hear of someone in today's world that has the audacity and gall to think they know more than an actual jury that is presented with all the pertinent facts and testimony, when all they really know is what they most likely read in the paper or saw on the news. You have shown an almost complete, if not total, lack of comprehension of any of the points I was trying to get across to you.

What you have demonstrated is a bigoted and biased attitude, and what appears to be an almost complete lack of any open mindedness, whatsoever. Quite frankly, those qualities would make someone the absolute worst candidate for ever being a jurist, ever! You seem to go by only your own pre-formed opinions, based on whatever information suits your needs and thinking, and totally disregard and discard any fact, evidence, or other factors that do not totally support your pre-formed opinions. You apparently only want to look at things as either black or white, but the world doesn't exist that way and instead has an infinite number of gray shades representing where most things in our lives actually exist, somewhere between the extremes.

As I said in my earlier post, and repeat it again, the fact that you completely disregarded my initial request to try putting yourself in Jackson's place told me everything I needed to know about how were, and that it was a total waste of my time to ever hope to have an intelligent conversation about Jackson's situation with you. And thank you for this subsequent response in your latest post explaining you didn't deign me worthy of an answer because YOU deemed the question irrelevant. Your response completely and overwhelmingly confirmed and validated my initial thinking and opinion of you. The circumstances and unusual occurrences in this case were unique to Jackson alone. And therefore, these unique positions and circumstances are the ONLY relevant things in looking at my reason for engaging with you to begin with, how Jackson's case should maybe have been viewed differently than those of the others, and possibly lead to some different, maybe lesser, degree of punishment.

Your refusal to respond shows you just believe what you want. You don't want to ever debate Jackson fans, because you've already decided you're always right and they're always wrong. There's an old saying about how when someone complains about everyone else (in this case Jackson fans) always not liking and agreeing with them, maybe they need to go look in the mirror because the problem after all isn't them, it's you!!!

Once more, don't bother responding, I've wasted way more time on this than you deserve, I'm just ignoring you from now on. Do yourself a favor though, and go look up the actual rule that was in place, including the prescribed punishment of instant and permanent banishment from MLB, at the time of Jackson's alleged transgression. I only refer to it as alleged because he technically was never found guilty of breaking any actual law. And the rule put in place by MLB a couple years later doesn't count, because you're not supposed to be able to be retroactively charged with something there was no law/rule on the books for at the time something originally occurred, at least not in today's thinking.

That is some awesome deflection. When you don't know the facts, either make them up or insult the other person. You've done both, not masterfully, but at least you tried.

Sorry, you don't get to tell me when to respond or not respond.

Your question of "what would you do" is still irrelevant. If I say I would do exactly what Jackson did, would that make him any less guilty? Of course it wouldn't. If you feel he's innocent, why do you need to make excuses for him?

Why do you keep bringing up Jackson' not guilty verdict? The others were also found not guilty too and with some of the other 7 players, there is no doubt of their guilt. Juries get verdicts wrong. Period.

PEDs
 

Tony- thanks for the article link, it was interesting. The writer touched on a
point I brought up earlier as well. Regarding the PED suspects, at no time
have I suggested they are bound for Purgatory because of their use. I
haven't suggested they "give back" their salaries as some form of
atonement. I know they have lived wonderful lifestyles most of us will never
experience, fame and fortune. I'd be willing to bet a few are attempting to
redeem their past transgressions, and that some would be entertaining to
have a drink with- and I'm sure a decent number don't give a rip...

But they question here is, do they deserve MLBs highest permanent honor?
To be included with the absolute best of the best? Should they get that
benefit as well? Someone out there in net54 land will correct me I'm sure,
but isn't the Hall made up of less than 1 percent of all MLB players? I have
heard some fans cite a preference for a "small" Hall, others for a "big" Hall.
How about making it a "deserving" Hall? Some years the group is
impressive, some it's sparse. Regardless, it's hard to imagine a time when
players whose baseball playing acumen is so tainted, somehow
worm their way into that top 1%. Shouldn't the whirlwind of controversy
itself, going strong for a decade across the MLB spectrum, be enough of an
indicator that "these are not the droids (we) seek"? (Couldn't help the
Star Wars reference). How about this for a reward instead- they take their
tens of millions and hero worship/fame, and call it a day? Isn't that enough
for this group, so voters and fans can turn their attention to other
candidates? Trent King

As humans, as shown in many posts on NET54, we all have our own individual thoughts, opinions and beliefs. And although I may not agree with others, I respect their individual thoughts, opinions and beliefs. There have been some really great points made by others in this thread, which made me think differently a bit, so thank you all for that.

There have been many forms of what I consider cheating in Major League Baseball; one is:

* Catchers moving their glove after the catch is technically cheating. Where the ball lands, is the pitch location, and it should be called as such. THAT’S REALITY. But it’s been considered “FRAMING,” which we’re supposed to recognize it as a skill. Really? A ball is a ball and a strike is a strike; call it where it lands.

* Pitchers using foreign substances or anything else to alter the ball; getting an edge on the batters. Is that fair? Isn’t that cheating? Of course it is. That’s why it is now illegal.

Those acts do change (pad) a pitchers numbers. Do we now go back to the pitchers in the Hall of Fame and re-adjust their numbers? What was called a strike - was actually a ball? Do their numbers actually reflect their own individual ability, without any help from any foreign substance or anything else to alter the ball?

Well, some may think that’s a reach, and won’t agree with that, but that is my opinion.

I don’t think there is one resolve, because as you can see by the writers, voters, and all of us, we are all over the place in how we see it. Again, individual thoughts, opinions and beliefs.

There are players already in the Hall of Fame who used PEDs. As I stated early, put an asterisk next to their name and call it a day. In the end, everyone knows what they did.

If Arod is left out because of testing positive and being suspended, and Bonds gets in because he didn’t do the same, that’s bull crap. Bonds use of PEDs got him the All-Time Home Run Record. Don’t need a positive test or a suspension to prove to me he used PEDs.

Thanks, Tony

PEDs
 

Tony- again, an interesting post. You are right in that people's opinions vary,
no doubt about that. When it comes to something I enjoy, I do my best to
form those opinions with as much fact/thoughtful discourse as I possibly
can. For what this is worth, I'll add my 2 cents:

1) I don't think Bonds OR Aroid should ever see the Hall. Rodriguez' entire
career is called into question due to proven abuse. Bonds' most famous
accomplishment is as well. Their "Fame" is supposed to be the direct
result of their baseball acumen, and that acumen is dirty- period.

2) Not a big fan of retroactively going back to analyze members who are
already HOF. My point in this exercise is to do it right with the
candidates we see now- ones "we" (fans, voters, writers) can actually do
something about. If people complain that the Hall contains players who
"shouldn't be in", then how can any reasonable response be an open
door policy where obvious and prolonged misbehavior continues to be
downplayed?

Trent King

1) Completely agree with you 100%, and no other players during this period should get in either. Unfortunately, one (actually more than one) did; hence, put an asterisk next to their names and call it a day. Can't let one in and not the others. It's unfortunate, but the door has been opened and you can't shut the door now.

2) "My point in this exercise is to do it right with the candidates we see now- ones "we" (fans, voters, writers) can actually do something about." I can't do that, because they already let one in. Take him (them) out, and I'm with you 100%.

We will never truly know how many players used; how much they used; and how long they used. Truly sad for such an era with great baseball players.

It's been enjoyable and I appreciate everyone's comments in this thread. For me, there's not much more that I can add.

Much appreciation for everyone's opinions and comments! The love and passion for baseball that you all have is awesome!

Thanks, Tony

If any player is on the mlb ineligible list, they shall not be considered for the hall of fame.

None of these players on in the ineligible list, like them or not. I really dont see how a blank ballot does anything. Surely some deserving players are on a ballot. Its nothing more than grandstanding to get this dead beats name out there as some sanctimonious HOF voter. His voting privilege should be immediately revoked, as personal bias got in the way of his duty to uphold a vote.


Now for the next voter who needs their 5 min of fame.

Sure is going to chap some asses with bonds and clemens going in. It wouldn't surprise me if they snub the ceremony just because. Clemens claims he is indifferent and Bonds likley hasnt commented, not that he is known for his friendly attitude.

Juice or no juice, they excelled at their sport and made it more exciting for the fans. Possibly at their own health risk , now that is dedication!

They did this act of kindness for the fans. Let's hope generations of kids follow the example of these selfless heroes. :rolleyes:

And the 3 stooges did it for comedy!

Amazing all these kids arent running around blinded by finger pokes!

Thanks for sharing this article 👍🏻

Every thread needs a card (or two)