Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens don’t have the integrity, sportsmanship or
 

From someone who gets to vote.
https://torontosun.com/sports/baseba...e-hall-of-fame

He should lose his voting privilege. Regardless, It isnt the hall of character, it's the hall of FAME.

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the teams on which the player played.

Isn't his point that the actual ballot mentions character and integrity??

So Ortiz..among all he did for baseball, aside from anonymous 2003 claim, keeps him out of this guys vote?

I guess its a matter if opinion, but if you kept all the classless characters out of the hall, and added the watered down names because they were stand up guys, it's not a true representation.

It least not to me. I guess he has a holier than thou approach.

If taking greenies, using ethnic slurs, being a womanizing alcoholic etc would have kept people out, youd have half the members now enshired. Now its convenient to hold your ground having a moral compass.

Pedro Martinez "let the bambino come to the plate, I'll drill him in the A$$"

Countless others.

It's hypocrisy to the highest degree. The Hall of Fame has enshrined people that have done far worse than take PED's. Not to mention the fact it's very likely there are PED users already in the Hall of Fame. Cap Anson was a detestable human being, but a great player and he's in the Hall, I'd argue that's infinitely worse than anything that Bonds ever did.

Notice how those attributes come LAST in the description.

If the voters never let in anyone with a character issue, then the entire Hall would be an exhibit about Christy Mathewson.

Wikipedia is a great read on this guy. Clearly need the ratings, and should lose his vote. Mostly for his Ortiz comments.



The column attracted the attention of ESPN personality Keith Olbermann, who awarded Simmons the title of "Worst Person In The Sports World".[11


Simmons was referenced in a spoof letter supposedly written by Phil Kessel after Kessel had won the Stanley Cup with the Pittsburgh Penguins in 2016. The post script of the letter reads thus: "How did the country that produced literary giants like Margaret Atwood and Alice Munro also crap out Steve Simmons?"

I occasionally write about baseball and/or baseball cards on the internet. Whenever I start to get “imposter syndrome”, thinking maybe I’m not worthy (I’m no Peter Gammons or Bill James, after all), I go read material from so called “professional” writers out there, and the feeling goes away in a hurray.

In a world where Dan Shanessy has a job that doesn’t involve making French fries, I can feel ok about sharing my thoughts in print. I read an article on mlb.com recently where a professional writer argued both that Billy Wagner didn’t belong in the hall of fame both because of his low career IP total (900+) and because of his playoff performance (career postseason IP - 11.2). :rolleyes:

I tend to think that the biggest problem with HOF voting is that the people who are competent and actually care and the actual people who get a vote barely overlap.

"...I take the responsibility, as almost all of us do, very seriously. I pour (sic) over pages and pages..."

Hopefully, he takes his voting responsibility more seriously than his writing.

Full disclosure:

I stopped reading after that.

I can think of a few more in there with Matty:

Walter, Hank, Brooks, Ernie B., Harmon, Buck O'N. Mariano, etc, etc



.

I definitely think changes need to be made, in terms of whose allowed to keep their vote, and who exactly gets a vote. I think if you submit a blank ballot, as a form of "Protest" that should be grounds to lose your vote. You're just clogging up the system, and strikes me as an attempt to garner attention.

Also, I have no issue if a voter believes in a "Small Hall" mentality. But the idea of leaving a guy off your ballot, whose a surefire Hall of Famer, with no links to PED's, for an asinine reason of "he played during x time period" pisses me off to no end. The most prominent example of this, in recent memory at least, was when Ken Gurnick voted for Jack Morris, but not Greg Maddux in 2014. His rationale behind it was "Maddux played during the steroid era, but Morris didn't" which makes no sense considering PED's were being used in the 80's as well! Still fires me up, just typing it out! He thankfully has abstained from voting in future elections, but there are more like him out there.

It is interesting how in the article, Simmons talks about integrity, sportsmanship, and character as the three HOF qualifications that he can't vote for certain people because of. Then he goes on about how Schilling is not so great a person either, but because his issues are off the field issues, that's okay and he votes for him. But then he brings up Vizquel, and his "off the field" allegations, and how he will no longer vote for him now. So, why are some "off the field" issues okay and others aren't, especially when at this point I believe in Vizquel's case there have been no formal charges ever filed or final determinations made?

Now if Vizquel is ever proven to be to guilty of all that was alleged, well that is a discussion for another day. But it goes back to what one poster mentioned about unproven PED allegations relating to some former players, like Ortiz. Nothing has to be proven for someone to still be considered unworthy for election to the HOF apparently.

Well, if they can decide to exclude someone for simple allegations, what would/should they do if someone is elected to the HOF, and then subsequently does (and is proven to have done) something despicable? Should they go back and remove that person from the HOF then, because if not, it shows their system for determining eligibility for enshrinement can be quite arbitrary and totally dependent on timing. Though not the baseball HOF, the primary example of this type of dilemma would be O.J. Simpson. He's in Canton still, but had he done some of the things he's done prior to getting elected to the HOF, do you really think he would have still been enshrined? And if not, why should he be be left in now? I believe Cooperstown would do about the same as Canton does.

And why do we still leave it up to a small group of sport media personnel to decide who is worthy for election to Cooperstown anyway? Beginning back in 1936 I can understand the baseball writers being given the task, because there was no TV and games were played during the day, when most normal people worked during the week. The sport writers were the one known independent group that was able to attend all the games and actually see all these players play, in person, so as to better judge who was worthy of enshrinement. With night games, TV coverage, streaming services and such the norm now, pretty much everyone can watch all the games and players they want. Since the HOF is really more for the fans than anyone else, why not figure out a way to let the fans decide who should or shouldn't get in. Would make a lot more sense.

On the surface, that makes sense to me. However, I can envision unintended consequences. For example, a few "social media influencers" could drastically impact voting results.

"...so-and-so wouldn't sign my jersey years ago, and I've always hated him. Everyone get together and vote for other players so this clown doesn't get in the Hall. Who cares if he got 3,000 hits, 500 HR, and 3 rings; his (hand-picked stat) was horrible..."

I'm pretty sure letting any random person vote wouldn't make it better. What you want is people who actually care, are educated on the HOF and the candidates, and will vote in a defensible and consistent manner.

How you do that, I don't know.

Agree, the problem is how do you limit/stop that kind of disingenuous activity. Don't know a perfect, correct answer, but there's got to be a better way.

And even baseball writers/media members that currently vote can have grievances and grudges against players for supposed personal affronts, like from a player treating them rudely, blowing them off for an interview, or who knows what.

Maybe you do something like have a designated period during the season in which people who buy a ticket and actually attend games during that designated time get a ballot and vote for who they think belongs in the HOF. The ballots have to be collected and count only if submitted that same day of the game at the ballparks. You have the counting done for every MLB team over the same number of home games. This would help keep any one city from trying to stuff the ballot box for a favorite son player. And only allowing attending and paying customers/fans to vote would help to insure the voters do have some interest in the game since they are, in effect, paying for the right to vote (which should please owners as it would likely increase ticket sales during the designated voting period). And it would likely also deter trolls and agitators from trying to sway people for or against certain players. Certainly not a perfect solution, but maybe at least a place to start out and work from?

See my previous post about possibly limiting the voting to attendees at the ballparks. Would mean those voting would likely have some knowledge and passion for the game since they're willing to pay money to actually go watch teams play. And for those trying to stuff the ballot box for or against a certain player, would think them having to pay money for the chance to vote a certain way would discourage such trolls who wouldn't want to spend their own cash just to do something like that. And you could possibly even keep the games that ended up being selected as voting games confidential up till just before the gates open. This would help to prevent trolls from trying to organize people in advance so as to sway them and affect the voting.

You could have the baseball writers/media people still involved and maybe take part in selecting the players to go on the ballot. You just don't leave it entirely up to them alone then to select the actual inductees to Cooperstown. Again, just some thoughts to use as a possible starting place to change/improve this process.

We did that for the All Star games in the 70's....

Have you looked at those lineups? Usually 6 players from 2 teams, a couple guys you just couldn't keep out, and some random pitcher who wasn't chosen by the fans.

I tried to be fair, but anyone from the Yankees would have to be incredible to get my vote. Just as I'm sure most Yankee fans really didn't vote for the Red Sox players.

It basically came down to whose team drew the most fans, and which players were popular.

I didn't used to feel this way, but I think now that to try to say no to PED users and to distinguish everyone else with other issues just gets you onto very slippery and unsatisfying slopes.

Amphetamines and other drugs.
Domestic violence and abuse.
Racism.
To name a few.

Maybe, but do we even know really? It's a fairly recent trend that the world learns about people's every bad action.

Not sure about the ballpark attendees either. Many is the time I have seen a random camera shot and the people in question, well they probably don’t have their reasoning faculties at that moment.

To keep someone out who has the numbers is illogical at minimum. Unless we are playing the moral high ground game , in which ultimately no one can win. Newsflash for some, many athletes are buttheads.That “chip”,if you will, helped them overcome sometimes marginal skills. $.02

Never said my suggestion was great, just someplace to maybe start from.

One big difference from the All-Star selections back then was that everyone was on the ballot, right? If you tried this for the HOF, there would only be a limited number of players considered worthy of selection, and thus listed on the ballot to be voted on. There wouldn't be write-ins for the fan vote. Something to maybe think about and kick around though.

Getting 75% of the public to agree on anything is hard enough, without bringing team loyalty and bias into it, would make it extremely hard to get anyone elected. Probably only the likable, true greats of the game would get elected.

Voters are allowed to consider a player's character, I didn't hear anyone complain when Albert Belle didn't get elected.

Reminds me of Kirby Puckett. He was a beloved angel…until he wasn’t. Lucky for him he got into the HOF before scandal hit.

Respected journalists/media personnel/sports authors with a strong reputation, in the industry, should be the requirement. People like:

Peter Gammons
Joe Posnanski
Ken Rosenthal
Tom Verducci
Buster Onley
Jane Leavy
Bill James

Just to list a few

Maybe it’s the residual Platonist in me, but I tend to think the answer is fewer, better qualified voters, not more.

Maybe not quite the 12-16 voters of the various veterans committees (too small has its issues too), but not hundreds or thousands.

And you want a qualified writer, analyst, TV or web writer, or even former player or fan…someone who understands, cares, and will do the research and analysis required.

Completely agree, Mike. I think a smaller panel would be better. The inaugural class had 226 voters, that should be the cap, I think.

Maybe it should be that the players do the voting. Who should know more than those that actually played the game.
Or maybe a point system. Earn the number of points needed to qualify and your in.

Too many players would probably just vote for their friends.

I think they should contact people on baseball card websites to vote for the HOF, because obviously we are interested in baseball and highly intelligent. ;)

If the results on the ballot tracker hold, this year's class will be Bonds, Clemens and Ortiz.

LOL, nice they make Clemens and Bonds wait 10 years and Ortiz gets in the first year.:confused::(

When you're likable, its ok to cheat. :)

Bologna. Every one of the fake stat drug users should be banned from the HOF forever. Frank

I'm fairly agnostic on the steroid issue, but not voting for a player for cheating on the field is reasonable, even if I don't agree with it. Taking away voting rights for any voter that wants to punish cheating seems rather absurd to me. I suppose one's own point of view would be better carried out if all dissenting views were silenced and eliminated from voting, but this doesn't seem a rational basis for voting.

Ortiz never failed a test, other than "one anonymous test".


I'm all for dissenting views, but not when they are not rooted in science..I mean facts!

I have no skin in the game either way, but feel players accomplishments in the field should be the #1 factor.

Unless they spcifically bet on baseball, which i believe would disqualify someone based on the HOFs own rules. Aka mlbs "ineligible list". You want to add peds to this list, then go ahead it will have them ineligible for the hall.

There's usually a pretty solid drop off from what is listed on the tracker vs. what actually comes to be. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up seeing zero players from the traditional ballot, and the only players that end up going in are the ones from the Golden Era.

I guess then , that is OK with you that they keep all the records they broke by cheating. These guys knew what they were doing. let them pay the price for it.

But where do you draw the line? What about the players that are already in the Hall of Fame that used Amphetamines or other types of drug concoctions during their playing days?

Ruth experimented with Sheep Testicle Extract. Pud Galvin did something similar. Hank Aaron took Amphetamines once, is he disqualified? Mike Schmidt and Goose Gossage have admitted to amphetamines, and this is just the players we know. I don't treat Canseco's word as gospel, but he's been pretty reliable on the players that he's named, and according to him there's already players from the "Steroid Era" that have managed to make it into the Hall of Fame, that took drugs. Not to mention Bud Selig sure as hell didn't care about his players juicing when he was the owner of the Brewers.

Cap Anson was one of the major factors in keeping the game segregated, Kennesaw Mountain Landis, upheld segregation, Tris Speaker was in the KKK, all three of those things are sufficiently worse, in my opinion, then taking PED's yet we don't blink an eye, and there's no campaign to kick any of those three men out of the Hall.

You can't cite a "character clause" for one set of guys, but not the other. The Hall of Fame is rapidly turning into the "Hall of Hypocrisy."

Not my rule, mlb should place them on the ineligible list if they are not HOF worthy. However, the list seems to be specific to gambling.

If in the 70s, players heard drinking whale sperm would help you got home runs, they'd be lined up at sea world.

Voters are allowed to have opinions as to who took steroids and vote accordingly. Nothing about the voting process is based on science, its all opinions.

That is true today, yesterday, and every other day. That line would have included EVERY player and many would try to get in line multiple times.

Yes, I’m not sure what the average drop off is, but it happens.

It makes sense…not to generalize, but those that don’t make their votes public typically aren’t still active writers (for working writers, it’s basically one or more “easy” columns a year talking about your ballot). And these writers (again, in general are less likely to appreciate modern stats, have seen the players regularly, etc.).

Also, the modern players aren’t as good as the stars from when they were 12 years old. :p

But the stats dont lie, and that is the first base for any and all HOF election per their own description. Anything else is more of a popularity contest

You could argue some were forced to get in line. either by management, or because everyone else was doing it

Stats are facts but whether those stats overcome a players bad character is still the voters opinion.

Albert Belle should be in the HOF, if character didn't matter.

It should be the last consideration. based on their own description. Maybe for a Slider candidate, it might sway an opinion. Any writer who could leave out Ortiz based on character , never watched him play.

Character aside, Belle was also a known cheat, remember his infamous corked bat incident? And what about someone like Gaylord Perry throwing spitballs during his career, and he's in the HOF? Those are both instances of cheating, but you never hear much about it in those forms, but the PEDs yes. Why is one form of cheating so much worse than the other? Cheating is cheating, right?

And speaking of cheats, what about what the Astros did a few years ago? I felt what they did was way more reprehensible than any PED user. Yet they did virtually nothing to the players involved. If I had a say, I'd tell each one of them that was in on it that they are now and forever banned from ever getting into the HOF. And I probably would have banned them all for at least a year. Problem is it is all about the money, as usual, and they couldn't afford to alienate an entire city and team. Had it only been a player or two involved, I bet there was would have been some significant punishment after all. But when it turned it to be to so many players, they couldn't punish them all without alienating the entire city and region.

They didn't punish Astros players because they gave them immunity in return for their testimony. And I'm sure Manfred didn't want to have to deal with the players union, it would have dragged out forever, JMO.

Sammy Sosa was suspended for using a corked bat also.

I can't answer about Gaylord but I don't think the solution is putting more cheaters in the HOF.

This (while hilarious) sums up how steroids conjure up a whole different sinister image than anything but the Black Sox. Sadly perception is what mostly matters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_pHrZuGyS4

Not all players, but pretty close to all the starters, usually 9 at each position and 27 Outfielders. No DH. You could write in a player, but the ballots only had room for three in each league. The AS ballots probably read like the HOF ballots roughly 10 years later.

I guess it's something to consider, but it hardly ever goes as expected, and securing an online vote is a challenge. Which is why a rap artist called pitbull played Kodiac Alaska. Online voters decided to send him someplace strange. He was offered a chance to decline, but went through with it, becoming one of the few rap artists I like (And I haven't really heard much of his music at all )

The change I would make would be not eliminating a player getting below a certain precentage of votes. A player shouldn't be penalized just because 4-4 superstars decided to retire in the same year.

Absolutely agree with you, but think about it, we'll give you immunity and then you tell us you did it so we can't due anything about it. They probably set that up like you said to appease the players union, as well as not ticking off the city of Houston and basically destroying the Astro's team for a season or two.

Forgot about Sosa, so he was juicin' and corkin'!

That is a good point about what happens when several great players all retire in the same year. There is no perfect answer. Maybe what they're doing now isn't so great, but what else can we do? Oh well.

Bullshit that only stats should apply. This is not only about stats, it's also about the records that were broken because of CHEATING. What is it that you guys don't understand? It's all fake production and they should not ever be allowed in the hall. Frank

Hank Aaron - STILL All-Time Home Run KING
Roger Maris - STILL Single Season Home Run Record Holder (asterisk or not).

Until someone breaks the above records, and are not all juiced up when they do, these are the current record holders and will remain until such time that someone does them clean.

Regardless of how MLB wants to handle it.

Anyone ever heard about this article that appeared in USA Today and the SF Chronicle? I have no idea about the validity about what Tom House claims.

Posted 5/3/2005 12:27 PM Updated 5/3/2005 3:58 PM

Former pitcher Tom House describes past steroid use
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Former major league pitcher Tom House used steroids during his career and said performance-enhancing drugs were widespread in baseball in the 1960s and 1970s, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday.
House, perhaps best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run ball in 1974 in the Atlanta Braves' bullpen, said he and several teammates used amphetamines, human growth hormone and "whatever steroid" they could find in order to keep up with the competition.

"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey," House said. "We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses. That was the '60s, when nobody knew. The good thing is, we know now. There's a lot more research and understanding."

House, a former pitching coach with the Texas Rangers and co-founder of the National Pitching Association near San Diego, is one of the first players to describe steroid use as far back as the 1960s.

He was drafted in 1967 by the Braves and pitched eight seasons for Atlanta, Boston and Seattle, finishing his career with a 29-23 record and 3.79 ERA.

House, 58, estimated that six or seven pitchers per team were at least experimenting with steroids or human growth hormone. He said players talked about losing to opponents using more effective drugs.

"We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed," he said. "And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."

House said he gained almost 30 pounds while using steroids, blaming the extra weight for contributing to knee problems. He said the drugs helped improve recovery time and conditioning but did not add velocity to his fastball.

"I tried everything known to man to improve my fastball, and it still didn't go faster than 82 miles per hour," House said. "I was a failed experiment."

House said he stopped using steroids after learning about the long-term harm they could cause.

"I'd like to say we were smart, but we didn't know what was going on," he said. "We were at the tail end of a generation that wasn't afraid to ingest anything. As research showed up, guys stopped."

Steroids
 

I'm with Butchie T and Frank all the way- Trent King

Aaron Took amphetamines once so I guess the record reverts to Ruth? Oh wait Ruth injected himself with sheep testosterone, so Mays is the record holder I guess? Oh wait Mays took liquid amphetamines during his days with the Mets, guess it's not his record either. We should just give it back to Roger Conner at this rate.

No one is a saint in this sport, almost all of the greats have done something wrong either on or off the field. Performance Enhancing Drugs have been apart of the game for a better portion of it's existence, and will continue to be apart of it, going forward.

Keep digging. One can find something if they truly wish to.

I stand by my previous post.

Cheers.

Butch Turner

Bonds, Sosa, et al
 

Bonds, Sosa, etc in the Hall or not? The debate that won't die, appearing in
multiple recent threads...

I'll start by saying everyone gets an opinion. The problem is that someone's
right to opinion, does not carry with it a right of legitimacy. Anyone who
tries to equate caffeine pills with back room HGH injections and physically
mutated players, is a person who is desperately trying to make his own
bias work. Sosa was a horrid outfielder and even worse teammate, whose
15 minutes of "fame" is directly tied to PEDs and cork. He's a joke, a
sideshow.

I get the feeling that many posters somehow feel that their fandom, as it
was tied to the fake home run race of 98 and fake HR totals after, has been
cheapened. Those fans don't like it- they want their time, their energy, their
passion to be worth something. Problem is you were wrong, it was a sham.
So, to mitigate this let down, people justify the cheating because it
somehow makes it easier to live with inside. I'm lucky that I was never a
fan of these dudes or their teams- it would stink for sure. But the truth is
they were sneaky, malicious, self serving at the expense of others- and
TOTALLY outside MLB's bylaws. The argument for PED guys is pretzel logic.

Trent King

I think it is so sweet when people think their favorite player didn't cheat or only took caffeine(LOL) pills.

Sosa
 

Ben North- we have agreed more than once in the past, I am disappointed
at your take...

To put a bow on this, I'll reveal that I am an Ohio State football fan. There is
a LOT to be proud of as an OSU fan. There are also, however, realities that
I'm not proud of (Woody Hayes staying too long and going out ingloriously,
Jim Tressel lying to NCAA, Urban Meyer's transgressions, etc). The difference
is that I won't sugarcoat them...

So, you can lose the snarky remark about how it's "sweet" how others
think their favorites are somehow perfect. Your argument/logic is faulty. I
didn't say it, didn't even imply it, and don't believe it. Odds are you are a
McGwire/Bonds homer (yes, that was on purpose) and are butthurt that
their undeniable (important!) cheats have been exposed. Don't care to read
your exposition or deflections of the point. The steroid boys went WAY out
of bounds, got caught with their pants down, and now fanboys are doing
everything they can to normalize the behavior. Hard pass. Trent King

To me it makes zero sense to be excluding Bonds and Clemens from the hall due to PED, it’s just a no brainer that they should be in regardless based on their accomplishments.

That said, I don’t think PED is irrelevant to Hall consideration in some cases. It’s really a question of how much weight is put on that factor, which I don’t think should be so high as to offset the accomplishments of a Barry Bonds. It seems it should really just be a major factor in those cases where you’ve got a borderline candidate, Where PED use could be a significant factor in excluding them. Like Jose Canseco, who without the PED use might have had a shot, I think it makes sense to take that as a factor that moves him solidly into the “no” column.

Bonds and Clemens are just so far beyond that level though that it doesn’t make sense to be barring them though.

It’s a tougher question for guys like Palmeiro and McGwire though, a fair bit lower on the achievement scale than Bonds/Clemens, but also high enough above a Canseco that they can’t be so easily dismissed.

PED guys
 

seanofjapan- you are right that Bonds/Clemens certainly had HOF level
potential prior to PED use, when they were younger. The problem is that the
use makes folks wonder if the PEDs put them over the top from "hall of
very good" to "Hall of Fame". The blatant PED abuse causes voters to
hesitate- for VERY good reason.

A side issue is that, as also was mentioned earlier, the voting process itself
is skewed. Sadly, I do think a number of players who were utterly dependent
on PED use, will eventually make it due to the uneven nature of the voting
process. I mean, Harold Baines somehow got in, right? It's probably a matter
of time before "the clear and the cream" crowd slithers it's way in. Trent King

PED guys
 

Clarification- before I get mauled by White Sox/Baines fans, I was NOT
suggesting that Harold Baines used PEDs. My point is that the HOF voting
itself sometimes allows for a questionable admission- which I think most
serious fans consider him to be. So, if Baines can make it in, then it's
possible the PED guys can as well. Trent King

PED use is akin to gambling. Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, McGwire and many more gambled to ‘be better’ by PED use. Sweet mother, look at a Canseco, McGwire, Bonds or a Sosa card in their rookie seasons. They were all sticks compared to cards towards the end of their career. Some of that was due to being and maintaining fitness, granted. But these guys bulked up unnaturally and due to what? The example of McGwire is a shocking example, at least to me it is.

No, none get in and should never get in. Those that either got caught or came forward and admitted their PED use should not even get a ballot sniff of any sort.

I think with both Bonds and Clemens they were the among the best players of their generation long before they are suspected of starting PED use and there seems little question that absent career ending injury (which neither ultimately suffered) they were on their way to HOF careers regardless. Bonds already had almost 500 career home runs by 2001 when he is believed to have started using.

With other guys the case is way less clear and I could see using PED use as a factor in voting against them on that basis.

To me, it makes no difference when a player started taking Steroids, that they took them should be all that matters. It was against the rules, period.

That is fair and I respect that opinion, but I find myself swayed by the arguments earlier posters made noting that applying the same standard to everyone in the Hall would probably result in half the guys in there getting kicked out for amphetamines, spitballs, etc. For that reason, I think PEDs should be treated as a factor to consider, but not necessarily a "everyone involved is out, period" sort of thing.

Where the hell is all the outrage against David Ortiz in this thread from all you PED haters? Maybe having a very good year at 38, a even better year at 39, and an amazing year at 40 is normal for PED free players.:rolleyes:

The picking and choosing of what cheaters should be punished is the worst part for me.

I get it, I really do. I give Clemens a free pas but fricken hate 2 HOFers that IMO done a LOT of PEDs that got free passes.

One thing is for sure correct or wrong we are passionate about our opinions.:D

Has he been exposed as a user of PEDs then noted and added. I don't pick and choose frankly. I paint with a broad PED brush. Did not know he was in the mix too. So thanks. I am a no for him as well if he has been identified.

Like I said in an earlier post, if you are likable, cheating is OK, ex. Pudge Rodriguez.

This is not rocket science folks.

If you use PEDs and you get caught, your HOF eligibility is should be DEAD.

End of line.....


Butch Turner

Reminds me of Shoeless Joe Jackson fans, they like him and won't admit its possible that he threw WS games.

Ortiz was named in the Mitchell Report.

Thank you, there were a bunch in that report.

Regards,

B. T.

Or when they decide steroids are a no-no, but amphetamines, sheep testosterone and who knows what else are A-OK.

Shoeless Joe took the money, no pass from me.

Pete Rose gambled on his team to win, no pass from me.

Pick anyone from the Houston Astros a couple of years ago. They all should be banned. No pass from me.

:shrug:

B. T.