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

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

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

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.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

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.

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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.

[bnorth]

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.

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.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

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.

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.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

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.

Ortiz was named in the Mitchell Report.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Ortiz was named in the Mitchell Report.

Thank you, there were a bunch in that report.

Regards,

B. T.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Ortiz was named in the Mitchell Report.

Source? It was a 2009 anonymous nyt article which linked him

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Ortiz was named in the Mitchell Report.

But he's likeable as hell whereas Bonds and Clemens and ARod are not.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

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.

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.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

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

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

[butchie_t]

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

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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.

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.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

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.

Let me preface this by stating that I am in favor of Bonds and Clemens making the Hall of Fame.

The idea that their early-career accomplishments would have gotten them in the Hall doesn't work for me, though. It's analogous to saying Pete Rose's early-career record should have gotten him in. It's almost like suggesting we can ignore a portion of someone's resume.

While I'm on the topic, Pete belongs in the hall, too.

Holding professional athletes to incredibly high moral and performance standards would make for a very "Small Hall." As someone wrote earlier, it would basically be Christy Mathewson and a handful of others. While I can see the appeal of having only the best-of-the-best-of-the-best enshrined in the HOF, my personal preference is a bit different.

I'm more of a "Big Hall" fan. The game is over 150 years old. Let's celebrate more than the half-dozen or so from that span who are (quoting Tom Hulce) "people so lofty they sound as if they shit marble."

[Seven]

I'm not sure if Ortiz was confirmed to be in the Mitchell Report, then again, the man who made the report was a minority owner in the Red Sox, who knows if he had any sort of agenda.

It's sort of disheartening that we have to have these debates. We all fully know the owners could care less about their players juicing. Whatever put more asses in the seats, and lined their pockets with money, was fine by them.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Seven

I'm not sure if Ortiz was confirmed to be in the Mitchell Report, then again, the man who made the report was a minority owner in the Red Sox, who knows if he had any sort of agenda.

It's sort of disheartening that we have to have these debates. We all fully know the owners could care less about their players juicing. Whatever put more asses in the seats, and lined their pockets with money, was fine by them.

According to a interview I watched of Pedro when he was trying to sell his book the whole team was on PEDs. He told a story of how Manny mixed up cocktails of PEDs he got in the DR before a playoff game. He said everyone but one person(can't remember who) lined up to do them and they teased the one guy who didn't till he finally gave in and done the PEDs also.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

According to a interview I watched of Pedro when he was trying to sell his book the whole team was on PEDs. He told a story of how Manny mixed up cocktails of PEDs he got in the DR before a playoff game. He said everyone but one person(can't remember who) lined up to do them and they teased the one guy who didn't till he finally gave in and done the PEDs also.

But nobody before 1980 did anything to enhance performance, just ask the nostalgia crowd. Everyone up to that point was pure and natural and moral as hell too. Those were the days.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But nobody before 1980 did anything to enhance performance, just ask the nostalgia crowd. Everyone up to that point was pure and natural and moral as hell too. Those were the days.

See post #58 in this thread.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

See post #58 in this thread.

Yes I saw that. My cynical view, every generation has had a lot of guys who would do whatever is available to them, it's just the nature of sports. I don't think human character suddenly deteriorated in the 1980s, such that we should be worshipping the players of the past uncritically as clean heroes and vilifying anyone who ever took HGH.

From the LA Times about a player we all idolize: For two seasons he had been able to pitch only with cortisone shots, codeine pills and other drugs that made him high between games.

Then there is this. Did Mickey Mantle use amphetamines?
In 1961 Mickey Mantle was believed to have injected himself with a chemical cocktail that included steroids and amphetamines in an effort to keep up with Roger Maris during their famous home run competition.

Oh wait it's unproven. Well, how did the government's case against William Roger Clemens trying to prove HE used (and therefore perjured himself) go?