First Hall of Famer with a PED suspension?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

They brought in money and eyes but made baseball exponentially worse. The whole reason we're even discussing the topic is because of what these two chose to do. They do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

But how is that really any different than changing the way the balls were made, or building stadiums/fields with shorter outfield dimensions, to end the dead-ball era and create more money for owners from the game's switch to the dramatic home run emphasis? Or in later years when teams would literally have pots of coffee, laced with uppers, sitting just outside the dugouts, for players to partake in during games to keep that "edge" they needed? Or what about the advent of advanced medical procedures and medicine to allow for reconstructive and other forms of surgery, and/or to allow for faster/better recovery from injuries? Better equipment, better medicine, better training and development techniques, including improved dietary, vitamin, and supplement regimens for players are all the norm for every sport I can think of today. The questions come down to simply one of where (and why) do people end up drawing the line of what they will or will not accept.

I am also not a fan of such chemically induced enhancements. But if the idea is to somehow keep the fantasy that professional sports/baseball is an everyman's game, that maybe doesn't require someone to be way over 6' tall, weigh at least 200+ pounds, have a vertical leap of over 36", or be able to run the 100 yard dash in 10 seconds or less, so that fans can still have some semblance of the dream of one day playing a major professional sport, they are kidding themselves. Those days of the possibility of a somewhat average person ever being able to succeed and become a professional athlete simply by hard work and dedication are likely long gone. Unless you have an absolute gift of natural talent, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. It is exactly why movies like "Rudy" were/are so hugely popular, average people still like to dream. So, since these already elite, talented athletes are functioning way above the athletic level of the average, everyday human, exactly what does drawing the line at some medicinal/supplemental elements being allowed or banned actually saying or proving? I can affirmatively agree that if a certain steroid/substance is illegal and banned from everyday use of everyone, that it clearly should also be banned from sports. But then you get into the constantly growing gray area of things that aren't banned or illegal, except now maybe for athletes. Why? If at least part of the idea of banning certain things for athletes may have to do with the concept of those athletes being just like you and me, that ship has sailed way in the past and isn't at all relevant anymore.

You then state how McGwire and Sosa have exponentially made baseball worse. Worse how so? At least in McGwire's case, when he supposedly started out with using PEDs, there were no MLB banned substances, and he was using an over-the-counter supplement, that he admitted to using. And I don't believe he ever failed any subsequent drug test or was ever suspended by MLB for doing so. If I'm wrong, please correct me. Now if the use of PEDs by the likes of McGwire and Sosa led to the outing of such rampant PED use by players to the extent that fans and MLB finally took notice and action, and ended up having MLB implement the bans and drug testing to ensure that such PED use wasn't continuing, isn't that in some way actually a good thing then? Or are you somehow saying that baseball is still worse in some way because of the PEDs, even after that was corrected by the formal banning and testing for them? Don't forget, baseball is no longer considered America's pastime like it once was, and many long-time and casual fans were turned off from MLB following the player's strike in '94. I can't count how many times I've seen Leon comment about how he really doesn't watch baseball anymore because of that strike. So, without those home run histrionics in the late '90s, bringing back many old fans, and likely attracting many new ones, who knows where baseball would be today otherwise?

And as for where the line needs to be drawn on such things as PEDs as unnatural advantages for some, how is that any different than say LeBron James supposedly using and sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber to improve recovery from injury and to fight the ravages of Father Time? The use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy is most certainly a non-traditional and unnatural way to enhance one's elite athletic performance over time. So how is unnaturally enhancing or healing one's body for some athletic advantage supposedly okay for some methods/treatments like this, but not for others?

And also, why not in the case of say someone like McGwire, would they be retroactively condemned and forever after vilified for something that was once legal. Why not allow them to be grandfathered in to such an activity maybe? And before you go saying that is absurd and no one would ever allow or agree to such a thing, you need to check back into the banning of the spitball, and other substance-abuse type pitches that was put into effect by MLB back on 2/9/1920. For along with that ban, it also included a list of current MLB pitches who used such substance-enhanced pitches to play in the majors, and allowed them to continue throwing spitballs and such till their careers ended. So as preposterous as my idea may have originally sounded to you, it is clearly not unprecedented.

And speaking of spit ballers, are you also vehemently calling for the expulsion of Whitey Ford, Don Drysdale, Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry, and Bullet Rogan from Cooperstown then? If not, please explain how their obvious cheating through the use of foreign substances on their pitches is any less outright cheating than using a PED then? And by the way, of the 17 named pitchers who were grandfathered in and allowed to continue throwing spitballs and other substance-enhanced pitches after the 1920 ban was put into effect, three of them are also in the HOF. Should we now be demanding they be taken out as well, to go along with your sentiments towards McGwire and maybe some of these other PED users?

[packs]

You're asking how cheating is different from agreed upon manipulations? When they built new Yankee Stadium it's not like the Yankees needed to get all 30 teams to sign off on their dimensions. The league's rules allow them to build their stadium to already agreed upon limits.

I really don't see any correlation between a new stadium and Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire deciding to cheat and pretending they weren't.

How did they make baseball worse? When there are discussions that have to take place about "the REAL home run king" there's a problem with the sport. It should be black and white but it's not because cheaters cheated and some of the most hallowed records in all of sports became artificial and cheap.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To Bob's point, I think there's just a different emotional reaction to different types of "cheating," whether one can rationalize it or not. Taking banned substances or stealing signs are just flash points for most people, whereas getting away with a spitball somehow seems (to most) just part of the inherent fabric of the game.

[packs]

I would agree with that. Personally I’m unconcerned with substances on the baseball as opposed to substances in the body. Batters use pine tar and it’s not seen as cheating (except for one famous occasion). Rules are rules and I understand the punishments for pitchers now but if you can use a substance to grip the bat there’s not a lot of separation to me when a pitcher does it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I would agree with that. Personally I’m unconcerned with substances on the baseball as opposed to substances in the body. Batters use pine tar and it’s not seen as cheating (except for one famous occasion). Rules are rules and I understand the punishments for pitchers now but if you can use a substance to grip the bat there’s not a lot of separation to me when a pitcher does it.

It's funny though, if a batter uses a corked bat I think most people see red. But a pitcher scuffs the ball, not so much.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's funny though, if a batter uses a corked bat I think most people see red. But a pitcher scuffs the ball, not so much.

Fair statement

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

You're asking how cheating is different from agreed upon manipulations? When they built new Yankee Stadium it's not like the Yankees needed to get all 30 teams to sign off on their dimensions. The league's rules allow them to build their stadium to already agreed upon limits.

I really don't see any correlation between a new stadium and Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire deciding to cheat and pretending they weren't.

How did they make baseball worse? How do you think? When there are discussions that have to take place about "the REAL home run king" there's a problem with the sport. It should be black and white but it's not because cheaters cheated and some of the most hallowed records in all of sports became artificial and cheap.

Think about the rest of your life. When do you ever prefer something less than the real thing? That's what you got for a decade or so when baseball was dominated by players who weren't actually very good at it.

O----M----G

LOL!!!

You don't get it at all, do you?

The reference to the ballpark changes and the changes to the types of balls used had to do with your initial comment I was responding to.

They brought in money and eyes but made baseball exponentially worse.

MLB made a ton of changes and took the game from what was once called the Dead-Ball Era to a more modern game with an emphasis on HRs. There wasn't any intended direct correlation between McGwire and Sosa using PEDs and new stadiums, the reference was to show how MLB maybe looked at such changes in trying to increase HRs as a way to promote the sport, and make more money. Back then, to help offset the gambling issues turning off fans, and in the '90s with fans turned off by the player's strike. In the 1920's, MLB set the changes up and initiated them themselves. In the '90s, maybe MLB latched onto something that others like McGwire and Sosa started doing, and by a turning a blind eye and not actively opposing it, more or less unofficially endorsed the use of PEDs by more players, all to achieve MLB's true goal of enhancing the game, attracting more fans, and of course, making more money! The point being that MLB is not at all totally innocent and not at least partially at fault for most all of this. MLB only changed their tune and upped the PED enforcement when fans started complaining. Which is what I was getting at with the references to how fans may feel about players and what they do, or not do, so as to acceptably train and play the best baseball they can.

And as for how McGwire and Sosa made baseball worse, why are asking me, I never said they made it worse? I was asking YOU for that answer, in response to what YOU had said, and obviously you either can't, or won't give an answer. So, am I supposed to read your mind and answer for you then? No, I'm not going to do that, or go putting words in your mouth. Or is this all about your next comment referring to supposed issues arising from having discussions of the "REAL home run king"? So is that it, you think PEDs made baseball worse because certain records became supposedly easier to break? If so, that is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard!

Remember me commenting about teams that had coffee laced with uppers in them? I think the Yankees back in the '50s and '60s were one of the teams I had heard rumors of as doing this. So, is it at all possible someone like Maris, who set one of those HR records you're supposedly talking about, may have been taking advantage of some otherwise not so normal performance enhancers himself? Or if you're specifically referring to Ruth, then my earlier comments about all the changes being made to the baseballs and the sizes of the ballfields are also relevant. Go back 100 years and I'll bet there were tons of fans that despised the changes and the way the game had been altered and now seemed to focus on hitting home runs. At the time, the Dead-Ball Era had been around for around 50 years or so, what about the discussions people may have had back then about how it maybe wasn't fair to earlier power hitters during the Dead-Ball Era to have Ruth replace their records after making the baseballs livelier, the stadium fences shorter, and other things like outlawing spitball pitchers? If someone thinks like that, they're as bad as the Russians, picking a time when your supposed "empire" was at its largest, and claiming going forward that is always how it has been, and now how it always should be going forward. But in this case, picking a time baseball was played a certain way, and then claiming any changes to it ruin the game and make it no longer real because how those changes can possibly affect old records...............tsk, tsk, tsk, how dare they!

Baseball rules, equipment, stadiums, training, medical advancements, and on and on, have been changing constantly. My question(s) to you again, are basically why did fans/MLB suddenly draw the line at PEDs, and yet still allow (and actually revere in many cases) other known baseball cheaters, such as all the known spitball pitchers in the HOF I've previously mentioned, to stay in the HOF with virtually no complaints at all? Otherwise, how can you complain about the one, but not about the other? So, do you have similar thoughts and feelings against the HOF status of those pitchers I've previously mentioned, Ford, Drysdale, Sutton, Perry, and Rogan? And if not, why not, they're just as guilty, if not more so, of breaking MLB rules and cheating as alleged PED users?

And as to your comment that baseball during the PED era was dominated by players that weren't very good.......really?!?!?! Please explain then how after the 150+ years professional baseball has been around that ONLY during the decade or so that PEDs were being used that there were supposedly no good dominant baseball players? Did it ever occur to you that if upwards of half or more of the ballplayers during that time were actually taking one form of PEDs or another, and that includes both hitters and pitchers, they were doing so merely to keep a somewhat level playing field amongst all the other players taking PEDs as well? So that the players taking PEDS who were dominant would have likely been just as dominant if no one used any PEDs at all during that time.

And if you choose to say that baseball during that PED era wasn't "real", I can just imagine many people right after the Dead-Ball Era ended up saying the exact same thing you are. It isn't the same game, and the changes make a mockery of some of the records set in the 50 or so years before that time.....exactly same thing you're complaining about now. Your excuse seems to be that was okay back then because MLB set up and initiated the changes, as opposed to merely going along and showing a blind eye to changes that players had initiated on their own. My comment/question again is that why did MLB have to outlaw and ban PEDs after the fact, or at least wait so long to really do anything about them then/ Most every change ever made by MLB can affect earlier records and achievements as well, but you choose to supposedly only pick on the PED users and blame them for such changes ruining baseball, and look at those entirely differently than any other changes made by MLB over the years.

[BobC]

.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
To Bob's point, I think there's just a different emotional reaction to different types of "cheating," whether one can rationalize it or not. Taking banned substances or stealing signs are just flash points for most people, whereas getting away with a spitball somehow seems (to most) just part of the inherent fabric of the game.

Exactly right, and also the point is that at first, these PEDs were not banned, just like spitballs and maybe other things, like how much pine tar you can have on a bat. LOL

But to claim that the McGwire and Sosa specifically ruined baseball because people now argue that certain records they like and look up to were somehow compromised as a result of PED users, seems a little crazy. Does it make for discussions points about who people think are the best and/or should hold certain records, yes of course. But to then go further and claim that raises things to the level of actually ruining the game of baseball itself......really?!?!?

My usual mistake is expecting people to have open minds and actually think and use logic to start looking at things they say or believe, and maybe start thinking about and looking at such things from different contextual and/or historic points of view or circumstances they may not have previously considered. They usually don't like that though, and just want "yes" people to agree with everything they say. LOL

So when someone tells me something like they don't view cheating using a banned PED substance the same as using say corked bats or throwing spitballs, I just have to ask why and how they can make such a differentiation. Cheating is cheating.....period, right? So how can one form of cheating be so terrible and ruin the game, whereas the same person(s) thinks and feels another form of cheating isn't that bad at all, and don't really care about it?

What is also somewhat confounding is how it seems when one form of cheating is maybe used/practiced by only a few players, at most, they are oftentimes thought of even more highly in some cases because of their attempts at cheating. Like spit ballers and those that have used cork bats. It is like they're even more highly liked and revered specifically because of their attempts to get away with cheating, in that sort of infamous, "bad boy" image or complex if you will. What's the old saying, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying!" But then switch to a different form of perceived cheating that becomes more accepted and practiced throughout the entirety of a sport, like the upwards of half or more of all MLB players supposedly on PEDs at one point in time, and suddenly all of fandom comes to hate them all, but specifically lays the blame at the more noted, dominant players. Meanwhile, think about this, if pretty much everyone really is doing the same thing, then is it really cheating since they are pretty much all trying to get the same advantage, so it ends up that no one really does have any advantage, they're all just trying to stay equal. LOL Think about it, it's like the whole cheating concept is really bass-ackwards for many people.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The point I always get vilified for, the same guys who think steroids should be punishable by death worship Mays, Aaron, and a whole generation of players who popped greenies. Yes I know there are differences, but even so...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The point I always get vilified for, the same guys who think steroids should be punishable by death worship Mays, Aaron, and a whole generation of players who popped greenies. Yes I know there are differences, but even so...

Just like I referred to with the uppers-laced coffee that teams like the Yankees (and thus maybe Maris and Mantle) used to be known for using and providing for their players.

Funny thing is though, that when you try to question others why such a bias in favor of their favorite players, they'll typically give you no real answer, and refuse to admit to their biased and often illogical reasoning. LOL

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Just like I referred to with the uppers-laced coffee that teams like the Yankees (and thus maybe Maris and Mantle) used to be known for using and providing for their players.

Funny thing is though, that when you try to question others why such a bias in favor of their favorite players, they'll typically give you no real answer, and refuse to admit to their biased and often illogical reasoning. LOL

Not to defend steroids, but every generation tries for an edge in whatever way it can. Maybe by the 80s that edge was higher tech, and I get the difference between no official ban on greenies and an eventual ban on steroids, but it seems a bit inconsistent to worship Mays and vilify Bonds, for example. I agree there's some heavy nostalgia bias there.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not to defend steroids, but every generation tries for an edge in whatever way it can. Maybe by the 80s that edge was higher tech, and I get the difference between no official ban on greenies and an eventual ban on steroids, but it seems a bit inconsistent to worship Mays and vilify Bonds, for example. I agree there's some heavy nostalgia bias there.

Hey, like I also alluded to, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying! Typical male-dominated, uber-competitive, testosterone heavy thinking and expectations. And again, why it seems weird when just a couple or so players get caught cheating, they are often regaled and revered for doing so and trying so hard to win. But when a lot/most of the players do such cheating, the reaction and fan sentiment is more often the exact opposite. Go figure.

I always think back to the time Albert Belle got caught with a corked bat, and one of his teammates actually climbed through the false ceiling and broke into the umpire's dressing room to swap it out for a clean one. Instead of being vilified for doing all that, Belle and his teammate are almost looked upon as sort of revered folk heroes in some areas whenever that story comes up. Yet, whenever talk of Belle's HOF aspirations comes up, it isn't the cheating that is considered the reason he's not getting in. It's the injury shortened career, along with his other not so normal/acceptable actions and stunts, like chasing down trick-or-treating kids with his SUV for egging his house, among other not so great things.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The point I always get vilified for, the same guys who think steroids should be punishable by death worship Mays, Aaron, and a whole generation of players who popped greenies. Yes I know there are differences, but even so...

An admittedly small sample size, but I can state with certainty that greenies did NOT improve my hitting in any way. Even with a bit more focus, I still can't hit anything with any real speed to it.

[G1911]

Greenies were not against the rules, and did not produce video game statistics.

Steroids were against baseball rules (I don't see much case for punishing players before this was true) and did in fact produce absurd video game statistics.

Dexedrine and steroids are very, very different and were treated very differently in the rules at the times in discussion, and produced very different effects.

Deciding many decades later something was not okay to retroactively punish almost everyone of that period makes little sense to me.

I am fine with inducting the steroid guys, it should just be done 1) with a reasonable justification if one is given and 2) not only for guys the writers swoon for (Ortiz) but applied consistently.

[steve B]

I would have to do a lot of looking up that's more challenging than usual, but I think to some degree the MLB finally cracking down was essentially forced by the IOC which required strict adherence to WADA rules. (which are debatably draconian)
Baseball was in for 2008, but that planning goes back close to 4 years, and their programs which didn't exist much earlier were too weak in 04 and even with stiffer penalties not much better in 05. They didn't even ban HGH until 2011.

Without the IOC taking away an occasional bit of world stage, would they have instituted any programs at all?

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The point I always get vilified for, the same guys who think steroids should be punishable by death worship Mays, Aaron, and a whole generation of players who popped greenies. Yes I know there are differences, but even so...

….why do people believe that 50’s & 60’s players didn’t have access to steroids. Steroids have been around a long time….1930’s.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

….why do people believe that 50’s & 60’s players didn’t have access to steroids. Steroids have been around a long time….1930’s.

Is there an evidentiary basis of steroids being common in baseball in the 1930’s, 1950’s or 1960’s? What is the source for its usage during this period?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

….why do people believe that 50’s & 60’s players didn’t have access to steroids. Steroids have been around a long time….1930’s.

Of course steroids were available but how does that prove that players actually took them? We know what players who take steroids look like, what players from the 1950's and 1960's had that look of being bulked up?

[Seven]

I've been refraining from responding, because I have what is deemed to be a little more of a controversial opinion on the matter, when it comes to Performance Enhancing Users getting into the Hall of Fame. To answer the original question, I think Alex Rodriguez ends up being the first one to get in, with an official PED suspension. He's rehabilitated his image enough, and he's involved with the game still as he's apart of media coverage.

Frankly guys like McGwire, Sosa, Palmerio, Bonds, Clemens, and Rodriguez, should all be in. Steroids, HGH, etc, are not magical drugs. There have been countless players that have taken PED's and their performance did not improve. You have to have more than a modicum of skill for them to be effective. Otherwise players like David Segui, or Jason Grimsley or Jeremy Giambi would've become world beaters.

Furthermore, if you're of the opinion that one instance of PED usage automatically eliminates you from induction to the Hall of Fame, than half of the Hall would not be members. You cannot say "well Amphetamines' usage is okay, but Anabolic Steroids are not." A PED is a PED

Gossage, Mantle, Koufax, Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, and Stargell at one point, used some sort of substance whether it was a steroid, an amphetamine or straight up abusing Painkillers in the case of Koufax. Pud Galvin, and Babe Ruth used Animal Testosterone at various points in their life. Even if it was one instance, why are any of those above acceptable?

I don't think it's a case of "whataboutism" the owners certainly had no problem with Bonds roiding up and launching baseballs into the stratosphere, because it allowed them to line their pockets with more money. I certainly enjoyed watching him do it. If you want to put an asterisk next to their numbers, then by all means do so. But the Baseball Hall of Fame is a museum that recognizes the history and greatness of the game, scars included. The contributions of these men, to the game of baseball were important, they happened, and they should be recognized, and if it's with an asterisk, so be it.

It's a little ridiculous to me that the player with the most MVP's, and a slew of offensive records, along with the pitcher with the most Cy Youngs, are both not in the Hall of Fame. I'll end my rant here. Thank you for reading.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Of course steroids were available but how does that prove that players actually took them? We know what players who take steroids look like, what players from the 1950's and 1960's had that look of being bulked up?

A person can take steroids without bulking up. If that was the case every asthma kid would be shredded. The combination of steroids and modern weight room training is what has created the "ripped" and bulged look. 50s and 60s players trained differently and it resulted in a different physique.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Of course steroids were available but how does that prove that players actually took them? We know what players who take steroids look like, what players from the 1950's and 1960's had that look of being bulked up?

We know what steroid users look like that use it specifically to maintain an extra 25lbs of muscle mass and little more. There are other nuances that can be identified visually to the experienced….but most would be oblivious.

If a person has an injury that kept them from the gym for 6 months a steroid cycle would allow them to get 6 months of atrophy back in a few weeks. No one would notice.

Think of steroids as a recovery tool.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

You're asking how cheating is different from agreed upon manipulations? When they built new Yankee Stadium it's not like the Yankees needed to get all 30 teams to sign off on their dimensions. The league's rules allow them to build their stadium to already agreed upon limits.

I really don't see any correlation between a new stadium and Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire deciding to cheat and pretending they weren't.

+1. I'm fine with either keeping the cheaters out or letting them in (I would not punish, nor think it reasonable to punish, those who strictly used before it was actually against the rules), but some of the arguments made are just completely nonsensical. When did the Yankees violate the rules on park dimensions? "Thing 1 I do not like" does not equal "Thing 2 I do not like". No argument using this logic ever stands to cursory examination.