Trump calls on Baseball Hall of Fame to admit Roger Clemens

[G1911]

"With Pettitte essentially neutralized, the case came down to Clemens’ word against McNamee’s. McNamee provided medical waste he said proved he had injected Clemens with steroids in 2001, but although cotton balls in the waste were shown to contain traces of Clemens’ DNA, blood on a needle McNamee also kept was not a definitive match to the pitcher."

https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-xp...619-story.html

So the provable DNA was on different items than the steroids - and some of the DNA wasn't even a definitive match. Looks like the evidence against Clemens is even less than I thought.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by G1911

McNamee's DNA evidence, as I recall, was stored in a can in a box in his house for several years to use as future blackmail, and the single needle that tested positive for steroids didn't have Clemens DNA on it - his DNA was on the cotton balls and other needles (which he said was for B12 and his doctor testified too). Perhaps some evidence, but if we must dismiss Ortiz' genuine failed tests we are setting a very high bar to have a consistent standard (that worst of all things).

I would guess both used, but there is not much against Clemens and I'm having an extremely hard time seeing equal or greater evidence for the villain when we are dismissing failed tests for the hero.

Location: Massachusetts

I'm from Massachusetts, but I'm not sure why that's relevant. Clemens and Ortiz both played for the Red Sox, and Clemens was my favorite pitcher growing up.

More importantly, my position isn't necessarily that Ortiz was clean. It's that we don't know what he tested positive for in 2003, because the results covered a wide range of PEDs -- not just steroids. I'm on record in another HOF thread acknowledging that Ortiz might have used steroids, that MLB probably looked the other way until it couldn't anymore, and that all the elite players suspected of using steroids (including Clemens and Bonds) should be inducted.

Originally Posted by gunboat82

I think it's quite possible that players like Ortiz continued using through retirement and weren't detected. My main point is that it also requires an inference that MLB made a conscious decision to look the other way, knowing full well that players can and do cheat the drug testing. It would mean MLB tested purely for show, to placate the public and perhaps get Congress off their backs.

That wouldn't surprise me at all... professional sports leagues have no guiding principle beyond maximizing profits. But it also makes it extremely difficult for me to condemn known users for violating the "integrity" of the sport, or to give players who flunk the eyeball test a pass. I just think it's logically inconsistent for voters to act like purists when it comes to individual players, while giving a moral pass to MLB, a co-conspirator that reaped the financial benefits of steroids and marketed the hell out of the most prominent users.

Bottom line: I think all the elite performers should be in the Hall, with a notation on their plaques that they played under the cloud of the steroid era. And if we're going to assume that certain players used PEDs after testing was in place, then we should also assume that MLB knew about it and ignored it to protect the product.

[egri]

Originally Posted by KJA

That's the way I see it, if Selig is in then so should everybody else

I used to be on the side of keep the juicers out, but when Selig went in (followed by Torre, La Russa, etc) I thought it was very hypocritical to keep the players out while letting in the owners and executives who at best looked the other way, or at worst, enabled the steroid era, who profited off of it, and then did their best Captain Renault impersonations when the music stopped.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

I'm from Massachusetts, but I'm not sure why that's relevant. Clemens and Ortiz both played for the Red Sox, and Clemens was my favorite pitcher growing up.

More importantly, my position isn't necessarily that Ortiz was clean. It's that we don't know what he tested positive for in 2003, because the results covered a wide range of PEDs -- not just steroids. I'm on record in another HOF thread acknowledging that Ortiz might have used steroids, that MLB probably looked the other way until it couldn't anymore, and that all the elite players suspected of using steroids (including Clemens and Bonds) should be inducted.

The smiley indicates it is less than sincere - a joke that Red Sox fans tend to defend Ortiz heavily.

I'd love to hear how there is more evidence that Clemens used than that Ortiz did, since that was my claim you disagreed with. Clemens DNA was on different items than the steroid items in McNamee's blackmail box and some of it wasn't even a definitive match to him at all anyways - This should be used against Clemens anyways but we have to dismiss Ortiz' failed test because we don't know which PED he tested positive for only that it was a PED on the list of illegitimate substances being tested for? This is the perfect illustration of my point. Accusation and nonsense is enough for some players; material evidence must be dismissed for certain others though.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by G1911

My point is made here - the board will leap to explain away failures and dismiss actual material evidence for Ortiz's guilt to let him off the hook, yet simultaneously leap to deny evidence is even needed to blame Clemens and complain if anyone asks for evidence.

I don't see how acknowledging that the survey test was flawed, and then pointing out the literally dozens of times Ortiz was tested by MLB and passed each and every time, is "leaping to explain" anything. Those are just facts. Also, it's not really "actual material evidence" if the league states the results of the survey test were compromised. Manfred at the time said that there were "legitimate scientific reasons to doubt some results" and that false positives had been reported due to perfectly legal, over-the-counter supplements. This is also in no way to say that this proves unequivocally that Ortiz was clean his entire career. But it seems a stretch to call Ortiz "a known cheater" when he passed a myriad of tests from 2004 through the end of his career.

And just to point out, this isn't a personal vendetta against Clemens either. If the situations were reversed, I would make the same points about Clemens that I made about Ortiz. I'm not even saying that I think Ortiz deserved the HOF and Clemens doesn't. While Clemens was found "not guilty", that's a world apart from being "innocent". And there was considerably more smoke around Clemens accusations. So right, wrong or indifferent, I definitely can at least understand why the voters, time and again, have treated these situations differently.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I don't see how acknowledging that the survey test was flawed, and then pointing out the literally dozens of times Ortiz was tested by MLB and passed each and every time, is "leaping to explain" anything. Those are just facts. Also, it's not really "actual material evidence" if the league states the results of the survey test were compromised. Manfred at the time said that there were "legitimate scientific reasons to doubt some results" and that false positives had been reported due to perfectly legal, over-the-counter supplements. This is also in no way to say that this proves unequivocally that Ortiz was clean his entire career. But it seems a stretch to call Ortiz "a known cheater" when he passed a myriad of tests from 2004 through the end of his career.

And just to point out, this isn't a personal vendetta against Clemens either. If the situations were reversed, I would make the same points about Clemens that I made about Ortiz. I'm not even saying that I think Ortiz deserved the HOF and Clemens doesn't. While Clemens was found "not guilty", that's a world apart from being "innocent". And there was considerably more smoke around Clemens accusations. So right, wrong or indifferent, I definitely can at least understand why the voters, time and again, have treated these situations differently.

Clemens also passed "dozens of times" (I doubt either were tested this many times), and never failed. If that's proof for Ortiz being innocent, how is it not proof for Clemens being innocent? If the situations were reversed, you would clearly not make the same argument because you can make the same argument right now - if this is your reason for letting Ortiz off, then Clemens also passes that exact same bar. He actually clears it better because there are 0 failed tests to dismiss instead of 1. This is, yet again, a perfect example of wildly different standards being used with one very strict one for one player and a very loose one for the player we want to let off.

Unlike Ortiz. If a positive test has to be thrown out because it *could* be a false positive, which is always possible and always has been in every incarnation of the tests, then why is the mere accusation proof enough for Clemens? It is true that there is more evidence for Ortiz than Clemens. Nobody is able to locate any actual evidence against Clemens; the same is just not true for Ortiz.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by G1911

Clemens also passed "dozens of times" (I doubt either were tested this many times), and never failed. If that's proof for Ortiz being innocent, how is it not proof for Clemens being innocent? If the situations were reversed, you would clearly not make the same argument because you can make the same argument right now - if this is your reason for letting Ortiz off, then Clemens also passes that exact same bar. He actually clears it better because there are 0 failed tests to dismiss instead of 1. This is, yet again, a perfect example of wildly different standards being used with one very strict one for one player and a very loose one for the player we want to let off.

You clearly missed the part where I said the fact that the survey test results were thrown out was not iron-clad proof of Ortiz's innocence. It's right there in the first paragraph of my previous reply. I do however, bristle when I hear people say Ortiz was a cheater as if it is an undeniable fact. Likewise, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that Clemens was a cheater as if it's an undeniable fact. People are very quick to speak about things as if they have all the facts when the reality is they do not, and never will, have the whole story.

And yes, Ortiz was tested dozens of times, from 2004 to 2016. 13 years, multiple times each year. Clemens retired in 2007 and was subjected to far fewer tests, but probably still in double digits. And yes, you are correct, Clemens never failed any tests either. However, this isn't my bar, as you put it. Bonds and McGwire never failed a test either, and both admitted to using (though Bonds said it was unknowingly).

Originally Posted by G1911

Unlike Ortiz. If a positive test has to be thrown out because it *could* be a false positive, which is always possible and always has been in every incarnation of the tests, then why is the mere accusation proof enough for Clemens? It is true that there is more evidence for Ortiz than Clemens. Nobody is able to locate any actual evidence against Clemens; the same is just not true for Ortiz.

There has been no actual evidence located against EITHER player, as the 2003 test results were destroyed and even Ortiz himself was never told what he tested positive for. So saying that's he's guilty is as much speculation as saying Clemens is innocent because the courts found the evidence against him insufficient to convict. It sure feels that you are using the same double standard you are accusing everyone else of using, by admonishing Ortiz for the 2003 test, while simultaneously saying there was no merit to the multiple charges that were brought against Clemens.

So again, I don't know who did what. Neither do you. Neither does anyone on Al Gore's internet. I'm not saying Ortiz definitely deserved induction, or that Clemens definitely does not. I wouldn't be up in arms about it if Clemens does get inducted. I never said it was right that he is being kept out. I am only saying that given the situations, and the way everything unfolded in real time, I can certainly understand how people can view these cases in entirely different light. And that's why one guy is in the HOF right now while the other is outside looking in.