We can speculate all day.
We can demand to be addressed.
We can be given statements, denials, admissions, and apologies.
Yet it seems that few are satisfied.
Perhaps satisfaction will only come
when the integrity of the game is restored and the playing ability of its athletes is honest and true.
May we learn from mistakes and work
towards a better future.
Given the evidence relative to Clemens, I believe that he'd have to be found not guilty in a criminal trial. If he were to press a civil suit I don't believe the preponderance of the evidence would be on his side. Of course none of us know for sure, that's why they play the game...I mean why they hold the trial...I mean settle out of court.
quote:Perhaps satisfaction will only come
when the integrity of the game is restored and the playing ability of its athletes is honest and true.
Good point ssm! Recriminations will not solve anything.
The only concern I really have is for our children. I want the game cleaned up yesterday so they are not pressured/tempted into these type of activities. I could care less about the hall of fame and/or the record books in the grand scheme of things. Satisfaction will come when they fix this mess. Now we find out they have known about HGH since at least 2003 and it is now almost 2008. It is time for action and I am leary of the excuses coming now from all parties involved (players, management, commissioner, players union, etc).
Curious, since Marion Jones has given up her Olympic Medals and her 4x4 relay team may be forced to do the same, should the Yankees consider returning any of their World Series Titles?
Did you think that after a few years of Barry and the rest of the gang that anyones word will be ever be taken as the truth again. The days of respecting an athlete and his values are all but over. I remember growing up having sport hero's and the only argument was who was the purest hitter not who had the purest blood sample.quote:Originally posted by deldad:
ESPN just did a poll, 73% of people in America who responded believe that Clemens is NOT telling the truth. INTERESTING!!!
CD,
Its too late for my kids - they are 22 and 18 - and they know exactly what has been going on.
Hopefully - the next generation of players wont have to deal with these liars and cheaters.
Its too late for my kids - they are 22 and 18 - and they know exactly what has been going on.
Hopefully - the next generation of players wont have to deal with these liars and cheaters.
quote:rz1 posted: I remember growing up having sport hero's and the only argument was who was the purest hitter not who had the purest blood sample
I learned very early, first hand as a child, that players were all too human, on a personal level. I respected their professional abilities to no end, though.
Now I've lost the ability to watch a game without thinking "Nice hit, or Whoah 99! Is he clean?" How do I get past that?
quote:Now I've lost the ability to watch a game and wonder "Is he clean?" How do I get past that?
You put your morals away for a minute, rub on a little cream, and be one of the boys.
Now you can't criticize because you're also part of the problem. I really feel that's how the the League in general feels. There are probably so many players who have been involved, whether it be 1 shot, 1 layer of cream, 1 pill, 1 "cocktail", or whatever that nobody feels safe regardless of the intent. My money is that close to 80% of todays active players went outside the box during their careers at least once and maybe more if you put the greenies and illegal painkillers into the equation. Scary thought.
quote:Originally posted by rz1:quote:Now I've lost the ability to watch a game and wonder "Is he clean?" How do I get past that?
You put your morals away for a minute, rub on a little cream, and be one of the boys.
Now you can't criticize because you're also part of the problem. I really feel that's how the the League in general feels. There are probably so many players who have been involved, whether it be 1 shot, 1 layer of cream, 1 pill, 1 "cocktail", or whatever that nobody feels safe regardless of the intent. My money is that close to 80% of todays active players went outside the box during their careers at least once and maybe more if you put the greenies and illegal painkillers into the equation. Scary thought.
I beleive the above to be true, we only will ever know about the ones that have been caught taking without an Rx.
There are many players who took steroids perscribed by a doctor, which is legal, you will never know who, what, where, etc. As far as greenies, it was a very common practice for many many years, who knows when that began.
rz is right. I've been dragged into the reality that identifying the dirt is imposible AND irrelivent. The good news is like all trends, by the time it is identified we are around the corner. We are on the downside of steroids and I'm done worrying about the rest of it.
quote:There are many players who took steroids prescribed by a doctor,
There are many docs shakin' in their loafers about this situation and all it takes is one to go down and so many more would follow. So many have either illegally prescribed unneeded drugs or turned their backs on known abuse within this whole situation. Pandoras box has been opened only a crack.
Before you know it a player is going to admit using the stuff and his fallback will be "but.....Dr Ster Oid prescribed it".
Curt Schilling: "Roger, turn in your Cy Youngs won from '97 on." "Jose, you're entire career is a fraud." Schilling can be a bag of wind, but he's right on these (assuming Clemens is guilty).
If Curt wants to call out Clemens, that's fine. They know each other and Schilling is the calibre of player who can do that --- Joe Journeyman wouldn't be "appropriate".
But if he actually wants to be righteous, how about calling out the Players Union? How about putting his voice behind cleaning up the sport and rallying like-minded players to do the same? Recognizing that the problem isn't Clemens, it's the PED's.
But if he actually wants to be righteous, how about calling out the Players Union? How about putting his voice behind cleaning up the sport and rallying like-minded players to do the same? Recognizing that the problem isn't Clemens, it's the PED's.
How about calling out the owners,Selig, all the front office people that knew it was going on and turned their backs on it cause it was about the almighty dollar! All have sinned and fall short of the grace of God!
quote:Originally posted by Orlando:
If Curt wants to call out Clemens, that's fine. They know each other and Schilling is the calibre of player who can do that --- Joe Journeyman wouldn't be "appropriate".
But if he actually wants to be righteous, how about calling out the Players Union? How about putting his voice behind cleaning up the sport and rallying like-minded players to do the same? Recognizing that the problem isn't Clemens, it's the PED's.
quote:Originally posted by rz1:
Before you know it a player is going to admit using the stuff and his fallback will be "but.....Dr Ster Oid prescribed it".
rz, you are right on. There are lots of players who obtained prescriptions or steroids by doctors, whether legit docs or not. I am sure we will be hearing a lot of the above.
Good for him 
I don't know if he is telling the truth or not.
I would want to know why it took so long for a statment? That statement was posted on his website not national TV? Right?
I think he had to say something. I heard someone (Smoltz or Glavin) say if it was them and not true they would have made statements that day. Taking your time to make a statment means you needed to think long and hard on what to say. Why? Waiting puts doubts in peoples minds. For that reason alone and most likely 85% were using something at one time, I am not sure what to beleive anymore.
I would want to know why it took so long for a statment? That statement was posted on his website not national TV? Right?
I think he had to say something. I heard someone (Smoltz or Glavin) say if it was them and not true they would have made statements that day. Taking your time to make a statment means you needed to think long and hard on what to say. Why? Waiting puts doubts in peoples minds. For that reason alone and most likely 85% were using something at one time, I am not sure what to beleive anymore.
He says he'll appear on 60 minutes and get this whole thing straightened out.
What bugs me the most, is the fact that even if he was clean.
He did not pipe up and complain about the cheater's amoung them.
They watched it happen for a lot longer then a few years.
This stuff ( PED's ) have been around in baseball since the 80's.
By the mid 90's players were receiving MVP's, POY's, ect.
And nothing was happening to them.
The coart of public opinion was not in session yet??
So I could see why a player would be led down the wrong path if nothing was being done about it.
It seems like around 96 or 97 they started getting more powerful PED's cause thats when Number's started shooting up in baseball.
More HR's??
I also think the Ball was juiced just a little bit??
Dirty Player's, Clean Players.
It make's no differance to me.
If you knew about it ( PED's )
And you said nothing.
Shame on all of us for not being more diligent.
It's a scurge that I hope gets cleaned up soon.
I feel sorry for the player that was clean and just couldn't get noticed for the roided out player was getting all the accolades.
But they should of been able to say something to somebody.
Unless they were in the Minority?
JMHO
EH
He did not pipe up and complain about the cheater's amoung them.
They watched it happen for a lot longer then a few years.
This stuff ( PED's ) have been around in baseball since the 80's.
By the mid 90's players were receiving MVP's, POY's, ect.
And nothing was happening to them.
The coart of public opinion was not in session yet??
So I could see why a player would be led down the wrong path if nothing was being done about it.
It seems like around 96 or 97 they started getting more powerful PED's cause thats when Number's started shooting up in baseball.
More HR's??
I also think the Ball was juiced just a little bit??
Dirty Player's, Clean Players.
It make's no differance to me.
If you knew about it ( PED's )
And you said nothing.
Shame on all of us for not being more diligent.
It's a scurge that I hope gets cleaned up soon.
I feel sorry for the player that was clean and just couldn't get noticed for the roided out player was getting all the accolades.
But they should of been able to say something to somebody.
Unless they were in the Minority?
JMHO
EH
That's nice that he has finally spoken, but I have the following questions and complaints:
1: Why so long?
2: Why 60 minutes? Are the questions going to be scripted? Does Clemens and his attorneys have the right to refuse certain questions and will they be provided prior to the interview? Will it be edited?
3: Why the controlled setting? I would find it more believeable and settling if he took all questions from all comers. Open news conference for all reporters. Sit there as long as they have questions.
4: Has he presented himself for questioning under oath to the US attorney? Part of McNamees deal was that if he lied he could be charged with obstruction (the same charge that Bonds is facing). Why wouldn't Clemens avail himself to the Grand Jury and testify under oath.
I have watched the statement. I am not satisfied but holding out hope.
1: Why so long?
2: Why 60 minutes? Are the questions going to be scripted? Does Clemens and his attorneys have the right to refuse certain questions and will they be provided prior to the interview? Will it be edited?
3: Why the controlled setting? I would find it more believeable and settling if he took all questions from all comers. Open news conference for all reporters. Sit there as long as they have questions.
4: Has he presented himself for questioning under oath to the US attorney? Part of McNamees deal was that if he lied he could be charged with obstruction (the same charge that Bonds is facing). Why wouldn't Clemens avail himself to the Grand Jury and testify under oath.
I have watched the statement. I am not satisfied but holding out hope.
First, we don't know for sure if Clemens took steroids or HGH. We have the word of one man with questionable character with a plea bargain. I say the following understanding the guy could get in a lot of trouble for lying.
If I remember there isn't any evidence on Clemens. Just one person's word. 60 Minutes is a controlled environment where Clemens can sway opinion. 60 Minutes is a TV show. Ratings are more important than morality. It will be one of the most watched shows of the year. Clemens can turn the debate into my word (Clemens) versus the trainer and demand evidence be brought forth if there are going to be accusations.
Even if Clemens took steriods, there won't be any evidence. He'll demand respect for his career and win the PR battle. He may not be innocent. But he's going to come out of this "not guilty."
If I remember there isn't any evidence on Clemens. Just one person's word. 60 Minutes is a controlled environment where Clemens can sway opinion. 60 Minutes is a TV show. Ratings are more important than morality. It will be one of the most watched shows of the year. Clemens can turn the debate into my word (Clemens) versus the trainer and demand evidence be brought forth if there are going to be accusations.
Even if Clemens took steriods, there won't be any evidence. He'll demand respect for his career and win the PR battle. He may not be innocent. But he's going to come out of this "not guilty."
I understand that Clemens' accuser was invited to join him on 60 minutes and refused. His accusers lawyer says his life is ruined by all this and he just wants it all to go away.
Now isnt that nice--he opens the box and now he wants to be left alone !!!!
Now isnt that nice--he opens the box and now he wants to be left alone !!!!
Do you think that the accuser had a choice not to accuse? 
This is America--everyone has a choice---most players know what is happening and most abide by the "clubhouse ethic"--
Check out the past history of the accusers and then you come tell me they are ideal citizens---they are just saving their hides
Check out the past history of the accusers and then you come tell me they are ideal citizens---they are just saving their hides
What Clubhouse ethic? Clubhouse ethic is/was, don't rat on your teammate.
At one time, not too long ago, at least 80-85% of players were indulging in some type of performance enhancing drug which was not allowed.
For me that's the scary part, which of the players who might make up the 15-20% am I supposed to believe?
At one time, not too long ago, at least 80-85% of players were indulging in some type of performance enhancing drug which was not allowed.
For me that's the scary part, which of the players who might make up the 15-20% am I supposed to believe?
TPM
Where do you get your numbers and percentages?
Please explain---you sound like the accusers
Where do you get your numbers and percentages?
Please explain---you sound like the accusers
Uh, let's see, I made it up along with everyone else?
UMMMMMMM
Perhaps you did !!!
Where did you get the percentages?
Just a guess on XMAS EVE?
Perhaps you did !!!
Where did you get the percentages?
Just a guess on XMAS EVE?
TR,
Have a wonderful Christmas.
Have a wonderful Christmas.
If I see some one robbing your house and I call the police I'm I a rat?
What if you notice one of your team mates (pitcher) applying grease under the bill of his cap and a file under his belt in the clubhouse? What should you do?
So where does it go from here? There will be plenty of Clemens apologists as well as accusers.I guess you'll have to make up your own mind. I know I made up mine... looks like, talks like, walks like a duck,well it must be a duck then. Even some of the guys that came out and said hey I did it were still trying to cover up and lie about pointed questions. You could see it all over Vina's face! I'd probably have a little more respect for Clemens if he'd cop to whatever he's done and then maybe get behind a strong front to rid the game of this ****.I can't help but wonder how many Roger apologists believed Rose didn't gamble on his own team as well? Rose kept that lie going for what a decade?
prepare for weak ground balls to 2B?quote:by PG: What if you notice one of your team mates (pitcher) applying grease under the bill of his cap and a file under his belt in the clubhouse? What should you do?
I’m not sure I see a single apologist on here. I just see accusers and others who are waiting to see the results. We all have our opinions, but I doubt any of us knows for absolutely sure. Of course it doesn't look good for the accused, but to lend some balance to the discussion.
I had a discussion with a friend of mine who happens to be a prosecuting county attorney. His take on all this and exact discription of McNamee.
They needed some big names to justify the cost and time involved. There are plenty of incentives that can be given behind the curtain to entice or force a “RAT” to say most anything. We depend on Rats all the time. It seems that words like "Rat" and "Snitch", are used by all sides when it comes to describing "Informants".
I understand the importance of all this, but it’s odd that everyone seems to give Mitchell and McNamee the benefit of all doubt.
IMO, Mitchell was not the right person to finger Clemens, simply based on his position with the Boston Red Sox if nothing else. He has worked in the Red Sox front office as a director. Not saying he was wrong about anything in this investigation, but he has been a lawyer and politician most of his life. Maybe he is one of those honest politicians? BTW, He was once criticized for lobbying on behalf of his law firms Big Tobacco clients. We all know how many people tobacco has killed! Thanks George!
We all heard about the potential jail time McNamee faced if he lied. Does anyone actually believe that was the end of any discussion regarding incentives to McNamee. Could there have been discussions just one on one with McNamee and someone else?
Here’s what I think…
Roger Clemens may have or may not have taken steroids.
Andy Pettite may have only taken HGH twice or maybe more.
George Mitchell may or may not have uncovered the complete truth.
We all know everything we need to know about McNamee. We all know what his major concern is.
Here’s hoping we can all learn the truth someday, if that’s possible.
While we’re at it… Here is another odd thing from that investigation. I must admit I haven’t read it all, but remember when Rafael Palmeiro tested positive? His excuse, which seemed very lame at the time to most everyone, was that Tejada had given him something he thought was something else (vitamins?). Both the testing positive and then dragging in a team mate were reason for everyone to go crazy. Bye Bye Raffy!
Then we have a 20 month investigation where 80+ names are listed. Doesn’t anyone find it strange in some way that Palmeiro’s name was only on that list based on his positive test result and suspension, yet guess whose name was on the list … Tejada! At Least it has to make one think, doesn’t it?
Here is what the 20 month investigation and Mitchell Report said regarding Palmeiro…
On August 1, 2005, Major League Baseball announced that Baltimore Orioles first baseman and designated hitter Rafael Palmeiro had violated the league's joint drug program and would be suspended for 10 games. Palmeiro subsequently acknowledged that he had tested positive for the anabolic steroid stanozolol, the generic name for Winstrol, but he repeatedly denied that he had ever "intentionally taken steroids."
Surely they didn’t have to pay anyone to gather that information. In 20 months, with millions of dollars, that’s all they could uncover on Palmeiro? Doesn’t that seem a little strange?
In the interest of fairness, here is what they had on Tejada…
Radomski recalled receiving a call from Piatt during which he said he needed extra testosterone because "one of the guys wanted some." In a later conversation, Piatt told Radomski that the testosterone was for his teammate, Miguel Tejada. Radomski never spoke, or sold performance enhancing substances, directly to Tejada.
Accuser – NO
Apologist – ABSOLUTELY NOT
Anti PED – ABSOLUETLY YES
A little Skeptical - YES
I had a discussion with a friend of mine who happens to be a prosecuting county attorney. His take on all this and exact discription of McNamee.
They needed some big names to justify the cost and time involved. There are plenty of incentives that can be given behind the curtain to entice or force a “RAT” to say most anything. We depend on Rats all the time. It seems that words like "Rat" and "Snitch", are used by all sides when it comes to describing "Informants".
I understand the importance of all this, but it’s odd that everyone seems to give Mitchell and McNamee the benefit of all doubt.
IMO, Mitchell was not the right person to finger Clemens, simply based on his position with the Boston Red Sox if nothing else. He has worked in the Red Sox front office as a director. Not saying he was wrong about anything in this investigation, but he has been a lawyer and politician most of his life. Maybe he is one of those honest politicians? BTW, He was once criticized for lobbying on behalf of his law firms Big Tobacco clients. We all know how many people tobacco has killed! Thanks George!
We all heard about the potential jail time McNamee faced if he lied. Does anyone actually believe that was the end of any discussion regarding incentives to McNamee. Could there have been discussions just one on one with McNamee and someone else?
Here’s what I think…
Roger Clemens may have or may not have taken steroids.
Andy Pettite may have only taken HGH twice or maybe more.
George Mitchell may or may not have uncovered the complete truth.
We all know everything we need to know about McNamee. We all know what his major concern is.
Here’s hoping we can all learn the truth someday, if that’s possible.
While we’re at it… Here is another odd thing from that investigation. I must admit I haven’t read it all, but remember when Rafael Palmeiro tested positive? His excuse, which seemed very lame at the time to most everyone, was that Tejada had given him something he thought was something else (vitamins?). Both the testing positive and then dragging in a team mate were reason for everyone to go crazy. Bye Bye Raffy!
Then we have a 20 month investigation where 80+ names are listed. Doesn’t anyone find it strange in some way that Palmeiro’s name was only on that list based on his positive test result and suspension, yet guess whose name was on the list … Tejada! At Least it has to make one think, doesn’t it?
Here is what the 20 month investigation and Mitchell Report said regarding Palmeiro…
On August 1, 2005, Major League Baseball announced that Baltimore Orioles first baseman and designated hitter Rafael Palmeiro had violated the league's joint drug program and would be suspended for 10 games. Palmeiro subsequently acknowledged that he had tested positive for the anabolic steroid stanozolol, the generic name for Winstrol, but he repeatedly denied that he had ever "intentionally taken steroids."
Surely they didn’t have to pay anyone to gather that information. In 20 months, with millions of dollars, that’s all they could uncover on Palmeiro? Doesn’t that seem a little strange?
In the interest of fairness, here is what they had on Tejada…
Radomski recalled receiving a call from Piatt during which he said he needed extra testosterone because "one of the guys wanted some." In a later conversation, Piatt told Radomski that the testosterone was for his teammate, Miguel Tejada. Radomski never spoke, or sold performance enhancing substances, directly to Tejada.
Accuser – NO
Apologist – ABSOLUTELY NOT
Anti PED – ABSOLUETLY YES
A little Skeptical - YES
MLB had over 100 players tested positive for steriods in 2003. Have they released the results? HMM I wonder why?
What was it $44 million and 20 months. How long and how much money to uncover that 2003 list? Was it protected from the Mitchell investigators? Seems like that could have been done in less than a day and at hardly any cost if it exists somewhere.
Conscience casts vote for Clemens
By Michael Silverman / Baseball
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Since the Mitchell Report landed in a pile of mud at Roger Clemens’ feet, splattering him so much that he finally felt compelled to post a YouTube denial, the question keeps getting asked: Would you vote to include him in the Hall of Fame?
The answer is clear to this voter: absolutely. Wipe away the still-wet mud from Clemens’ mug, look beyond the incredibly blockheaded wiring in his brain that, according to Brian McNamee, OK’d the usage of performance-enhancing drugs, and there’s still Cooperstown bronze underneath.
The same “yes” vote will go to Barry Bonds when his time comes, whether or not he is still in prison, freshly released or somehow avoided it.
Mark McGwire? He’ll get a check mark this year, just like last year.
Also on the 2008 ballot, Tim Raines, an admitted cocaine addict very early in his career, is going to get my vote.
Had this voter been eligible to vote when Paul Molitor (cocaine) was up for election, he would have gotten a check mark, too.
Willie Mays? His name popped up in testimony in the 1985 Pittsburgh cocaine trials as someone who kept liquid amphetamines in his locker. Upon no reflection, he’d have gotten a vote.
And Ty Cobb? He was as vile and repugnant a racist as any ballplayer who ever played, yet, of course, he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
And Gaylord Perry, the spit-baller, and Don Sutton, the alleged scuff-baller . . . oh, never mind: That kind of cheating happened between the white lines, not off the field, so that’s cool.
All of them were great baseball players with Hall of Fame credentials. All of them have either admitted to or are being linked to cheating - either through artificial enhancement or bending the rules - or were simply reprehensible human beings.
And what exactly does that have to do with keeping them out of the Hall of Fame? The answer is the knee-jerk response that so many voters have at the ready, the “he cheated, he’s not getting my vote” mantra.
Who’s a cheater? Better yet, can someone say what cheating means anymore? You used HGH once in a 15-year career and you’re out? Four times is your cutoff? You were suspected but never failed a test? You failed a test? That apparently is the belief of many of the baseball writers who are admired and respected the most, whose integrity and professionalism are impeccable, whose writing style is the most graceful, whose sources are iron-clad.
This voter does not relate.
Baseball writers have as many opinions as they do Marriott Rewards points, and maintaining a healthy balance of both is a good thing. The Hall of Fame voting process remains highly subjective most years, and the career stats of a player like Raines or Jim Rice or Andre Dawson or Bert Blyleven can still spark a good and worthy argument about how deserving they really are for the Hall. But when it comes to assessing character, the lobe - anatomically speaking, it’s the “highandmightius” one - in some voters’ brains starts twitching, they scramble atop their soapbox and begin pointing fingers, spreading blame and crying shame.
The current-day Hall of Fame voter who is being asked to judge the career of McGwire, or Clemens and Bonds in the future, does not have enough information to invoke the character clause in the Hall of Fame ballot.
Compassion for mistakes made, forgiveness, a realization that nobody, yet, is perfect? Mortals judging other mortals on this kind of stuff? Yeesh. That soapbox is way too slippery a foundation to stand on on a clear day, never mind in the middle of this current storm.
For the last 10, 15 years or so, there is little doubt that every team hadplenty of juiced hitters and juiced pitchers on their rosters. Right now, it is a safe bet that every 40-man roster still has at least a few players who have already lined up their HGH source for 2008.
There’s nothing admirable about this, nothing to condone it. But deny the worthy a spot in Cooperstown?
That’s not our call to make, in good conscience.
That rocket left the launching pad a long, long time ago. Unless voters want to take a scouring pad and detergent to the list of inductees - beginning with the first, Cobb - it’s not coming back.
---------------------------------------------------
Here's the key phrase as I see it:
The current-day Hall of Fame voter who is being asked to judge the career of McGwire, or Clemens and Bonds in the future, does not have enough information to invoke the character clause in the Hall of Fame ballot.
By Michael Silverman / Baseball
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Since the Mitchell Report landed in a pile of mud at Roger Clemens’ feet, splattering him so much that he finally felt compelled to post a YouTube denial, the question keeps getting asked: Would you vote to include him in the Hall of Fame?
The answer is clear to this voter: absolutely. Wipe away the still-wet mud from Clemens’ mug, look beyond the incredibly blockheaded wiring in his brain that, according to Brian McNamee, OK’d the usage of performance-enhancing drugs, and there’s still Cooperstown bronze underneath.
The same “yes” vote will go to Barry Bonds when his time comes, whether or not he is still in prison, freshly released or somehow avoided it.
Mark McGwire? He’ll get a check mark this year, just like last year.
Also on the 2008 ballot, Tim Raines, an admitted cocaine addict very early in his career, is going to get my vote.
Had this voter been eligible to vote when Paul Molitor (cocaine) was up for election, he would have gotten a check mark, too.
Willie Mays? His name popped up in testimony in the 1985 Pittsburgh cocaine trials as someone who kept liquid amphetamines in his locker. Upon no reflection, he’d have gotten a vote.
And Ty Cobb? He was as vile and repugnant a racist as any ballplayer who ever played, yet, of course, he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
And Gaylord Perry, the spit-baller, and Don Sutton, the alleged scuff-baller . . . oh, never mind: That kind of cheating happened between the white lines, not off the field, so that’s cool.
All of them were great baseball players with Hall of Fame credentials. All of them have either admitted to or are being linked to cheating - either through artificial enhancement or bending the rules - or were simply reprehensible human beings.
And what exactly does that have to do with keeping them out of the Hall of Fame? The answer is the knee-jerk response that so many voters have at the ready, the “he cheated, he’s not getting my vote” mantra.
Who’s a cheater? Better yet, can someone say what cheating means anymore? You used HGH once in a 15-year career and you’re out? Four times is your cutoff? You were suspected but never failed a test? You failed a test? That apparently is the belief of many of the baseball writers who are admired and respected the most, whose integrity and professionalism are impeccable, whose writing style is the most graceful, whose sources are iron-clad.
This voter does not relate.
Baseball writers have as many opinions as they do Marriott Rewards points, and maintaining a healthy balance of both is a good thing. The Hall of Fame voting process remains highly subjective most years, and the career stats of a player like Raines or Jim Rice or Andre Dawson or Bert Blyleven can still spark a good and worthy argument about how deserving they really are for the Hall. But when it comes to assessing character, the lobe - anatomically speaking, it’s the “highandmightius” one - in some voters’ brains starts twitching, they scramble atop their soapbox and begin pointing fingers, spreading blame and crying shame.
The current-day Hall of Fame voter who is being asked to judge the career of McGwire, or Clemens and Bonds in the future, does not have enough information to invoke the character clause in the Hall of Fame ballot.
Compassion for mistakes made, forgiveness, a realization that nobody, yet, is perfect? Mortals judging other mortals on this kind of stuff? Yeesh. That soapbox is way too slippery a foundation to stand on on a clear day, never mind in the middle of this current storm.
For the last 10, 15 years or so, there is little doubt that every team hadplenty of juiced hitters and juiced pitchers on their rosters. Right now, it is a safe bet that every 40-man roster still has at least a few players who have already lined up their HGH source for 2008.
There’s nothing admirable about this, nothing to condone it. But deny the worthy a spot in Cooperstown?
That’s not our call to make, in good conscience.
That rocket left the launching pad a long, long time ago. Unless voters want to take a scouring pad and detergent to the list of inductees - beginning with the first, Cobb - it’s not coming back.
---------------------------------------------------
Here's the key phrase as I see it:
The current-day Hall of Fame voter who is being asked to judge the career of McGwire, or Clemens and Bonds in the future, does not have enough information to invoke the character clause in the Hall of Fame ballot.