From the headline, I thought it was an obituary. I was surprised.

..."First and foremost I feel Mark McGwire is a very good man. That doesn’t mean that his home run totals are completely authentic, because I don’t think they are. But he’s a good man, he was a good teammate and has many admirable qualities as a person and I feel bad for him that he’s in kind of a purgatory place when it comes to baseball history. I feel bad for him as a person. I know him and I like him."

Gee, a view that reflects both a sympathetic understanding of the man, while at the same time not trying to gloss over his actions. Let's see how long it takes for this to devolve into a nitpicking snarkfest about Costas the snotty elitist dwarf instead of admitting that his take on McGwire might actually reflect a fair take on reality.

From the headline, I thought it was an obituary. I was surprised.

From the headline, I thought it was Belle & Sebastian's follow up to Piazza, New York Catcher.

He wanders 'round ol' 30 Rock
With Emmys in each hand
4 more on chains around his neck
And the rest in shopping bags
Bob Costas, NBC sportsman
Short man or just tall dwarf

It could work, if you got someone who could write actually write song lyrics to do it. I think it's more a Randy Newman number than Belle & Sebastian though. Maybe Leonard Cohen.

It could work, if you got someone who could write actually write song lyrics to do it. I think it's more a Randy Newman number than Belle & Sebastian though. Maybe Leonard Cohen.

I'd like to hear Ray Stevens take a crack at it.

Gee, a view that reflects both a sympathetic understanding of the man, while at the same time not trying to gloss over his actions. Let's see how long it takes for this to devolve into a nitpicking snarkfest about Costas the snotty elitist dwarf instead of admitting that his take on McGwire might actually reflect a fair take on reality.

Is it really nitpicking to note that Costas is just another "wasn't watching" media figure who got paid very well to not say what he (and everybody) knew about PEDs, and is now trying to de-slime themselves? Is it a snarkfest to scoff at Costas' boast that he dropped cryptic clues and tantalizing hints into his announcing? Just enough enigmatic reservation to tip off the canny listener, but definitely enough so that today's Kremlinologists should place Costas among the steroid angels?

Anyway, that's what 2008 Bob Costas recalls about his intense 1998 doubts. If only we could hear from the Bob Costas of 1998...

What luck! Here's Costas in October 1998, speaking for 57 long, relaxed minutes with Charlie Rose:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD7nKteVacI

At approximately 2:45 on the tape, Bob swoons over the McGwire home runs that were hit so far and so hard, there are actual Band-Aids on the signs they struck.

3:50-- Incredulous Bob shares his doubts about McGwire's numbers: "70 is beyond belief... it's just in another galaxy." Then Bob specifically marvels at the way McGwire managed to shatter the record in so few at-bats. You know, the precise thing he now says he was "deeply skeptical" about, as it was happening.

5:15-- Charlie Rose wants to know why HR totals are so high. Bob tells the sad truth: "The conditions are right, with expansion, with the smaller ballparks, with the possibly juiced baseball, with guys pumped up and possibly swinging lighter bats."

6:00-- Charlie Rose asks Costas specifically about McGwire's use of androstenedione: "Does that lessen it for you at all, in terms of the achievement?"

Bob offers the appropriate historical context: Wilt Chamberlain would not average 50 ppg today, Bob Beamon would not have long-jumped 29 feet in a lower altitude, and Yaz led the AL at .301 because the mound was higher. He says that eye-popping records like theirs (and McGwire's) occurred in ideal conditions and therefore such achievements should not be discounted.

Seconds later, Bob's eyes twinkle and he literally cocks his head as he calls McGwire "Bunyanesque." I'm unable to detect traces of his roaring inner skepticism at this moment, but 2008 Costas assures us they're there.

Go through the entirety of the interview. You won't find a word from Bob Costas-- not even an nuance or a wink-- that casts the slightest shadow on McGwire's 70 home runs.

Of course, it's all about context. In 1998, Costas didn't do anything wrong that everyone else wasn't also doing. Saaaay... where have I heard that alibi before?

Yes, the fact that Costas was not among the zero heroic journalists breaking stories about steroids at the time does make him lower than dirty.

The Washington Post's Tom Boswell (1988), the LA Times' Bob Nightengale (1995), and the Associated Press' Steve Wilstein (1998) will no doubt be saddened to find out what zeroes they are.

I agree with both Andy and Gonfalon. Costas' take now is a realistic one. But I reject the idea that he was not one of the media cheerleaders and GF's video underscores the point.

Is it a snarkfest...

I think so, yeah. You can be right and snarky at the same time, and going with words like "scoff", "cryptic", "tantalizing", and "alibi" definitely shows a sarcastic attitude. As for nitpicking, I think you're doing that too, since you get down to the level of calling out specific statements he made in 1998 to contradict things he says today.

I mean, you're still right. But also nitpicking and snarky in the way that you're right.

I think so, yeah. You can be right and snarky at the same time, and going with words like "scoff", "cryptic", "tantalizing", and "alibi" definitely shows a sarcastic attitude. As for nitpicking, I think you're doing that too, since you get down to the level of calling out specific statements he made in 1998 to contradict things he says today.

I mean, you're still right. But also nitpicking and snarky in the way that you're right.

Maybe. But all Costas has to say is something obvious such as, "Like a lot of us in the media, I looked the other way to an extent" and that would be that. Instead, he produces lame spin. It may be deliberate ass-covering; it may be selective memory. But either way, I think he needs to be called on it.

Maybe. But all Costas has to say is something obvious such as, "Like a lot of us in the media, I looked the other way to an extent" and that would be that. Instead, he produces lame spin. It may be deliberate ass-covering; it may be selective memory. But either way, I think he needs to be called on it.

Yeah, I don't see that as nitpicking. If Bob had said "I pointed out the steroid issue dozens of times in 1998" and it turns out he did so only 16 times, that would be nitpicking.

..."First and foremost I feel Mark McGwire is a very good man. That doesn’t mean that his home run totals are completely authentic, because I don’t think they are. But he’s a good man, he was a good teammate and has many admirable qualities as a person and I feel bad for him that he’s in kind of a purgatory place when it comes to baseball history. I feel bad for him as a person. I know him and I like him."

Gee, a view that reflects both a sympathetic understanding of the man, while at the same time not trying to gloss over his actions. Let's see how long it takes for this to devolve into a nitpicking snarkfest about Costas the snotty elitist dwarf instead of admitting that his take on McGwire might actually reflect a fair take on reality.

Is it really nitpicking to note that Costas is just another "wasn't watching" media figure who got paid very well to not say what he (and everybody) knew about PEDs, and is now trying to de-slime themselves? Is it a snarkfest to scoff at Costas' boast that he dropped cryptic clues and tantalizing hints into his announcing? Just enough enigmatic reservation to tip off the canny listener, but definitely enough so that today's Kremlinologists should place Costas among the steroid angels?

"There were reasons why you couldn't say with certainly these guys should be singled out. I didn't have a basis, because this was pre-BALCO, pre-Congressional hearings. I was skeptical, yes. But did I see things that were admirable and even endearing? Yeah — not the least of which was how Mark McGwire comported himself.

"I never pointed the finger at Mark or Sammy because I just didn't have a strong enough basis to do so. Did I get excited about it and did I cheer it when it happened? Yes I did. Did I interview Mark immediately after and express appreciation for what he had done and the way he handled himself? Yes I did. Did I speak words of admiration of him to Tom Brokaw and Matt Lauer (on NBC news shows)? Yes I did. I don't feel bad about that, because based on what we knew at the time I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. But did I have doubts? Sure I did."

Gonfalon, I have no idea what you were saying back in 1998, and for all I know you might have been petitioning baseball to start rummaging through McGwire's locker and medicine cabinet. More power to you if you'd been doing that.

Most people aren't like that. Most people want to give players the benefit of the doubt when it comes to steroids. I know I did. Like most people, it took BALCO and the congressional hearings to convince me that Bonds and McGwire had been juicing.

You can reasonably call this stupid. You can reasonably say that we (and Costas) not only "should have known", but we should have been leveling accusations at McGwire with the same degree of certainty as the fans in Fenway Park as far back as the 80's, who as it turned out were right.

I can't honestly argue with that from a strictly factual point of view. But I can only imagine what the reaction would have been to such accusations, based on little more than suspicious statistics and bicep sizes.

Would you have cheered Costas if he'd done that in 1998? Or would you have been calling him a witchhunter? Do you have any YouTubes of yourself to back that up?

And what in the hell is that "de-sliming" comment supposed to mean? That might make a certain amount of So's Your Momma sense if Costas were now trying to demonize McGwire---but the whole tone of Costas's comments was 180 degrees opposite of that. Costas is most pointedly NOT trying to demonize Mark McGwire.

The only possible meaning of that snarky remark could be that you think that Costas should also pretend that he's as credulous now about McGwire's record as he obviously---and admittedly---was in 1998. But why should he pretend any such thing?

Gonfalon, in all these steroids threads, you've had one constant refrain: That all of baseball was knowing and thereby complicit in the great steroid hoax, from the Commissioner on down to the batboys. And that therefore we should treat the HoF candidacies of the juicers as if they hadn't really juiced.

There's a certain amount of logic to that, but your overall tone is always one of trying to Mau-Mau the rest of us (and by extension, the BBWAA) into accepting that point of view: We were all guilty of complicity because in 1998 we didn't try harder to smoke out the truth, so therefore in 2008 we can't judge the players who actually did the juicing.

Which all adds up to little more than working the refs. But hey, it works for the Republicans.

COSTAS: I don't feel bad about that, because based on what we knew at the time I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. But did I have doubts? Sure I did."

I think you're missing a key point:

COSTAS: At the time I was deeply skeptical about everything that was going on in baseball, and in general terms — without mentioning any specific players’ names — I
had said that on the air.

Which is that Costas is now claiming he dropped in little hints, etc, that showed his doubts. The Rose interview--a perfect time to do so--seems to indicate he really didn't. Maybe he did at other times, but that was a high-profile moment. If he wanted to express some doubts, that was a damn good time to do it. He is articulate and media-savvy enough to have done it cleverly. And of course, no one would have much cared about anybody EXCEPT "Mark and Sammy" using, so that is kind of a lame excuse.

And you are right, to an extent, about the accusation angle, but it is important to remember that a lot of people got on Willstein's ass--hard--in 1998. It wasn't "neutral"--it was almost 100% pro-McGwire. One good thing to know would be what Costas said about that at the time.

Basically, if you look at articles from big names at the time--Will, Verducci, Lupica--none of these guys were questioning what was going on and most of them were creaming their boxers over the great HR race. I don't really hold them accountable for that --few people were asking questions and most fans I knew were pretty psyched. I will say that I myself was calling McGwire "Steroid King" in a joking way in 1998, but it's not like I was worked up/angry about it.

What I DO hold them accountable for--and I think this is what Gonfalon is getting at--is acting like they were skeptical all along and were not cheerleading. In 9 out of 10 cases, that is pure BS.

But hey, it works for the Republicans.

I assume this means you want another political thread.

Which all adds up to little more than working the refs. But hey, it works for the Republicans.

And it works even better for Ferrari.

robin, the clear emphasis of Costas's remarks was to stand up for McGwire as a human being and as a "very good man." It wasn't to trumpet his prior skepticism. That part was subordinate to the character reference. It was the exact opposite of the sort of snarkiness that he often gets accused of.

Obviously what some people want is for Costas (and others) to go a step further and say that "I didn't accuse him of juicing then, so therefore I can't vote against him for the HoF today." (And yes, I know he has no vote, but that's not the point.)

IOW the age old "the courts are corrupt, therefore acquittals for all" line of reasoning, which is one of the perennial narratives of these steroids threads.

As I said, I don't object to gonfalon (or anyone) taking that line. What I do object to is the not-so-subtle implication that anyone who doesn't buy into it is somehow corrupting himself. As I said, it's little more than working the refs.

But fortunately, there are a lot of remaining refs who are going to have to be worked on in order to get McGwire into the Hall.

Obviously what some people want is for Costas (and others) to go a step further and say that "I didn't accuse him of juicing then, so therefore I can't vote against him for the HoF today."

I don't know if GF wants that. To be honest, I wasn't even thinking about the HoF when I posted.

robin, the clear emphasis of Costas's remarks was to stand up for McGwire as a human being and as a "very good man." It wasn't to trumpet his prior skepticism.

Maybe, but I think the emphasis was pretty equal, and I gave Costas credit for the stuff he said about McGwire as a guy.

Darren Rovell wrote a piece about McGwire on 10/5/05. McGwire's so-called foundation mainly existed on paper and he didn't do the community work promised in his congressional appearance. At least to the point Rovell reports, McGwire is by no means a good man.

Obviously what some people want is for Costas (and others) to go a step further and say that "I didn't accuse him of juicing then, so therefore I can't vote against him for the HoF today."

I don't know if GF wants that. To be honest, I wasn't even thinking about the HoF when I posted.

I'll let gonfalon speak for himself on that point, and you've just spoken for yourself. You know my take on McGwire: I have absolutely no idea what he's like as a person, and I don't particularly care. I just don't want him, or any juicer, in the Hall of Fame.

robin, the clear emphasis of Costas's remarks was to stand up for McGwire as a human being and as a "very good man." It wasn't to trumpet his prior skepticism.

Maybe, but I think the emphasis was pretty equal, and I gave Costas credit for the stuff he said about McGwire as a guy.

If you read Costas's remarks in full, I don't see how you can say that the references to his skepticism were anything other than a means of introducing the larger point of what Costas saw as McGwire's exemplary conduct during that home run chase.

Think about it: Doesn't the humanity praise from a skeptic of the record carry more weight than humanity praise from a traditional fanboy? If not, then tell it to everyone who's ever used the argument that "EVEN HIS ENEMIES _________ admit that...."

If you read Costas's remarks in full, I don't see how you can say that the references to his skepticism were anything other than a means of introducing the larger point of what Costas saw as McGwire's exemplary conduct during that home run chase.

That is not Costas' larger point. Nor is it the point of the package in the Post-Dispatch, which is constructed as a series of "Then/Now" conversations with representative individuals: a broadcaster, a fan, etc.

All Costas wants to emphasize in the "That Was Then" portion is how skeptical he was. He uses the words skeptical or skepticism four times in five paragraphs in this attempt to re-write history. And then he gives CYA excuses for why a supposed skeptic was such a blatant cheerleader on air. He knows he's hoist by his own petard but he wants to pretend otherwise.

Let's just say that we have different interpretations, Chip. We're not going to convince one another here.

I just don't want him, or any juicer, in the Hall of Fame.

LOL, you're a little late on that one, bud...

I'll let you elaborate on that, or do we have to wait for your 60 Minutes interview?

LOL, you're a little late on that one, bud...

It's that Pud Galvin what with his bull testosterone ....

I gotta agree with GB here, Andy. I don't remember Costas ever saying anything that I could even cryptically interpret as saying PEDs were involved. The press at large laid a big, fat egg on this one.

Secondly, how can one say that McGwire's conduct during the homerun chase was "exemplary"? He was in the midst of conducting a gigantic fraud. He even tried to mislead everyone with the andro thing. How hard is it to act happy when everyone is cheering for you? Criminy.

Secondly, how can one say that McGwire's conduct during the homerun chase was "exemplary"? He was in the midst of conducting a gigantic fraud. He even tried to mislead everyone with the andro thing. How hard is it to act happy when everyone is cheering for you? Criminy.

Also I think he was pretty surly until Sammy showed up.

"A gigantic fraud"? Is this Capricorn One? Were these home runs hit in a film studio and superimposed against the crowd by advanced Selig designed video equipment? Or were they hit against many pitchers juicing as well. And didn't he break many home run records before he even touched a steroid, according to Canseco? So now we call it "fraud" when a player actually tries his best to succeed?

"A gigantic fraud"? Is this Capricorn One? Were these home runs hit in a film studio and superimposed against the crowd by advanced Selig designed video equipment?

We've already covered this one.

Rosie Ruiz ran across the finish line too.

And didn't he break many home run records before he even touched a steroid, according to Canseco?

No, he didn't. And do you really want to use Canseco as an unimpeachable source? The dude can't even remember what he had for breakfast. He's backpedaled more than Robin Robert's centerfielder.

We've already covered this one.

Rosie Ruiz ran across the finish line too.

Ha! So now you are claiming Big Mac only hit his HR's 200 ft, and while no one was looking, ran out into the outfield, caught his popup and threw it into the stands!

No, he didn't. And do you really want to use Canseco as an unimpeachable source? The dude can't even remember what he had for breakfast. He's backpedaled more than Robin Robert's centerfielder.

Yes, McGwire did set records unaided by steriods, from his days at USC till he set the rookie HR record in barely 150 games. Canseco has said Big Mac didn't know anything about steroids until Jose taught him after that year. And Big Mac's power promptly declined and didn't recover for about 7 years.

And if you can't use Canseco as a source, then you lose most of your evidence that McGwire used steroids at all, don't you?

Face it Kevin. You are just irked baseball players discovered the benefits of weight training in the 80s, and to this day continue to rewrite the record books aided by said weight training (as well as by smaller parks, lighter bats, etc).

What happened to our political thread? Why is it closed? It seemed quite civil.

I assumed it just died of boredom.

I was guessing that someone(s) squeamishness about the abortion/infanticide posts prompted a request to banish it to the ether: first Red Juice/Gambling Rent's rants, then the Grand Guignol humor responses.

That thread was deleted, presumably because in many places it was extremely uncivil.

As for Costas - I think his focus here is saying "I was sceptical at the time, and I said so" and absent evidence I don't believe him. GB is pretty damning on this point. I'm not necessarily saying Costas should have known - everyone makes mistakes. But he can't bring himself to say, well, mea culpa, he has to make himself into a Cassandra. I'd say my respect for him has gone down - except of course this is Costas, it was nil to begin with.

It's unfortunate the thread was banished, because we were having an interesting discussion.

Ha! So now you are claiming Big Mac only hit his HR's 200 ft, and while no one was looking, ran out into the outfield, caught his popup and threw it into the stands!

He used technology to give him more power than he really had, just like Ruiz, who used technology (the Green Line) to run faster than she could otherwise.

Yes, McGwire did set records unaided by steriods (sic), from his days at USC till he set the rookie HR record in barely 150 games.

And of course, you have unshakable evidence that this is true. Can you let us in on some of it?

And if you can't use Canseco as a source, then you lose most of your evidence that McGwire used steroids at all, don't you?

Actually, no, you don't. You are aware of the congressional hearings, aren't you?

Face it Kevin. You are just irked baseball players discovered the benefits of weight training in the 80s, and to this day continue to rewrite the record books aided by said weight training (as well as by smaller parks, lighter bats, etc).

Yeah, that's it. I'm irked baseball players discovered resistance training. (WTF??????????????)

Szym deleted it when I made a comment to Joe Crede about how a piece of gridiron equipment might fit up his rectum, Szym responded with something uncivil, quickly deleted it before I could respond, then ended the thread.

That 15 bucks Szym ripped off from me might have been the best value I've ever gotten. Szym can't get testy with me as long as he knows he owes me money, but on the other hand, for some strange reason he's refusing to pay me. So I got him over a barrel, so to speak.

If $15 was all it took to get rid of someone, I imagine a number of us around here would be getting checks in the mail daily.

It's unfortunate the thread was banished, because we were having an interesting discussion.

It's an election year. It will pick up again is some thread within the next week, I'm sure.

And of course, you have unshakable evidence that this is true. Can you let us in on some of it?

The same evidence you have to prove that Big Papi isn't the biggest steroid user in baseball history. Er, actually more, since I have Canseco, and no one is willing to testify when Papi started using and when he stopped.

Actually, no, you don't. You are aware of the congressional hearings, aren't you?

Which prove exactly what? That Big Mac used, at some point? Or just didn't want to out his team-mates? Or does it mean that Manny, Big Papi, Varitek, and Lowell escaped a similar fate, simply because they weren't questioned under oath by an insipid group of congressmen?

Watching the program linked by Gonfalon Bubble in #6, Costas' hair appears to have bee much lighter in color 10 years ago.

(as well as by smaller parks

Kinda nit-picking, but ballparks are about the same size they were in the 60's. There hasn't been any significant changes in size or shape since about the 50's.

Long reply:
I do wonder how anyone could have been blindsided by the "big reveal" of steroids in baseball in 2001-2003. These are big boys being paid big money to play for big stakes. And with names like Jose Canseco and Lyle Alzado and Ben Johnson and Hulk Hogan (and others) making loud steroid headlines in the 1980s, the subject WAS out there.

Not that it matters much, but as for my personal case history? Not only did I assume Big Mac was a user, I'll go further back in time: I thought Mickey Tettleton's magic "Froot Loops" story was a crock. That doesn't make me any kind of visionary genius on McGwire (or Tettleton, if my speculation wasn't hooey); maybe I was just properly attuned.

There's a chasm between the options Andy provides: "stupid" and "should have known." I don't think anybody who was genuinely surprised must be stupid. I think they were uninterested. Or weren't paying the attention that they very well could have at the time. And while you yourself may not have picked up the signals or taken the emotional plunge until BALCO, you weren't obliged to. You're not a person who owns a baseball team, or who circulates among the locker room, or who is paid to deliver expert perspective and/or insider information. When you didn't sniff out steroids, Andy, you did not fail professionally.

But the media DID fail. We've all heard the "if only we had known" chorus, but how does that work as an excuse? If they were clueless about what someone in Section 26 of Fenway Park seemed to know, they were useless and oblivious. And if the alibi's phony, then they were derelict then and liars now. Which of those two positions are we bound to respect? Bob Costas wants to split the difference-- he suspected as much, but after all, what could one man with a national platform and a reputation for speaking his mind about prickly baseball-related issues do?

We know that Boswell and Nightengale and Wilstein and a few others were the minority. But their work didn't exist in an alternate reality. More to the point were the institutional reactions to Boswell/Nightengale/Wilstein, by both MLB and the mass media. The same institutions which, we are now assured, will amend the official record and make things right. During the '88 playoffs, NBC aired clips of Canseco dismissing Boswell. Nightengale was, so far as I can tell, ignored. Wilstein got a communal beatdown. But now it's 2008, and as Bud Selig says, this time it counts.

I don't merely have a sarcastic attitude towards the media on the subject. I have a scornful and unforgiving one. Let me make it plain. I believe the BBWAA voided its ethical standing to pass ice cold judgement on baseball players for having used PEDs. The fact that they retain this oversight power in practice in no way alters their moral ineligibility. I am not obliged to respect their revisionisms, simplifications, or self-preservations, particularly in the light of the many, many false and unrepentant we-all culpas. And anybody who acknowledges the media's credibility on the matter is giving them an unearned do-over.

Andy:
And what in the hell is that "de-sliming" comment supposed to mean? That might make a certain amount of So's Your Momma sense if Costas were now trying to demonize McGwire---but the whole tone of Costas's comments was 180 degrees opposite of that.

The "de-slime" comment refers to the sheen of the steroid coverup, which coats Bob Costas' record just as it does Rafael Palmeiro's, and which Costas would like to shed. While it may be worse to take a steroid than to look past a steroid, it's very easy to make the case that people like Costas broke their contract with the public far more fundamentally than Palmeiro ever did. Regarding steroids, Palmeiro did his job illicitly. Regarding steroids, Costas didn't do his job at all.

The youtube clip posted above is an hourlong chat about the events of the 1998 baseball season. Costas spends more time trying to work out the linguistics of a new name-based adjective for McGwire to replace "Ruthian" than he does on PEDs. Even when given the opportunity by a direct question to address the topic (and hint at his alleged skepticism), he mumbles the word "androstenedione" and then talks about how no one can diminish what Bob Beamon did.

In many ways, the Hall of Fame debate is a diversion. "Cleaning up" the sport's history by blackballing McGwire is the flipside of McGwire's and Sosa's "bringing the game back" in 1998. It's feel-good, all-is-well blather.

But don't worry about my perspective, Andy, you're un-Mau-Mau-able. You STILL tout the "remaining refs who are going to have to be worked on in order to get McGwire into the Hall" as a trump card. As if a series of Cooperstown ballots are going to reveal a cosmic truth, or as if 74.9% can be the antidote to 762. That you're placing your trust in the very same remaining refs who originally failed you in 1998 shows that the comforts of naivete may not be so easily given up.

Your staunch championing of the BBWAA's ability to bring closure is not supported by their insincere record. Judging from your "hey, it works for the Republicans" quip, I imagine you wouldn't have nearly the same confidence about an internal accounting of the Justice Department's misbehavior, as reckoned by Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft. Applaud McGwire's down-ballot status if you like, but as for me, I don't hire G. Gordon Liddy to be head of security for the Watergate Hotel.

Obviously what some people want is for Costas (and others) to go a step further and say that "I didn't accuse him of juicing then, so therefore I can't vote against him for the HoF today."

Actually, I think what he's saying he wants is for Costas (and others) to not say, "I knew it all along" when quite evidently Costas didn't know it all along.

Of course, I don't understand Costas's point, the one you think is so brilliant and nuanced: "First and foremost I feel Mark McGwire is a very good man. That doesn’t mean that his home run totals are completely authentic, because I don’t think they are. But he’s a good man, he was a good teammate and has many admirable qualities as a person and I feel bad for him that he’s in kind of a purgatory place when it comes to baseball history. I feel bad for him as a person. I know him and I like him." Either McGwire's a cheater or a "very good man," but not both. (Of course, the correct answer is that steroid use wasn't cheating, but in that case his home run totals are completely authentic, so that can't be Costas's position either.)

To both of you (Gonfalon and David):

Good men can do stupid and/or bad things. They can even be derelict in their duty. To acknowledge this does not end the discussion.

To Gonfalon, just a few summary points:

I've not absolved the media for not digging harder at the time. Nor baseball itself, for that matter. You should know that from the many previous discussions we've had on the subject. I'm not touting Bud Selig (or Costas) for the HoF, either.

I certainly haven't said that keeping McGwire (or Bonds) out of the HoF represents any kind of "closure" on the subject of steroids. Where do you ever get that from anything I've written? It's simply a case of not implicitly certifying that their use of steroids was OK.

And here we come to the heart of the matter:

I don't merely have a sarcastic attitude towards the media on the subject. I have a scornful and unforgiving one. Let me make it plain. I believe the BBWAA voided its ethical standing to pass ice cold judgement on baseball players for having used PEDs. The fact that they retain this oversight power in practice in no way alters their moral ineligibility. I am not obliged to respect their revisionisms, simplifications, or self-preservations, particularly in the light of the many, many false and unrepentant we-all culpas. And anybody who acknowledges the media's credibility on the matter is giving them an unearned do-over.

Hate to infuriate you more, Gonfalon, but to this I can only say three things:

1. You're right about their lack of standing, whether it's "moral" or "professional."

2. The fact that you're right about this doesn't alter the fact that HoF votes are still going to be taken every year.

3. And none of the above absolves McGwire, or requires anyone to vote for him.

If you're that concerned about the failings of the media, you should be waging a general campaign to purge the BBWAA of those members who, like Costas, fell down on their responsibilities. Merely voting juicers like McGwire into the HoF doesn't represent "closure," either.