Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Rod Riguez lasted longer on the Billboard charts…
At this point, who cares. Which is not to say that I disagree with anything Jay has written here. The HOF is broken.
Andy Pettitte will get 10% of the vote if he's lucky, he tested positive for PEDS and wasn't that good to begin with.
is ARod really more hated than Bonds now?
I don't know that it's "broken" but it's about as relevant as the Tony Awards or something where the person getting the award cares about it and almost no one else.
is there a mechanism for a former player to ask not to be included on the ballot?
I think he might be.
The last month or so around here really doesn't support the idea that no one cares about the Hall
Well it's a topic of discussion, but getting in or not getting in doesn't mean a whole lot to anyone.
It's a joke. They have as much on Cheater Jeter as they do on ARod.
is ARod really more hated than Bonds now?
The fact that it generates so much discussion, on so many different fronts, really does mean that it means a lot to people.
Jeter juiced just as much, he just never got thrown under the bus by a phony scandal.
Jeter was shrewd. He put all the steroids into the right side of his body, but drew all the blood for testing from his left side. This is why he never failed a test, and it also explains his infield defense.
but I think people are really forgetting just how despised Bonds was.
They don't even have any real evidence against this guy.
I don't see why he would get a significantly lower percentage than those guys
I think this "ThickieDon" thing is a social experiment. Someone noticed that Murray Chass singlehandedly created "longstanding rumors" about Craig Biggio about 18 months ago, and thought "Hmm, let's see how easy that really is."
Great argument, man! Let's keep this stirring debate going! What legitimate evidence is there that A-Rod is more of a roid abuser than Derek Jeter?
The Bosch "evidence" is as tainted as all of Jeter's records.
Oh wait, he hasn't really set too many records.
Nice try, Cheater Jeter.
Not at all. It could be an interesting discussion without a lot of people caring about the actual results. Just like the MVP award.
So what's the case that ARod is factually innocent, that he was just getting nutrition from Bosch and nothing else? Is there a reasonable case to be made there? If so I'm interested in hearing it.
Andy Pettite was quite good.
I think the real indicator for how ARod will fare in the HOF voting is going to be Manny. Both would have otherwise been no-brainer first ballot guys, but both had multiple "offenses" after the testing started, and both have personalities that made them less than universally beloved even before the steroid issues.
One difference between Bonds and Arod is that most people believe Bonds started his usage at a certain point in time when he had already established HoF credentials.
It would be hilArious if he were outed as the first Known User in the Hall.
But they won't be able to deny that Thomas being found to have used is a problem for them. Of course, they'll likely find a reason to explain it all away.
What is your read, dlf, on the point that NOBODY to my knowledge predicted this result from Horowitz, which was basically to find that adding up first-offense 50 game penalties, 50x3, to reach 150 games was valid? Did you opine before the decision that this result was reasonable? Because everyone seemed to be doing either "you can get right away to the next levels of 50-100-permanent" and/or "you can give a massive number of games for obstruction," but nobody analyzed this and said "oh sure he can go 50x3." Not that that matters per se to the lawsuit but Horowitz seems to be a bit out on his own here with this interpretation of the JDA.
I don't [think] Thomas can ever be a user in their mind, even if he plays video at the induction showing how he personally held down and forcibly injected everyone accused of using.
To be fair, this would be evidence that he forced everyone else to use, not that he himself used.
I would say he should have fully affirmed the 211 and not reduced it to 162.
I think it was just a question of not wanting to push too far past established precedent. If there had already been a 162-game suspension and Horowitz felt this conduct was way worse than that one, then he could have done 211. But as it stood, he would have been basically doubling any previous suspension in history, and I think he was reluctant to do that.
I don't necessarily disagree, but it isn't in the written Arbitration Award. He really didn't give reason, in writing, for going down from 211 at all and, except where a decision is "unreasoned" you shouldn't have to guess. (Unreasoned, in this context doesn't mean unthinking or arbitrary; it's just a shorthand in the industry for something more akin to a jury verdict - tell me who wins and how much, but don't tell me why.)
#61 On the contrary. Galvin was the first 300 game winner. And took to the juice to try and keep his career going.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.7132 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed