but as it doesn't allow for any evaluation of pre-testing steroid use as an unfair competitive advantage, I don't think it fully engages the underlying question of (as you put it) "fair play and fair competition".

Well I think it does (subjectively). The premise is all participants in play at any given time participate in that context and should be evaluated in that context. If a player does something innovative that gives them an advantage then it happens.

But if you see steroid advantages as an independent factor independent of timeline, that lets known pre-testing era users off the hook. I can't buy that.

The second premise I use is you can't try to parse out every advantage each players seek and how that impacts the competitive ecosystem. It is just not possible to do either objectively or subjectively, so don't bother.

I use that argument when it comes to trying to perform "steroid discounts" to known users. I agree that trying to come up with any sort of objective modification of statistics is a fool's game. IMO if Barry Bonds is in, then so is Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire. Inducting Barry Bonds is effectively equating the Hall of Fame with the Hall of Merit, which is fine if you want to do it, but in that case you should be judging players strictly by the numbers in the record book, and not trying to come up with some silly (and comically subjective) formula that puts Palmeiro or McGwire below the line.

Fair play and fair competition have to be handled at the time in the context of the times by the participants, it can't be retroactively and subjectively applied.

But that depends of what your view is of what was "the context of the times." That's a topic that's been dealt with over and over, and rather than rehash it for the 10,000th time I think it's best to say that we're not likely to agree on it. Gonfalon is the best-researched spokesman for your POV on that topic, and I'm sure he'll be back here at some point to reinforce it, but he's yet to convert me to the Church of Forgiveness.

Let's see... McGwire has gotten 20-25% of the vote. Palmeiro has gotten 10-15%.

I've got the following predictions:

Clemens 45-55%
Bonds 45-55%
Bagwell 45-55%
Piazza 65-75%
Sosa 20-30%
Morris... In!!

Thanks for the response Andy. As always a pleasure to disagree with you on this topic. Now go over the the politics thread and save us from zombies :)

But whatever Mays and Aaron took, we should all take that.

I don't want whatever Willie took/is taking. He's just bitter these days. Even Buck O'Neil couldn't cheer Willie up and if Buck can't put a smile on your face it's pretty sad.

As to what is a "fair and level" playing field (sounds like a term Rupert Murdoch would come up with) - I find it interesting that baseball is the only major sport I can think of that lets teams create all kinds of advantages for themselves if they want since there are no requirements for standardization of fence distances, height, etc. In the NFL you don't have some stadiums where the field is 150 yards long (defensive, low scoring games ensue)and some stadiums where the field is only 50 yards long (scoring galore). All the teams have to try to score in the same environments. I would think that is a "level playing field". But in baseball you can have some stadiums with shorter, easier to reach fences and others with deeper, harder to reach fences and this directly impacts the scoring levels - and the individual statistics. If you're a batter who plays his home games at Petco (or Anaheim, LA, SF or Oakland, for that matter - BTW, how did all the California parks become pitcher-friendly parks?) or a pitcher who has to log a lot of innings at Coors Field - well, it sucks to be you. If, on the other hand, you're a batter in a good hitting park or a pitcher in a pitching-friendly park, you get all kinds of help with your numbers. Yet we consider this "fair" because it is within the accepted rules? Melky Cabrera can't win a batting title because he had an "unfair" advantage but all the titles won by Larry Walker, Todd Helton and Andres Gallarraga in Colorado are perfectly "fair"? I don't see a single person here saying we should take away their records because they had an "unfair" advantage, although it is fairly obvious that they had a huge advantage in compiling offensive numbers. I think there are some contradictions here that we as fans turn blind eyes on. For example, in the "Trout vs. Cabrera" MVP threads earlier this month, several of the Cabrera fans made it clear they don't really believe it is much more difficult to hit in Anaheim than Detroit, despite the fact that the park factors indicate this pattern not just for 2012 but for the past several seasons. This was in response to the batting runs' adjustments (B-Ref) for park factors which showed that Trout wasn't just a better baserunner and fielder than Cabrera was this year, but a better hitter. I guess "fair", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't see a single person here saying we should take away their records because they had an "unfair" advantage, although it is fairly obvious that they had a huge advantage in compiling offensive numbers.

I also don't see many (if any) people here saying we should take away Barry Bonds's records. And how close is Larry Walker to the Hall of Fame? The record book and the Hall of Fame are completely distinct entities. One is objective and the other isn't. That seems to be a problem for lots of people here, but until you replace writers with statistically programmed robots whose programmers all agree on what the multitude of statistics mean, it's a problem that's not likely to go away.

Pretty sure his point about records was concerning Melky Cabrera and the batting title.

Did the testing for roids and the suspensions of users codify what had always been contrary to the principles and spirit of fair play and fair competition, or was it a redefinition of those principles? If it redefined them, what was the basis and/or reasons for the redefinition and where would we look to confirm that they were in fact the reasons?

Did the testing for roids and the suspensions of users codify what had always been contrary to the principles and spirit of fair play and fair competition, or was it a redefinition of those principles? If it redefined them, what was the basis and/or reasons for the redefinition and where would we look to confirm that they were in fact the reasons?

They test for and suspend for amps now too. Either they're both redefinitions or they're both codifying already existing principles.

I also don't see many (if any) people here saying we should take away Barry Bonds's records.

Andy, Melky Cabrera had his batting title taken away.

They test for and suspend for amps now too. Either they're both redefinitions or they're both codifying already existing principles.

That doesn't follow (*), but taking it on its face the penalties are lower for amps, indicating that they are less of an affront to competition.

(*) For example, the roid ban could have been a codification of something always contrary; the amp ban could have been a discouragement of the use of addictive drugs, with little to no competitive intent or effect. The waiver process and frequent granting of waivers for amps would be consistent with this dichotomy.

That doesn't follow (*), but taking it on its face the penalties are lower for amps, indicating that they are less of an affront to competition.

(*) For example, the roid ban could have been a codification of something always contrary; the amp ban could have been a discouragement of the use of addictive drugs, with little to no competitive intent or effect. The waiver process and frequent granting of waivers for amps would be consistent with this dichotomy.

I have never before seen someone twist themselves into logic knots like this.

codify what had always been contrary to the principles and spirit of fair play and fair competition

Codify what now?

Seriously though MLB did codify one rule in terms of the HoF, the banned list rule. And while that perhaps was just aimed at Pete Rose, I think it telling that they have only acted like that with regards to the banned list and not steroids or anything else like it.

Page SR-1 of the Mitchell Report attributes steroid use to "the drive to gain a competitive advantage." Is this conclusion wrong?

Footnote 19 of the Mitchell Report, the official pronouncement of MLB on the subject, states that, "The allegedly widespread use of amphetamines in baseball, rumored for decades, is a problem distinct from more recent allegations that players have used steroids and other substances with anabolic or similar effects to gain an unfair competitive advantage. I was asked to examine the latter question, and I am comfortable that a thorough examination did not require me to look into the additional problems posed by amphetamines use, serious as those problems might be ..."

In other words, the widespread use of amphetamnes was deemed not germane to the investigation of means by which an "unfair competitive advantage" was gained by major league baseball players. Was that conclusion wrong? If so, why?

It's crystal clear that the official position of Major League Baseball is that steroids provide an unfair competitive advantage that amps don't. That has now been formally adopted as a position, though, as noted often herein, it has been the sport's de facto position for decades.

Page 37 of the Report also notes the disparate treatement in the 1985 Drug Testing Agreement as between "drugs of abuse and amphetimines" -- subject to testing -- and "steroids or other performance enhancing drugs" -- not tested for.

Amps are now subject to testing not as an affront to competition, but for the same reason they were part of the 1985 agreement -- they're drugs of abuse. Baseball's purposes couldn't be more unambiguous.

The Mitchell Report is dispositive now?

The Mitchell Report is dispositive now?

As the official opinion of MLB as to the relative impact on competition of steroids and amps, very much so. Completely dispositive. When HOF voters distinguish between the two on the basis of their impact on competition, they're merely adopting the official position of MLB.

And so the answer to the ultimate question is quite clear. In MLB's eyes, they were merely codifying and punishing anticompetitive roid use that had always been anticompetitive. Which, of course, it had been.

I also don't see many (if any) people here saying we should take away Barry Bonds's records.

Andy, Melky Cabrera had his batting title taken away.

Which is insane, but OTOH not awarding him a silver bat isn't "taking away his records," any more than Mark McGwire's records have been removed from the books. Melky's full record for 2012 is still right there for anyone to see.

The Mitchell report was a sham conducted to get Congress off MLB's back. No one thinks it's definitive.

#162 It's worth restating this. The Hall has made it very clear that if Rose (or Jackson) is reinstated they will immediately become candidates.

Quoting from an old FAQ from the HOF: "If and when he is re-instated by Baseball, he then would automatically be a candidate for election,(were he to meet the other requirements for eligibility)."

Ditto for Jackson (and Cicotte -- not that Cicotte has a chance)

As things stand, this means he'd go to the Veterans Committee and it's very uncertain how it'd play out there. Mike Shmidt's been pretty vocal in supporting him but in the past Bob Feller (supported by other older players) was able to stop any compromise proposals from getting any kind of hearing.

Worth noting that the one person who truly matter -- Jane Forbes Clark (who could change policy pretty much at will) -- has cited Tom Seaver as convincing her of the importance of the current rules.

And so the answer to the ultimate question is quite clear.

Where does it state that the conclusions in the report should be retroactively applied? That punishing players before the context of baseball could be changed to better exclude PEDs was critical?

When Mitchell hoped "that readers of the report will look past the players' names that are included in the report and focus on the conclusions he reached during his investigation"?

Maybe when the report talked about "While players that use illegal substances are responsible for their actions, that responsibility is shared by the entire baseball community for failing to recognize the problem sooner"?

Way to cherry pick what you want out of it and ignore everything else. Not that I accept the Mitchell report as the final official word of MLB on the issue, BTW.

The Mitchell report was a sham conducted to get Congress off MLB's back. No one thinks it's definitive.

It's a conspiracy, man!!!!

It's a conspiracy, man!!!!

Out of the thousands of people connected with steroids in MLB, they had 2 sources.

Out of the thousands of people connected with steroids in MLB, they had 2 sources.

That goes to who used. It has nothing to do with baseball's position on the broad question of the relative competitive advantage of amps and roids.(*) The report just gave them a formal way to restate that position which, again, had been its de facto position for decades.

People are free to dissent from that position, but there's really no confusion over baseball's stance on the matter.

(*) Or the issue of whether baseball believes roids provided an unfair competitive advantage even when "not against the rules."

In football, there isn't a blabby faction attacking writers' place within the sport, and thus no one gives a crap about who gets picked for the HOF.

Not true at all, as a look at several places online (including the Pro Football Hall of Fame's own website) will show.

I have never before seen someone twist themselves into logic knots like this.

You must be new around here.

You must be new around here.

Nah. I'm pretty sure I've said similar things in threads in years past about SBB. He just keeps topping himself, as such people are prone to doing apparently.

I have never before seen someone twist themselves into logic knots like this.

Don't visit the political threads--there's a guy there who, umm, makes SBB look like the pinnacle of rationality.