Not saying it can't happen, but that's a prediction that we've been hearing ever since the BALCO case broke. I somehow can't help but think that the wish is the father of the thought.

It's not something that I would predict, but it is something I devoutly wish for.

And who's going to spill the beans? Not any players who were actually there as first hand witnesses, if they haven't done so already. Certainly not an owner. A sportswriter who "knew"? Highly doubtful, unless he'd been diagnosed with a terminal disease. There seems to be this idea that "everyone knew" about steroid use, and perhaps that's true, but to date who's been ratted out by anyone other than Canseco?

How about one of the high-profile known or assumed 'roiders? Clemens played with Biggio and Bagwell for a couple of years. If there are actual beans to be spilled on one or both of them after they've been inducted, isn't Roger a reasonably likely spiller? Seeing as it would be rather obviously beneficial to his case?

Not saying it can't happen, but that's a prediction that we've been hearing ever since the BALCO case broke. I somehow can't help but think that the wish is the father of the thought.

The arc of the story on steroids in baseball and its effect on the Hall etc. is a long one, and the top steroid era guys are going to be on the ballot for a long time. You will have a point if it hasn't happened by 2024 and Bonds isn't in. As of now, it is definitely a possibility.

50. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 01, 2012 at 07:22 PM (#4314195)
Biggio or Morris...although neither would get my vote.

What's the case against Biggio? He had as good a career as anyone on the ballot not named Bonds or Clemens.

1 - he was friends with ken caminiti
2 - he was on the same team as bagwell, who has been found guilty of shooting up because he lifted weight 10 hours a day
3 - 5-9 guys who weigh 160 can't hit home runs
4 - he played with roger clemens, who joined the team AFTER drug testing was in place and therefore roger taught biggio how to shoot up which is why biggio hit more home runs that year - had nothing to do with changing his swing
5 - he needed an interpreter when he talked to wandy rodriguez. needing an interpreter = drug shooter

And who's going to spill the beans? Not any players who were actually there as first hand witnesses, if they haven't done so already. Certainly not an owner. A sportswriter who "knew"? Highly doubtful, unless he'd been diagnosed with a terminal disease. There seems to be this idea that "everyone knew" about steroid use, and perhaps that's true, but to date who's been ratted out by anyone other than Canseco?

How about one of the high-profile known or assumed 'roiders? Clemens played with Biggio and Bagwell for a couple of years. If there are actual beans to be spilled on one or both of them after they've been inducted, isn't Roger a reasonably likely spiller? Seeing as it would be rather obviously beneficial to his case?

Sure, if Roger is clean, if he's holding some kind of grudge against Biggio and/ or Bagwell, and if he actually witnessed either Biggio or Bagwell in the act of juicing. I've already granted the first supposition, but I wouldn't be betting on the other two if I were you.

----------------------------------------------------

Not saying it can't happen, but that's a prediction that we've been hearing ever since the BALCO case broke. I somehow can't help but think that the wish is the father of the thought.

The arc of the story on steroids in baseball and its effect on the Hall etc. is a long one, and the top steroid era guys are going to be on the ballot for a long time. You will have a point if it hasn't happened by 2024 and Bonds isn't in. As of now, it is definitely a possibility.

Robin, anything's possible, but in the real world who's likely to out whom?

No player who wasn't directly observed juicing is likely to be directly accused by a former teammate on the basis of rumor. Not only would this violate every known clubhouse code, but the instant demand for independent verification could quickly lead to a most embarrassing backdown on the part of the accuser.

And the same point holds for anyone else: Trainers, ex-GF's, former bookies, etc. Anyone looking to make a serious accusation of juicing had better have evidence more substantial than bacne or cap size if he doesn't want to risk a rather mighty backlash, if it involves a player already inducted.

And since we're talking about an already-inducted player, where's the leverage here? If some quack accuses Bagwell and quickly backs down, you're still going to see a residual effect on morons like Gumbell and their camp followers in the BBWAA, who have the power to make their McCarthyite reasoning actually harm a player's chances.

But if a player is already in, then what effect will a groundless accusation have? About as much effect as the sort of BS that clowns like "What about greenies?" Ray and his fellow fools here keep throwing out against Hank Aaron----i.e., none at all. Their entire "case" rests upon the acceptance of their greenies = steroids comparison, which to date is a distinctly minority POV.

And if you're talking about a player who actually did juice, then you've still got the problem of providing physical evidence, or the problem of finding a first hand witness to the act who's kept silent up to now, but who for some whatever reason decides to spill the beans long after the time it could have any effect on the HoF voting. As I asked above, where's the reward here? And what's the actual likelihood of any of this ever taking place outside of the wet dreams of some frustrated and outraged Barry Bonds supporters?

Not saying it can't happen, but that's a prediction that we've been hearing ever since the BALCO case broke. I somehow can't help but think that the wish is the father of the thought.

It's not something that I would predict, but it is something I devoutly wish for.

My prediction is that the player who will confess to PED use (specifically, HGH) after being inducted into the HOF is Pettitte.

After which 90% of sportswriters will be shocked.

Robin, anything's possible, but in the real world who's likely to out whom?

I think the most likely scenario is a player "outing" himself. Many people, as they age, tend to want to "come clean" about some stuff in their lives, for a variety of reasons. The "clubhouse code" wouldn't be in effect for a retired guy confessing; he wouldn't be hurting anyone else.

I am neither hoping for it nor not hoping for it; I am one of those annoying faux-above-it-all rubber-neckers when it comes to HOF debates since (other than wanting Barry Larkin to get in), I find it interesting without being that engaged emotionally in it. But I think there is a pretty good chance that a guy outs himself in the next ten years.

(other than wanting Barry Larkin to get in),

And being a wee bit off the mark about his prospects. (-:

Not only would this violate every known clubhouse code, but the instant demand for independent verification could quickly lead to a most embarrassing backdown on the part of the accuser.

Reneging in the other direction didn't seem to embarrass sudden Congressional wallflower Curt "please subpoena me so I can hem and haw" Schilling.

And being a wee bit off the mark about his prospects. (-:

Well, like I said at the time, I really thought that the BBWAA might deal with him the way that they have with Alan Trammell. I was glad to be wrong, but I still think that Trammell should have gotten more support.

My prediction is that the player who will confess to PED use (specifically, HGH) after being inducted into the HOF is Pettitte.

After which 90% of sportswriters will be shocked.

Nice bit of dry humor there. Of course Pettitte's already admitted HGH use, and he's unlikely to ever get into the HoF as a result, but it's still a nice double barreled snark on your part.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Robin, anything's possible, but in the real world who's likely to out whom?

I think the most likely scenario is a player "outing" himself. Many people, as they age, tend to want to "come clean" about some stuff in their lives, for a variety of reasons. The "clubhouse code" wouldn't be in effect for a retired guy confessing; he wouldn't be hurting anyone else.

The last unprompted** post facto full confession of serious cheating I can recall from a retired player was when non-HoFer Preacher Roe confessed to using a spitball as his money pitch. That was 57 years ago. A few others have coyly alluded to violations in the context of a full biography, but not as the main focus of their story, and no prominent player other than Canseco has ever spontaneously confessed to anything as serious as steroids.

**Meaning out of the blue, with no great public pressure to confess.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Not only would this violate every known clubhouse code, but the instant demand for independent verification could quickly lead to a most embarrassing backdown on the part of the accuser.

It didn't seem to hurt sudden Congressional wallflower Curt "please subpoena me so I can hem and haw" Schilling.

Which turned out to be a perfect example of "a most embarrassing backdown," wouldn't you say? All of Schilling's accusations have been based on assumptions and hearsay, not on any concrete knowledge that he's been willing to reveal.

The last unprompted** post facto full confession of serious cheating I can recall from a retired player was when non-HoFer Preacher Roe confessed to using a spitball as his money pitch. That was 57 years ago. A few others have coyly alluded to violations in the context of a full biography, but not as the main focus of their story, and no prominent player other than Canseco has ever spontaneously confessed to anything as serious as steroids.

Doesn't Gaylord fit here? I recall watching an interview with him 15 years ago or so where he showed/explained step by step how he cheated.

Anyway, what you're missing above is that the vast majority of players don't think steroids use is "cheating" at all. So the player wouldn't be confessing to "cheating" as such.

The last unprompted** post facto full confession of serious cheating I can recall from a retired player was when non-HoFer Preacher Roe confessed to using a spitball as his money pitch. That was 57 years ago. A few others have coyly alluded to violations in the context of a full biography, but not as the main focus of their story, and no prominent player other than Canseco has ever spontaneously confessed to anything as serious as steroids.

Well, you are the one who has argued that steroids are totally different than anything else in terms of cheating, and if that is the case, then it seems a little counterintuitive to argue that we should look to player confessions about spitballs as precedent for how the steroids drama will play out. The same idea applies to greenies. ISTM that a player seeing steroids Ray's way (no biggie, not cheating, everyone was doing it) would have no problem, and it is also possible that a guy who got in the HOF knowing that he did the same thing Bonds and Clemens will be probably be excluded for supposedly doing might say to himself, "I need to get out in front on this now" if Bonds and Clemens don't get in over the next few years.

And who's going to spill the beans? Not any players who were actually there as first hand witnesses, if they haven't done so already. Certainly not an owner. A sportswriter who "knew"? Highly doubtful, unless he'd been diagnosed with a terminal disease. There seems to be this idea that "everyone knew" about steroid use, and perhaps that's true, but to date who's been ratted out by anyone other than Canseco?

Just gotta say, if Deep Throat can be discovered, the first steroid user in the Hall WILL be discovered.

Where’s my bloody Cortexiphan?! I need an alternate universe!

Hey, I just started watching this show!

It should be in my wheelhouse, but I've never made it past the third season. Dunno why.

2 - he was on the same team as bagwell, who has been found guilty of shooting up because he lifted weight 10 hours a day

This is funny. Sad, because true, but funny. You bust your hump in a certain way to become the best player you can possibly be, and THAT'S why you have trouble getting into the Hall of Fame.

It should be in my wheelhouse, but I've never made it past the third season. Dunno why.

fringe is one of my favorite shows, but unlike every other show that i say that about (archer, justified, doctor who, the thick of it), i can't really say it's great television. i like the concept and the weirdness and the serialized nature of the show, but it just always seems to leave me wanting more. and not always in the good way.

assuming that this really is its last season, i'm gonna miss it when it's gone.

The last unprompted** post facto full confession of serious cheating I can recall from a retired player was when non-HoFer Preacher Roe confessed to using a spitball as his money pitch. That was 57 years ago. A few others have coyly alluded to violations in the context of a full biography, but not as the main focus of their story, and no prominent player other than Canseco has ever spontaneously confessed to anything as serious as steroids.

Doesn't Gaylord fit here? I recall watching an interview with him 15 years ago or so where he showed/explained step by step how he cheated.

Roe's paid confession came out when he'd just retired and was a big deal for a few weeks. A "reformed" Perry wrote "an autobiographical confession" in mid-career where he described his prior spitter use but said he'd since been "reformed". I'm sure he's talked about it since his HoF induction 20+ years ago, but given that about three people in the world actually care about spitballs, to equate that sort of humorous confession with what would greet (say) a steroid confession by Cal Ripken or Paul Molitor is to show just how little you understand the mores of baseball. You might want to talk to Mark McGwire if you want to supplement your knowledge.

Anyway, what you're missing above is that the vast majority of players don't think steroids use is "cheating" at all. So the player wouldn't be confessing to "cheating" as such.

I'm sure that you could dig up an old Dean Chambers poll that backs you up on that one. If you can't locate it, just ask Joe.

----------------------------------------------

Well, you are the one who has argued that steroids are totally different than anything else in terms of cheating, and if that is the case, then it seems a little counterintuitive to argue that we should look to player confessions about spitballs as precedent for how the steroids drama will play out. The same idea applies to greenies. ISTM that a player seeing steroids Ray's way (no biggie, not cheating, everyone was doing it) would have no problem, and it is also possible that a guy who got in the HOF knowing that he did the same thing Bonds and Clemens will be probably be excluded for supposedly doing might say to himself, "I need to get out in front on this now" if Bonds and Clemens don't get in over the next few years.

You're describing a hypothetical scenario in three stages:

1. Player A keeps mum about his own juicing

2. Player A then gets elected to the Hall of Fame

3. Player A then gets conscience-stricken because Player Bonds, who is obviously way more statistically qualified than he was, is being blackballed for doing the same thing that he did.

4. Tortured by guilt, and maybe even tempted by the possibility of a fat book contract, Player A substitutes ESPN for his parish priest, and breaks down in tears and admits to the whole nine yards.

Sounds great, but don't hold your breath. First of all, just imagine the media reaction. Not to Player A's own reputation, since presumably he'll have figured that out prior to his confession, but to his own teammates. Given what we know about the nature of modern media, the first 500 questions Player A is likely to be bombarded with is "WHO ELSE? GIVE US SOME NAMES."

At that point, Player A will face a simply lovely choice: Either rat out his guilty teammates, or have the media start speculating about his clean teammates to a degree that they hadn't been before. That'd sure make him popular with those guys.

Feel free to speculate about a scenario like this, but again, I wouldn't put much money on it. Once again, where's the upside? And how does it compare to the downside? You don't seem to have considered that. And who, in your opinion, would be the likely candidates to play the role?

----------------------------------------------

Just gotta say, if Deep Throat can be discovered, the first steroid user in the Hall WILL be discovered.

Great, now I have to kill you.

My prediction is that the player who will confess to PED use (specifically, HGH) after being inducted into the HOF is Pettitte.

Of course Pettitte's already admitted HGH use, and he's unlikely to ever get into the HoF as a result, but it's still a nice double barreled snark on your part.

The problem here, of course, is that Pettitte is a long-shot on the merits.

Andy, using a spitter is cheating, and so we have a HOFer who cheated, and so we have cheaters in the HOF, so there's no reason not to put steroids players in, who (I would argue) didn't even cheat, but whatever.

Sure, if Roger is clean, if he's holding some kind of grudge against Biggio and/ or Bagwell, and if he actually witnessed either Biggio or Bagwell in the act of juicing. I've already granted the first supposition, but I wouldn't be betting on the other two if I were you.

Not that it matters much in the world of baseless speculation, but in my hypothetical Clemens is dirty and holds no grudges, but did actually witness someone doing something. It seems to me that if that someone gets in, Roger just might come out with some sort of "I don't give a crap about your precious HOF, but you sanctimonious ######## just elected somebody who did exactly what you keep writing all your sanctimonious crap about." The most risky assumption in this scenario is that Roger knows what sanctimonious means, but he could always use a ghost writer.

i like the concept and the weirdness and the serialized nature of the show, but it just always seems to leave me wanting more. and not always in the good way.

Same here, and I'm not sure why. It has all the features of that solid, older show, The Night Stalker, but with a much more (to me) attractive lead; it takes better advantage of its ensemble cast, which includes some real actors, and not just retreads like Simon Oakland, AND it gathers together the various episodes under larger themes and plots, many of which are genuinely engaging. Oh, and Anna Torv (who, strangely, is English). And did I mention Anna Torv?

Funny. Despite Anna Torv I think of Fringe more as John Noble's show.

My prediction is that the player who will confess to PED use (specifically, HGH) after being inducted into the HOF is Pettitte.

Of course Pettitte's already admitted HGH use, and he's unlikely to ever get into the HoF as a result, but it's still a nice double barreled snark on your part.

The problem here, of course, is that Pettitte is a long-shot on the merits.

Well, that too, but it'd be relatively easy for a generic MSM writer to build a plausible narrative around his longevity and his postseason wins for a clean Andy Pettitte. Just look at what's been done for Jack Morris. OTOH it'll be a lot harder to convince hardline writers of that narrative when it's used to describe the real Andy Pettitte.


---------------------------------------

Andy, using a spitter is cheating, and so we have a HOFer who cheated, and so we have cheaters in the HOF, so there's no reason not to put steroids players in, who (I would argue) didn't even cheat, but whatever.

Of course the only way that theory works is if you sneak a few hundred writers into the BBWAA who share your views on the equation of steroids cheating with spitballs cheating. Good luck with that one. Once again, you exist in a hermetically sealed bubble when it comes to acknowledging any perspectives other than your own.

---------------------------------------

Sure, if Roger is clean, if he's holding some kind of grudge against Biggio and/ or Bagwell, and if he actually witnessed either Biggio or Bagwell in the act of juicing. I've already granted the first supposition, but I wouldn't be betting on the other two if I were you.

Not that it matters much in the world of baseless speculation, but in my hypothetical Clemens is dirty and holds no grudges, but did actually witness someone doing something. It seems to me that if that someone gets in, Roger just might come out with some sort of "I don't give a crap about your precious HOF, but you sanctimonious ######## just elected somebody who did exactly what you keep writing all your sanctimonious crap about." The most risky assumption in this scenario is that Roger knows what sanctimonious means, but he could always use a ghost writer.

Okay, this has at least the ring of truthiness if not real world likelihood, and I do like that last line. Too bad Dan Daniel has long gone to his reward, because in his many interviews with ballplayers, every one of them spoke with an easy eloquence that straddled the line between Churchill and Abraham Lincoln. He could have done wonders with Clemens.

other than wanting Barry Larkin to get in

1996. 33 HRs. Never close to it before or after that season.

Barry "Amazing" Larkin (B.A.L.) - Hmm, "BAL" 1996 - makes me think of Brady Anderson - 1996 big HR year, never close to it before or after.

Coincidence?

I mean, whenever someone suddenly hits way more HRs, it's always due to steroids, right?

Andy, since you don't want Bonds in Cooperstown, you have an emotional investment in the above scenario not happening, but I don't have an equivalent investment in it happening. So I'd appreciate it you would tone down the "don't hold your breath" and "tortured by guilt" stuff. Like I said, this is not a big deal to me. It is just something to talk about.

As far as the "downside", sure, there is one. OTOH, the media like confessions, and this hypothetical guy would get some credit for coming forward, albeit "too late." As far as media guys hounding him to death about his teammates--I am skeptical. That may have happened with McGwire and Rodriguez, but if it has been a big issue, I missed it. And, let's face it, not that many people really care about which marginal guys or mid-level guys used back in the 1990s and early 2000s. People who care care mostly about:

Now
Hall of Famers or potential Hall of Famers

Knowing stuff about Paul LoDuca using back in 1999 in sort of fun and gossipy for fans and media, but I don't think a player saying, "I am not going to talk about anyone else--just myself" would get paparazzi'd to death by PED hawks in the MSM.

As far as who it could be--any number of players. I think a lot of guys were using PEDs at that time, including HOF-level guys.

Coincidence?

Like I said, it could be any number of players.

Andy, using a spitter is cheating, and so we have a HOFer who cheated, and so we have cheaters in the HOF

The spitball is quite a bit different. It was openly allowed for a good 30 to 40 years, and then grandfathered pitchers were allowed until 1934. Amphetamines have some of the same features. They were actually legal, and widely prescribed in the US in the 50's and 60's.

In those eras, nobody needed to hide using a spitter, or amps, and that affects the sport's culture towards them. Attitudes towards things that were perfectly legal, and then banned, are going to be different than attitudes towards something that was never legal.

Steroids were never legal for PE uses.

Bet against Morris & bet on Biggio.

Andy, since you don't want Bonds in Cooperstown, you have an emotional investment in the above scenario not happening, but I don't have an equivalent investment in it happening. So I'd appreciate it you would tone down the "don't hold your breath" and "tortured by guilt" stuff. Like I said, this is not a big deal to me. It is just something to talk about.

Robin, I'm against any known juicer getting into the HoF, but if it came down to cases, I'd rather have Bonds go in than any of the others, certainly over McGwire or A-Rod. And unlike all the people I've seen here who've said that the Hall of Fame is worthless without Bonds & Co. inside the plaque room, I've never made any such counterclaim. I've ALWAYS said that I'd respect whatever decision the writers made, and I don't mean that in any grudging sense. If Bonds ever were to get in---and he well might---that would represent a wholly legitimate evolution of a consensus about the nature of cheating and the meaning of the offensive surge of the "steroid era," and I certainly wouldn't be able to complain that "my" side hadn't gotten a fair hearing.

And I'm skeptical about your little scenario for the simple reason that I don't think it'll happen. I often express skepticism on any number of subjects in terms like "I wouldn't bet on it", and I'm sorry if that seems to offend you.

Oh, and Anna Torv (who, strangely, is English)

australian

Funny. Despite Anna Torv I think of Fringe more as John Noble's show.

it's actually peter bishop's show. the timeline started with him being kidnapped from "their side", and it now seems to be ending with him as the guy who saves the present from the future.

Amphetamines have some of the same features. They were actually legal, and widely prescribed in the US in the 50's and 60's.

how many of the players in the 50s and 60s (and 70s and 80s) do you suppose had a prescription for the greenies they were using?

2 - he was on the same team as bagwell, who has been found guilty of shooting up because he lifted weight 10 hours a day

This is funny. Sad, because true, but funny. You bust your hump in a certain way to become the best player you can possibly be, and THAT'S why you have trouble getting into the Hall of Fame.

And yet this is the inevitable result of the culture of silence among MLB players. If players, including those who didn't use, are doing everything in their power to prevent us learning about who did and didn't use, can they really complain when voters make decisions based on that ignorance?

Steroids were never legal for PE uses.

I didn't think they became a controlled substance in the US until 1990. Did they? They were only against PE rules in the Olympics and other international sports, I think.

80. Slivers of Maranville (SdeB) Posted: December 02, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4314599)
2 - he was on the same team as bagwell, who has been found guilty of shooting up because he lifted weight 10 hours a day

This is funny. Sad, because true, but funny. You bust your hump in a certain way to become the best player you can possibly be, and THAT'S why you have trouble getting into the Hall of Fame.


And yet this is the inevitable result of the culture of silence among MLB players. If players, including those who didn't use, are doing everything in their power to prevent us learning about who did and didn't use, can they really complain when voters make decisions based on that ignorance?

- you think the media cares if nobody reliever X used steroids? you see the enormous outrage/fury over freddy galvis, jc romero, even bartolo colon.

the media wants SCANDAL!!! and you can't have SCANDAL!!! unless it is all about someone who is pedro/clemens/maddux/unit type great.

what would be the reason that player X would rat out any teammate he shared needles/drugs with? even the supposedly seriously steroid hater type guys like rick helling and kenny rogers have not yet outed anyone. if they wanted their sons (if they have any) to play baseball, it wouldn't help them to be known as a son of a rat. and i don't see supposed steroid hater curt schilling outing all those guys he played with on the 93 phils. he hasn't even confirmed that dykstra shot up.

and if you don't KNOW for absolute certain that someone shot up, you would be destroying his reputation by saying - i think teammate X is an unconvicted felon and he possessed a 10 year prison sentence amount of drug. but i never saw him use it, i just suspect he did.

oh yeah
and even if someone DID come out, who says that what he did will be any help judging what steroids do to "enhance" performance. paxton crawford came out, said he used roids and that they destroyed his arm and career. that story got buried right quick.

the media wants some really great hitter to come out and say - i was a 10 year old girl without steroids, which is the only reason i was able to play ML baseball AND HIT HOME RUNS.

how many of the players in the 50s and 60s (and 70s and 80s) do you suppose had a prescription for the greenies they were using?

Very few. But that's not the point. I'm talking about cultural acceptance affecting what's perceived as "cheating", not legality.

Drs. were handing out amps to housewives like candy. It was viewed as a nothing drug in the culture. The "Red Bull" of its era. So, players could use openly, and no one cared, or viewed it as cheating.

It's like Babe Ruth drinking beer before/during games (in the opposite, performance hindering direction). If Babe was shooting up morphine in the clubhouse, someone would have cared, but b/c he was just boozing, and everyone back then drank like a fish, no one really cared.

Drs. were handing out amps to housewives like candy. It was viewed as a nothing drug in the culture. The "Red Bull" of its era. So, players could use openly, and no one cared, or viewed it as cheating.

Right, right, right, right and right. And for all the talk about steroids being so commonplace during the "steroid era", when has there ever been any evidence, or even a claim, of steroids being left casually around clubhouses, free for the taking?

It's like Babe Ruth drinking beer before/during games (in the opposite, performance hindering direction). If Babe was shooting up morphine in the clubhouse, someone would have cared, but b/c he was just boozing, and everyone back then drank like a fish, no one really cared.

And yet in every other steroids thread, someone will inevitably bring up Ruth's alleged fondness for "performance enhancing" goat testicles, as some sort of a comparison to steroids.

it's actually peter bishop's show. the timeline started with him being kidnapped from "their side", and it now seems to be ending with him as the guy who saves the present from the future.

I'm okay with the radical plot-direction they've gone with this (final) season, but I think the writing--the dialogue in particular--has been abysmal. Keep meaning to check to see if they brought new writers on board.

Amphetamines were so commonplace and part of the housewife culture that athletes perjured themselves in court to avoid admitting use, and the people in charge of the sport tried to quash discussion about these nothing drugs.

Amphetamines were so commonplace and part of the housewife culture that athletes perjured themselves in court to avoid admitting use, and the people in charge of the sport tried to quash discussion about these nothing drugs.

All the while allowing them to be openly dispensed in clubhouses, but whatever. Right now I'm more interested in Repoz's upcoming ballot updates than in rehashing the same old arguments for the umpteenth time. I'm pretty sure by this time we know what we all think about steroids and everything else relating to PEDs, and I don't see anyone's mind being changed beyond a few of us now saying we'd vote for Clemens in the aftermath of the trial.

Hey, I wonder if Joe can drop by to unskew those updates, just to liven things up. Wonder what the party breakdown is within the BBWAA---are they part of the great liberal media conspiracy?

I wonder if Joe can drop by to unskew those updates

Repoz is missing the young hipster segment of the BBWAA because he doesn't call cell phones.

Wonder what the party breakdown is within the BBWAA---are they part of the great liberal media conspiracy?

C'mon, Andy, the most conservative elements in this country are 100% ANTI analyzing anything with statistical mathematical models or any kind of truly scientific research - just ask Nate. This is why they think the Earth is only 9000 years old. This is why many BBWAA members will vote for Jack Morris but won't vote for Alan Trammell. They are truly afraid of anything math-related. They are definitely not part of the "liberal bias" in media.

Oh, sorry, it just occurred to me you might have been joking...