The Boston Sunday Globe Sunday Baseball Notes.
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.
Page 2 of 2 pages
This is not the American way. It's the Salem witch trials. I heard a rumor that you did X, prove that the rumor is false.
Good lord, I've got to defend Andy.
Sorry, applying a bright line to suspected steroid users, in the absence of any evidence, is not a "natural extension" of Andy's position. It is applying a quite different level of evidence than Andy is.
To be obvious ... I can quite comfortably hold that people who have been convicted of murder beyond a reasonable doubt should go to prison while those suspected of murder but with reasonable doubt should not. And that standard has held pretty well for a long time now without sliding all the way down the slippery slope.
the standard of proof should be credible evidence on the BALCO level, credible firsthand testimony by witnesses who will stand up and repeat their charges under oath**, or a positive test that can't been explained by plausible extenuating circumstances***.
It's the exact opposite -- and, again, Bagwell isn't getting discounted out by suspicious voters, he's getting bright lined out.
Bonds is even easier, since the available evidence indicates he didn't start until 1999, when he had already put up a career worthy of Cooperstown. Just add nothing to that
I do think they deserve to stew for at least a half-dozen ballots for all the shame they brought to baseball.
There is absolutely no standard you would support that would exclude even a confessed juicer from that honor.
I'll continue to hold to two convictions. No juicers should be in the Hall of Fame,
and the standard of proof should be credible evidence on the BALCO level, credible firsthand testimony by witnesses who will stand up and repeat their charges under oath**, or a positive test that can't been explained by plausible extenuating circumstances***. Rumors don't cut it, cap sizes don't cut it, statistics alone don't cut it, muscles alone don't cut it, and this sort of "evidence" doesn't cut it, either.
Correct, and I would vote for both eventually. I do think they deserve to stew for at least a half-dozen ballots for all the shame they brought to baseball.
McGwire is an arguable HOM choice, even with a sizeable steroid discount, but an absolute never for the HOF. There is nothing worth honoring in that man's career. He made his choice and he's stuck with it (no pun intended).
Baseball brought the shame to Clemens. Remember the Mitchell Report?
What did the Mitchell report say about Clemens that turned out to be untrue?
They were all-world talents who had no need of PEDs, who nevertheless felt compelled by their egos or greed or whatever to cheat.
Instead of being heroes to be exalted, they turned themselves into a freak show. That has hurt baseball.
And how does that explain the presence of Palmeiro and the absence of Bonds at those same hearings, which took place four years after 73*?
And AROM points out another reason it is disgusting to hold McGwire's 2005 testimony against him. Most other players weren't put in the position of being subpoenaed to a witch trial.
Why was McGwire put in that position when other great players were not? Because he broke a record, that's all.
1) Absolute bar for any known PED user (confession or failed test). This means that you'd reject known amphetamine users if you were voting today.
Jeff Bagwell played most of his career during a period when steroids and human-growth helpers weren’t, in fact, a violation of baseball’s rules…
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 1.5518 seconds, 176 querie(s) executed