But Bonds never used PEDs.

Bonds could have hit 20 HR with an OBP of .385 THIS year.

Point being, Bonds’ candidacy is supported primarily by the newer-media bloggers at CBSSports.com, an ominous trend given that most Hall voters are longtime writers from the Miller, Knobler and Heyman mold.

I strongly doubt there is anybody who would vote yes on McGwire but no on Bonds. So Bonds will get enough support to stick on the ballot 15 years regardless. By the end of that time, the new media guys will have their 10 years in and will get their own HOF vote.

To be accurate, it should always be written as "illegal PED's" (federal, state law) or "banned PED's" (MLB CBA related).

This distinction (or lack thereof) is another indication of sloppy sportswriting.

an ominous trend given that most Hall voters are longtime writers from the Miller, Knobler and Heyman mold.

Heyman is more of a symbiotic parasite than a mold.

Trolling: Rose a Hall of Famer before betting on baseball, which is why he belongs in Cooperstown.

This distinction (or lack thereof) is another indication of sloppy sportswriting.

Well, it's Gregg Doyel.

Trolling the trolling: How do we know that Rose didn't start betting on baseball in 1963?

Trolling: Rose a Hall of Famer before betting on baseball, which is why he belongs in Cooperstown.

There's some seriousness to this, though, with respect to the position of the "steroids discounters." If a player "cheated," why does it matter whether his numbers would have been good enough without the cheating? Shoeless Joe's numbers were good enough if we erase his crime as well.

You get caught gambling, you're gone for life. Much longer than that, in Shoeless Joe's case. You get caught using steroids, you sit out 50 games then get to play again. So I don't agree with making the HOF penalties equivalent.

Again, that’s a small sample size—and here comes an even smaller (but more telling) sample size:

It seems like writers research stats just enough to know that they don't know what they are talking about.

It seems to me that even if you subscribe to the "before he started..." group, you still have to ding the guy's record to that point somewhat for moving on to the negative behavior.

agree with 10. steroids just aren't that big a deal. the finger wagging grannies in the BBWAA should just dry up and blow away. they should all live long enough to have to endure bonds' HOF acceptance speech.

There's some seriousness to this, though, with respect to the position of the "steroids discounters." If a player "cheated," why does it matter whether his numbers would have been good enough without the cheating? Shoeless Joe's numbers were good enough if we erase his crime as well.

This viewpoint doesn't come up much, but I don't understand why it doesn't. I have no problem with alleged and/or confessed PED users in the hall, but for those that consider steroid use the equivalent of a Cardinal Sin I don't get how that doesn't outweigh everything else. The argument that he was good enough without PEDs is a shade of gray that seems inappropriate to an issue that for voters seems to be rather black or white.

Not to derail the thread (sorry if it does!) but this site has had an awful lot of conversation as of late with regards to a non-baseball figure whose previous good works are being completely overlooked due to an overriding bad thing that he did (or more accurately didn't do). If PED use is such a crime that it should keep one out of the HOF, it seems like that should be the case 100% of the time.

There aren't too many players in the Hall that only played 9 full seasons. He should have died like Joss instead of throwing the WS.

Not to derail the thread (sorry if it does!) but this site has had an awful lot of conversation as of late with regards to a non-baseball figure whose previous good works are being completely overlooked due to an overriding bad thing that he did (or more accurately didn't do).

This better not turn into ANOTHER “Smitty* is a hypocrite for not taking a strong enough stance on pants hating by wearing them” thread, I am so sick of those.

And don't you hate (Biscuit) pants?

Bonds will get enough support to stick on the ballot 15 years regardless. By the end of that time, the new media guys will have their 10 years in and will get their own HOF vote.

Wasn't it just a year or two ago that the BBWAA admitted their first member that didn't work for a newspaper? Not sure how many new media folks are in line for membership but predicting the composition or views of the BBBWA more than a decade from now seems rather speculative.

predicting the composition or views of the BBBWA more than a decade from now seems rather speculative

I think it's eminently reasonable to predict that some number of current voters will be dead and some number of younger men and women will obtain voting privileges.

A hundred new voters supplanting 100 old voters would be a 17% shift, assuming they voted in lockstep.

steroids just aren't that big a deal. the finger wagging grannies in the BBWAA should just dry up and blow away.

I've lurked a long time, and I know that the majority view on BBTF is encapsulated above...but I haven't seen an explanation. I don't ask this snarkily, I ask it because I'm curious & don't know. Why aren't steroids a big deal? Because everyone was on them? Because they haven't been proven to confer an advantage on the user? Because they aren't cheating? Something else? Some combination of the above?

I said this on another thread, so you may have heard it before, but there is one big difference between the Black Sox and Pete Rose on the one hand, and the PED guys on the other hand. What the Black Sox and Pete Rose are accused of is (possibly in Rose's case, certainly in the Sox) doing something to HURT their team's chances of winning. Whatever you personally think of PEDs, the guys doing them were doing something that would HELP their teams win games. That's a huge difference. I doubt that Jackson and Rose will ever get in the HoF, but I imagine that the PED crowd will eventually be judged on their playing careers. - Brock Hanke

21 - dear mr burly

we-uns have spent billyons and billyons of hours on this here very subjeck and ah do heartily recommend youse partake hungrily of many of the meaty threads which have gone before. you want erudite-ism, you be sure to include sam hutcheson and foghorn leghorn in your searchthingy

sincerly yers

barry lamar luvvvvver

Burly--

While the upper echelon of baseball knew more than it liked to admit about gambling back in the bad old days, they weren't literally and institutionally complicit in making it happen. But they were in promoting steroids.

Also, Pete Rose also had a 70-year head's up (1919-1989) about what he was risking by betting on baseball, as opposed to the negative-years head's up that the roiders got.

Retroactive punishment for behavior that was known, abetted and rewarded is at the heart of the hypocrisy.

And moreso if you believe that the mid-80s collusions by the owners were far more damaging to both the competition and legitimacy of the game than the concurrent rise of illicit steroid use ever was.

Well, the players, teams, owners, league, and Commissioner all knew Pete Rose was gambling. Nobody did anything serious about it until Bart became the Commish. Hell, the Reds made him their manager and they knew full well he was gambling.

You get caught gambling, you're gone for life. Much longer than that, in Shoeless Joe's case.

WTF???

You get caught gambling, you're gone for life. Much longer than that, in Shoeless Joe's case.

Is this a lost Yogi-ism?

Why aren't steroids a big deal?

With respect to providing an "unfair advantage," they are and the marginal ballplayers (especially,) who've been outed freely admit it.

I'll never understand the denial of the posters. Perhaps if they actually knew ballplayers and discussed it with them (and not superficially,) they would get it.

BUT, it's been how many years and there are no new arguments to be had. For most, even if they disagree with the above, the subject is tired. And the three-blind mice, "I'm shocked to find out there's gambling going on here," hypocrisy of the writers on the issue is tough to swallow.

You get caught gambling, you're gone for life. Much longer than that, in Shoeless Joe's case.



WTF???

Joe Jackson is dead and he's still banned. Thus, his punishment is longer than life.

I'll never understand the denial of the posters. Perhaps if they actually knew ballplayers and discussed it with them (and not superficially,) they would get it.

The prevailing ethos around here is that essentially nothing in opposition to Whitey and The Man can be wrong and the denialists have falsely cast 'roiding by major leaguers as something only Whitey and The Man "care" about. Mix in the fact that 'roid use has become a cause celebre of middle-aged sportswriters -- the bete noire of practically everyone around here -- and add a pinch of fanboy, and you're left with the perfect storm of misguided zeal.

We need a PED corollary to Godwin's law.

While the upper echelon of baseball knew more than it liked to admit about gambling back in the bad old days, they weren't literally and institutionally complicit in making it happen. But they were in promoting steroids.

I'm not sure about this. I know it was the case in football where the SD Chargers and other teams were giving their players anabolic steroids, but I don't recall baseball training staffs doing the same thing. A better argument is that amphetamines were illegal, but no one is complaining about Willie Mays using red juice and asking for his HOF removal.

Mix in the fact that 'roid use has become a cause celebre of middle-aged sportswriters -- the bete noire of practically everyone around here.

How old is middle age? I'm afraid I've reached that status without accomplishing anything significant in my life. FWIW, I was conceived during the Impossible Dream run of the Red Sox.

I am glad that there is steroid testing. There are good reasons to see steroid use, especially unregulated steroid use, as a significant health risk. In a situation with no testing, ballplayers have to make unfair choices weighing their health and career. Given that steroids aren't going to become legal, regulated, and dispensed by doctors anytime soon - that is, given that we're not going to see a scenario come to pass where the health risks of steroids might be mitigated - it's good that there's testing and thus less use.

It's hard for me to get up in arms about steroid use as cheating when users were getting multi-million dollar contracts, management was looking the other way, and organized baseball had no rules in place to punish use. I don't see a good way to regulate the Hall of Fame and seek to keep users out which doesn't end up with the critical evaluation of evidence being rejected out of hand (see Sosa, Sammy).

MCoA - are sportswriters qualified to make critical evaluation in this case from a medical, legal or moral viewpoint?

It's hard for me to get up in arms about steroid use as cheating when users were getting multi-million dollar contracts, management was looking the other way, and organized baseball had no rules in place to punish use. I don't see a good way to regulate the Hall of Fame and seek to keep users out which doesn't end up with the critical evaluation of evidence being rejected out of hand (see Sosa, Sammy).

I'd venture to speculate that there are few if any aress of life in which you'd be this deferential to the decisions of plutocrats. Of what moment is it that people thought they could make money from the exhibtion of steroid users?

How old is middle age? I'm afraid I've reached that status without accomplishing anything significant in my life. FWIW, I was conceived during the Impossible Dream run of the Red Sox.

44 is the new 33?

And "significant" is in the eye of the beholder.

I've lurked a long time, and I know that the majority view on BBTF is encapsulated above...but I haven't seen an explanation. I don't ask this snarkily, I ask it because I'm curious & don't know. Why aren't steroids a big deal? Because everyone was on them? Because they haven't been proven to confer an advantage on the user? Because they aren't cheating? Something else? Some combination of the above?

I think first it's that steroids weren't banned until 2004. Second, that everyone was cheating, and not just steroids users, but greenie users too. It's not consistent to care about McGwire cheating, but not Aaron or Mays. Lastly, it's some blowback against reporters who require less than zero proof to brand for life someone as a steroid user.

I'd venture to speculate that there are few if any aress of life in which you'd be this deferential to the decisions of plutocrats. Of what moment is it that people thought they could make money from the exhibtion of steroid users?

It's relevant for judging the ethics of steroid use after the fact. I was only addressing there the question of whether rules were violated. The question is whether and to what degree to invoke the Hall's character clause. PED use is not a big deal as a moral issue, nor was it at the time a big deal as a rules issue.

1) Using drugs isn't a moral wrong of any kind of significance. Using performance-enhancing drugs to do better as a professional athlete is I guess a little bit wrong, but it's not a terribly big deal to me. The moral risk of PEDs is structural, in the incentives to risk one's health which arise in an unregulated system, and the responsibility for minimizing this risk falls on ownership and management and the union rather than on individual players. As such, I don't think players who used PEDs committed any significant moral wrong that would justify the use of the character clause to keep them out.

2) PEDs were treated as, at most, a minor violation of the rules at the time. If we want to say that players broke the rules, and thus should be kept out by the character clause, we have to reckon with the fact that there was no testing or punishment system in place. There are many rules of baseball which are broken all the time, and the rule against PED use was not treated as a major or important one at the time. It's hard for me to justify the invocation of the character clause on entirely rule-based grounds when the rule in place was unenforced and all the powers in MLB looked the other way.

44 is the new 33?

And "significant" is in the eye of the beholder.

33, is middle-aged? Gee, thanks. I haven't met many of my goals I had in life. I did finally get married two years ago, but my so-called career in the financial industry isn't exactly successful. I'm a back office guy who hasn't seen a raise in 6 years. Inflation may be low, but it is slowly wiping me out. That's not how it is supposed to work. THis sin't baseball where you peak in your late 20s. Careers are supposed to progress.

Then there is the hobby side. My attempts at writing haven't really worked out, either. I did write a short memoir, but it hasn't been released online or elsewhere. I used to blog, but it is tough to build a following. But I always tell myself I am gonna write a book on this or that. Twelve hours later, that feeling goes away and I think about another topic. In July, it was the 1998 season. Here is an excerpt from an email I sent to another Primate:

91 is good, but I’m not sure if it is better than 98.



91 also had Nolan Ryan and Rickey Henderson setting records on the same day. But look at 98.. People say that the home run race was tainted, but that’s revisionist history. At the time, so many people were into it; even my grandmother who was more of a basketball fan. You also had:



1. The Yankees who may have been the best team ever.

2. A perfect game before perfect games started getting relatively commonplace.

3. Kerry Wood struck out 20.

4. Some strong NL teams. I’ll grant you that some benefitted from Wayn Huizenga’s fire sale.

5. Pedromania in Boston.

6. The Shortstop Trinity at close to the height of their powers.

7. Cal Ripken’s streak ends,

8. A good NL wildcard race including a playoff between the Cubs and Giants.



01 was a good season, but I think that 911 marred it. So did contraction talk. 1986 had a great postseason, but not much else. 1908 had a wild pennant race, but no one remembers it. Plus baseball was different back then. One other contender is 1941, but even that is slipping from memory.



I am not a huge fan of the take and rake approach because I think it makes for boring baseball, but I think that it is familiarity that breeds that contempt. At the time, it was exciting.

I have been reading up on the early days of baseball. THe experts on that are starting to die off (Frederick Ivor-Campbell was killed in a car crash a few years back and Craig Waff died right before this year's SABR Convention.) Maybe I can take their place, but how much interest is there about The Knickerbockers and the Cincinnati Red Stockings amongst the younger generations? People would rather read the Bleacher Report or SB Nation.

I should have learned to play bass. Then I could at least get a little extra money playing local bars on the weekends.

I should have learned to play bass. Then I could at least get a little extra money playing local bars on the weekends.

Money for nothing, chicks for free.

That's the way you do it!

BTW, I knew about Mays and amps (as Chris Dial likes to call them.) Looking for evidence about Hank Aaron and greenies, I did come across this at a rival messageboard.

There was a book about 1908 published 5 years ago by Smithsonian Books.

Then there's a book about 1912 published in 2010 (mostly about the World Series); a book about 1913 published in 2008 (mostly about the World Series); a book about 1920 published in 2001; a book about 1921 published in 2010 (mostly about New York); a book about 1924 published in 2003 (I read that one, it was fun); probably others.

I have been reading up on the early days of baseball. THe experts on that are starting to die off (Frederick Ivor-Campbell was killed in a car crash a few years back and Craig Waff died right before this year's SABR Convention.) Maybe I can take their place, but how much interest is there about The Knickerbockers and the Cincinnati Red Stockings amongst the younger generations? People would rather read the Bleacher Report or SB Nation.

I don't know about that. People nowadays are as likely to want to read about John McGraw as they were 30 years ago, at least. The one thing baseball continues to have over other US sports is history, that it had huge moments before the invention of TV, even before the motion-picture industry. And SABR's biography project is, in a way, years ahead of its time in trying to put together an online project to be read by average people that transcends the concept of the "book" or even the e-book.

33, is middle-aged? Gee, thanks.

No, no, no... it's the other way around. "40 is the new 30" implies that 44 used to be middle-aged, but isn't anymore. Feel better? Good.

I'm a back office guy who hasn't seen a raise in 6 years.

I don't know anything about your field, but maybe you ought to look into a lateral move to another firm. I finally left a stagnant job a little while ago for what a lot of people would have considered a demotion. But two years later I'm making more than I ever did, am viewed as something of a star at the new company, and being considered for a significant promotion.

That's what I am trying to do now, c a. I applied for another firm in the industry, but in a different niche. The position sounds less stressful and the money is slightly better. Who knows, they might not even filter out BTF, but that's not that important. I do miss going here during work hours when it seems to be busier and conversations seem to flow more rapidly, but it isn't like I'd add much to the debates here like an MCoA or make you guys laugh like a Shooty or a Guapo.

And SABR's biography project is, in a way, years ahead of its time in trying to put together an online project to be read by average people that transcends the concept of the "book" or even the e-book.

Thank you. They aren't a path to internet fame, but I have contributed a few bios. The Johnny Taylor one was my favorite. I know there are at least a couple of other Primates who have contributed, but I'm not sure how many of them have.

I'm no academic, so I don't really feel like using McFarland as a publisher, but I have yet to interest any publishers or agents in my stuff. As far contributing an occasional article to websites, this makes me feel that it really has to be a labor of love for it to be worthwhile. In between this, Modern Pentathlon, and Filed Hockey, I've been taking notes from Baseball Before We Know It. I've been on an Abner Doubleday kick lately, ever since I learned that I drive by where his grandfather lived every week or two.

I found an ironic link:
ttp://www.americanancestors.org/testing-family-traditions/

Rockstroh was a descendant of the family. He painstakingly tries to correct
family tradition about Abner's grandfather, but here is his last paragraph:
" A second Abner Doubleday (1819-1893), son of congressman Ulysses Freeman
Doubleday and Hester Donnelly, and grandson of the Abner herein, is
generally considered a founder of American baseball. See Dictionary of
American Biography, vol. V (1930) p . 391-92; National Cyclopedia of
American Biography, vol. K (1895), pp 140-41"

Irony defined. I think Rockstroh believed the myth and planned to set the
record straight with a bio of General Doubleday, but he passed away eight
years ago. From what I've read of Abner, he sounds like more like a bookworm than an athlete. Likely he was nowhere near Cooperstown at the time Abner Graves claims. His life story is fascinating enough without adding the baseball myth to it.

You get caught gambling, you're gone for life. Much longer than that, in Shoeless Joe's case. You get caught using steroids, you sit out 50 games then get to play again. So I don't agree with making the HOF penalties equivalent.

Excellent point. I don't agree with the penalties, but that does show you the degree of permissiveness that MLB gives for breaking the rules, no reason the same comparable penalties shouldn't apply to a person's vote.

Wasn't it just a year or two ago that the BBWAA admitted their first member that didn't work for a newspaper? Not sure how many new media folks are in line for membership but predicting the composition or views of the BBBWA more than a decade from now seems rather speculative.

And that was just the beginning, not a one time attempt to appease the masses. BBWAA is savvy enough to know that the Newspaper is dead, their pool of new writers(members) is diminishing if they stick with the old rules. Yes they are being stingy(as they should) about the people they include, but they are going to have to include a lot of the established writers on the web whether or not they have ever worked for a newspaper...after all it's baseball writers of america, not baseball writers of newspaper.

I've lurked a long time, and I know that the majority view on BBTF is encapsulated above...but I haven't seen an explanation. I don't ask this snarkily, I ask it because I'm curious & don't know. Why aren't steroids a big deal? Because everyone was on them? Because they haven't been proven to confer an advantage on the user? Because they aren't cheating? Something else? Some combination of the above?

Why aren't they a big deal. Several reasons. 1.not against the rules 2. were used by everyone 3. no one at the time cared. 4. in fact there is some evidence to suggest that teams supported usage(TLR and the A's and there is at least one anectdote out there that the gm of the Mets told a scrub to basically roid up if he wants to be a ballplayer) 5. vast majority of players caught using them haven't fared well in the majors. 6. requires a lot more work to get an advantage out of them than other accepted performance enhancers such as speed. 7. it's not cheating in the way that you are altering the field to take advantage, you are doing a team thing by making yourself a better player. 7a. otherwords you aren't making it harder on the other team (such as stealing signs like the Mays led Giants) or altering the field like the braves of the 90's who altered the regulation batters box to make it easier on their pitchers etc.) 8. no proof it helps you hit a ball(actually I would argue there is enough proof that it does help hand eye coordination and that is a big advantage)


Basically many people feel that everyone was complicit in the roid era, from the press and fans to the owners and players, and it's hypocritical to single the players out for punishment after the fact. Me personally I don't care if they use roids in the slightest. There is nothing wrong with it other than the potential damage to your body, as far as the game is concerned people have always gotten better by better equipment, changing strategies or increase workout. PED's such as roids, don't actually make you a better player, it allows you to work out and recover from the workout faster(and helps your body develop more targeted mass) but without doing the work, they don't do jack squat for you. (roughly)

While the upper echelon of baseball knew more than it liked to admit about gambling back in the bad old days, they weren't literally and institutionally complicit in making it happen. But they were in promoting steroids.

I'm not sure about this. I know it was the case in football where the SD Chargers and other teams were giving their players anabolic steroids, but I don't recall baseball training staffs doing the same thing.

MLB (and the BBWAA) did more than naively turn a blind eye to steroids. A lot more. Teams specifically rewrote contracts during negotiations to eliminate punishment for future steroid use (Yankees/Giambi); front office meetings openly discussed cutting loose players because they'd gone off steroids (Dodgers/Lo Duca); MLB ignored multiple instances of its own personnel reporting rising steroid use (Larry Starr) and whitewashed the history those same alerts (George Mitchell's team met with Starr four separate times; Starr does not appear at all in the Mitchell Report); teams held preseason instructional seminars for its players on how to use steroids more safely (Red Sox and at least one other team I'm forgetting); the institution attacked AP reporter Steve Wilstein when he broke the andro story (Selig, LaRussa, nearly all other sportswriters); given time to make a non-immediate, less emotional response, they continued the anti-Wilstein-type propaganda (the larger than life heroes of 1998 didn't deserve to have their accomplishments questioned, subsequent steroid hardliner Mike Lupica's "Mark and Sammy brought me closer to my son" book, the adoring reaction to McGwire's 2001 retirement, etc.); Bud Selig lied to Congress about when MLB both learned of and began taking action against steroids, testifying to a timeline that only works with a wormhole; MLB promoted its most notable effects (chicks dig the long ball, et al); MLB and the BBWAA pretended that they and the public were all tragically unaware until it was too late (1988 ALCS stadium chanting, et al); and more... and those are just some of the examples that have come to light. Many players, seeing the aftermath of the media's "if he'd only just apologize, he'd be forgiven" and "he'd gain instant credibility if he sued" scenarios, will be taking what they know to the tomb.

Piling on to Gonfalon Bubbles excellent post. From a John Brattan Hardball Times article re McGwire:

"Mark McGwire was part of an era, an era that happened with owners, general managers, managers, agents, the MLBPA and the media acting as willing accomplices. The Yankees struck a steroid clause that could void the deal on Jason Giambi’s massive contract. Teams offered major money to these juiced-up behemoths to put runs of the board. The MLBPA fought tooth and nail to protect players ‘right’ to take steroids. Managers never invoked the ‘probable cause’ provision in the labour agreement to have a player tested for performance enhancing drugs. Agents gleefully cashed commission checks from their ‘roided up clients. The media saw the players balloon up in a way they never saw major leaguers before and saw unprecedented performances. They were in the locker room. They saw the body acne and other physical symptoms characteristic of steroid use.

Heck, when I was in high school in the 1980s we knew if a guy was juicing. It wasn’t hard to tell.

The media either knew, chose not to know, or were too bloody stupid and blind to notice.

They could’ve blown the whistle but guess what? To do that would’ve risked backlash, access, and their relations with players. They chose to wimp out and not do their jobs and report.

Now that they don’t have to face these players any more and answer to them for what they write, now they’re acting like tough guys, standing up to protect the integrity of the game and saying there’s no way they’d vote a “cheater” into the Hall of Fame. It’s like bad-mouthing the class bully two years after he’s moved 3,000 miles away.

You had the chance to take your stand at the time and you chickened out. You lauded the guy despite your suspicions about his accomplishments. How many times did you write that was McGwire a “legend” and a “Hall-of-Famer?" Now that somebody else did your job and blew the whistle you feel comfortable enough to get all indignant?

If any member of the BBWAA during the last 15 years accepts any kind of journalistic award including the Ford Frick Award after voting “no” on McGwire due to steroids, then he is a first-class, cowardly hypocrite."


http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/better-to-remain-silent-and-be-thought-a-fool/

49 and 50 are saying it better than i can.

I need to copy 48-50 and hold onto them for future use. A lot.

To 48:

Why aren't they a big deal. Several reasons. 1.not against the rules

I thought many were used in violation of federal laws. If this is the case, and I admit to not being sure about it, then it was against the rules.

"3. no one at the time cared" - By and large, this is obviously true but there were someplayers like Rick Helling and Kenny Rogers who were very clear about their concerns during the era.

"5. vast majority of players caught using them haven't fared well in the majors." - Other than McGwire, Bonds, Sheffield, Manny, Clemens, Sosa, Palmiero, etc. this might be a compelling argument, but how can you say that?
How many players would not have been in the majors if not for PEDs? Naulty and Laker both acknowledged they wouldn't have made the bigs without them........and to think it's because it gave them the ability to recover from working out as opposed to enhancing thier skills is one of the great fallacies perpetrated by this board (at least on the pitchers side of the equation)

"PED's such as roids, don't actually make you a better player, it allows you to work out and recover from the workout faster(and helps your body develop more targeted mass) but without doing the work, they don't do jack squat for you. (roughly)" Does anyone actually listen to the players who've been caught using? Especially the lesser players. I can't imagine PED's can give you the ability to gain the hand-eye of top-flight hitter but pitchers who go from 88 mph fastballs to 94?

"5. vast majority of players caught using them haven't fared well in the majors." - Other than McGwire, Bonds, Sheffield, Manny, Clemens, Sosa, Palmiero, etc. this might be a compelling argument, but how can you say that?

Only two of these players were caught using.

I thought many were used in violation of federal laws. If this is the case, and I admit to not being sure about it, then it was against the rules.

In the same way that smoking pot was against the rules. Or amphetimines, or jay walking(which Ozzie Guillen claims he does all the time) is against the rules. There were no specific rules banning the use of a performance enhancer. Factor in the number of players from a country where those substances aren't illegal, how hard is it to claim that they were used outside of the U.S. while using?

"3. no one at the time cared" - By and large, this is obviously true but there were someplayers like Rick Helling and Kenny Rogers who were very clear about their concerns during the era.

True, but their pleas fell on deaf ears. Nobody in authority cared about it, no one in the press cared about it, no one in the players association cared about it, and the fans sure as #### didn't care about it. So a slight exaggeration for effect, but ultimately mostly true.

Does anyone actually listen to the players who've been caught using? Especially the lesser players. I can't imagine PED's can give you the ability to gain the hand-eye of top-flight hitter but pitchers who go from 88 mph fastballs to 94?

And how much of that is mental? Players would start taking this "miracle" drug, which requires that they work out like a fiend to get an advantage out of it, so then they started working out like a fiend(something they might not have done before) see a modest increase in velocity or what not and attribute that to the miracle substance. Wade Boggs preferred to go with the tried and true method of Chicken and Beer, Ruth whores and goat testicles. Whatever placebo you need to help you out, that is fine.