Rafael Palmiero says (a la Charles Barkley)-"can I play?"

"NO!"

Or this Twinkie. You see it Roger, so golden and cream-filled? Mmmmmm, I'm gonna eat that Twinkie and not even Suzyn Waldman can stop me.

I used to have a baseball video game -- I think it was for N64 -- which had funny crowd noise. My favorite one was a guy who shouted in a relatively quiet stadium, "HEY I'M AN IDIOT!"

Article excerpts:

It may have been the best thing to ever happen to the game. Those hearings began the downfall of the Roid Era, mainly because those hearings brought the players' union to its knees. What followed was a massive cleanup in baseball. The most powerful union in the land ran scared of the feds and caved on the topic of drug testing.

Sure -- PED use was all the Union's fault. As if no managers, front office people, and baseball organization higher-ups knew about this and looked the other way until a US Congress with apparently nothing better to do stuck its nose into this matter and made a big deal out of it.

A jury of 12 heard the latest case, supposedly 12 who had no great interest in baseball...Once the jury went behind closed doors, it quickly found Clemens innocent on all counts. But go back to the 2007, with the release of the Mitchell Report on steroids in baseball, a committee met for months to determine the depth of PED use in the game. These were all people with a great interest in baseball. That committee heard much of the same evidence as in the perjury trial, but when the Mitchell Report was released, Clemens was the shocking lead name as a major violator.

Is it just me, or wouldn't the jury "who had no great interest" potentially be more impartial and unbiased than one with "a great interest?"

From one juror's comments, one wonders what they were talking about in there for 10 hours. She said that McNamee initiated these charges against Clemens as a revenge campaign for mentioning his kid in a tv interview

..uh, mitchell report, feds questioning in regard to?

geez man, 10 hours and this woman wasn't disabused of these fantasies?

But yea, one thing you've got to say about turnips.

They're unbiased.

Author:

Of everything I've ever done wrong, there's nothing that comes to mind that would draw the attention of the feds.

There's pretty much no way this is true, for anyone.

Of everything I've ever done wrong, there's nothing that comes to mind that would draw the attention of the feds.

JUST WAIT TIL BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS RE-ELECTED!

That committee heard much of the same evidence as in the perjury trial, but when the Mitchell Report was released, Clemens was the shocking lead name as a major violator.

Did they? I see no reason to think that they did. I would be very surprised if Mitchell did much digging into McNamee's background.

In other words, the baseball "jury" believed the word of Clemens' longtime personal trainer, Brian McNamee. The federal case jury did not.

Did baseball need a whipping boy and choose Clemens? Why would baseball do that and bring down one of the most fabled pitchers ever?

And why was McNamee not believed in this latest case? Did the courtroom work of Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, render him as a liar?

Perhaps it had to do with McNamee's every changing story since the Mitchell report. Or maybe it was because others, presumably not interviewed by the baseball "jury" contradicted McNamee. Or perhaps it was because even McNamee admitted that his story evolved.

And don't even get me started on the "Clemens and Pettitte were so close that if Pettitte used, Clemens must have" crap. If that were true, why did Pettitte, by his own admission, not tell Clemens about his use?

With that off my chest, I am glad to see him not lump Sosa in with the rest. I don't know if he used or not, but I need more than a single anonymous source and requesting a translator at a Congressional hearing.

Will Galloway vote for A-Rod when the time comes? Somebody ask him!

From one juror's comments, one wonders what they were talking about in there for 10 hours. She said that McNamee initiated these charges against Clemens as a revenge campaign for mentioning his kid in a tv interview

..uh, mitchell report, feds questioning in regard to?

geez man, 10 hours and this woman wasn't disabused of these fantasies?

Presumably what she was referring to was McNamee's explanation for why he suddenly produced needles and gauze, despite telling both Mitchell's people and the feds previously that he didn't have any other evidence.

Will Galloway vote for A-Rod when the time comes?

I actually think AROD will have an easy time getting in despite admitting to using steroids.

I actually think AROD will have an easy time getting in despite admitted to using steroids.

It wasn't really a voluntary admission. I guess he's gets a pass for admitting it when people were already kind of sick of the whole thing.

I guess he's gets a pass for admitting it when people were already kind of sick of the whole thing.

POW! That's a bullseye.

I actually think AROD will have an easy time getting in despite admitted to using steroids.

Which just shows that the whole thing is an insane cluster ####.

But if you haven’t been voting for McGwire, and I haven’t, how can you vote for Clemens or Bonds?

Because they were transcendent stars before they ever started using? Take their careers before they were alleged to have started using, apply a "normal" aging pattern, and they're obvious HoFers. Their "clean" peaks were those of all-time greats. I don't know if the same can be said of McGwire, who was up-and-down performance-wise and had some injury issues before his (steroid-fueled) homer resurgence. That's simplifying things, I'm sure, but there's the difference.

I think dimly of Clemens and Bonds nowadays, but a HoF that doesn't include Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, warts and all, isn't really worth the price of admission.

...Sorry, Roger, but you won’t have my HOF vote. Not now, and I’d guess, not ever. Neither will Bonds. Unlike those two, Sammy Sosa’s name was never mentioned in the Mitchell Report.

It's like each columnist is dumber than the last. Why does the fact that Clemens' name was in the Mitchell Report matter, exactly? Does he think the Mitchell Report has some sort of certificate of authenticity with it?

Sorry, Roger, but you won’t have my HOF vote

I kind of read this as being an ego-affirmation.."Look, everyone! I have a hall of fame vote! And Clemens isn't getting it! Even if he begs me!".

Why does the fact that Clemens' name was in the Mitchell Report matter, exactly? Does he think the Mitchell Report has some sort of certificate of authenticity with it?

Agreed -- especially since the reason his name likely appears there is because of McNamee. And it's pretty clear how reliable a source he turned out to be.

Would there be information from anyone else that would have caused Clemens's name to appear in the Mitchell Report?

Why does the fact that Clemens' name was in the Mitchell Report matter, exactly? Does he think the Mitchell Report has some sort of certificate of authenticity with it?

Worse, he seems to be saying that not only is the Mitchell Report 100% accurate, but that it's exhaustive:

Unlike those two, Sammy Sosa’s name was never mentioned in the Mitchell Report.

Right or wrong, and with some doubt, I will still vote for Sammy.

Bud Selig's name is also in the Mitchell Report! It's right there on page 13!

But if you haven’t been voting for McGwire, and I haven’t, how can you vote for Clemens or Bonds?

Because they were transcendent stars before they ever started using? Take their careers before they were alleged to have started using, apply a "normal" aging pattern, and they're obvious HoFers. Their "clean" peaks were those of all-time greats.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Bonds started using after the 1999 season. We have no idea if that's true or not, but let's pretend that it is. Through 1999, Bonds put up 100.5 (BBRef) WAR. If he'd quit right then, he'd be 19th all time in WAR among position players, right behind Schmidt, Lajoie, and Frank Robinson, and just ahead of Joe Morgan. That's astonishing. We forget sometimes that the small-headed version of Barry Bonds was really, really good.

EDIT: Which is to say, the only excuse for not voting for Bonds is that you think that no one who ever took steroids should be in the Hall of Fame.

Agreed -- especially since the reason his name likely appears there is because of McNamee. And it's pretty clear how reliable a source he turned out to be.

I wonder if we can get Brian McNamee to say that George Mitchell, Bob Ryan, Mike Lupica, Jon Heyman, Bud Selig, Mike Francesa, and Tom Verducci all cheat on their wives with hookers and do lines of coke while they're cheating.

I mean, what is the defense, at that point? It's Brian McNamee that is saying it. And McNamee can't be just making it all up.

Would there be information from anyone else that would have caused Clemens's name to appear in the Mitchell Report?

Not a single person. I don't think even the morally bankrupt George Mitchell (he smeared the reputations of dozens of people) would go to print with "Andy Pettitte thinks that Clemens might have told him years ago that he used hgh, but Pettitte is not very sure about this."

Would Galloway also advise a "NO" vote on Tony LaRussa due to his proximity to steroids and how they helped his players and teams win more games than they would have without PED's?

I generally avoid all the steroids threads on this website, so I apologize if this has already been covered, but how sure are people that Clemens took steroids/HGH/whatever? I ask because while I’m pretty sure Bonds took something (and I don’t care what it is/was and still think he’s one of the 5 or so best players ever) I really can’t say the same for Clemens.

Does he think the Mitchell Report has some sort of certificate of authenticity with it?


Mitchell and Mitchellesque Reports are undertaken for the very purpose of confusing people like Randy Galloway.

Not only are the reports generally not authoritative -- their essential purpose is kicking blame for scandal down the management chain (*) -- the Mitchell Report is laughably unauthoritative. Mitchell did not have subpoena power, and his witness list was entirely unrepresentative.(*) Even if every fact in it were corroborated, it isn't remotely a representative study of steroid use in major league baseball.

(*) As in the Mitchell Report's insistence that senior management warned of the problem in 1991 if not earlier: "Look, Fay Vincent put in in a memo!!!!"

(**) As noted, centered around New York and sourced through the fortuity of having people like McNamee in trouble with the feds.

I generally avoid all the steroids threads on this website, so I apologize if this has already been covered, but how sure are people that Clemens took steroids/HGH/whatever? I ask because while I’m pretty sure Bonds took something (and I don’t care what it is/was and still think he’s one of the 5 or so best players ever) I really can’t say the same for Clemens.

The level of required proof for some writers seems about on this level.

Is it just me, or wouldn't the jury "who had no great interest" potentially be more impartial and unbiased than one with "a great interest?"

Yes. And, of course, you don't need to follow baseball to determine if McNamee is a liar.

The level of required proof for some writers seems about on this level.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. For Clemens and Bagwell, yes, it seems to be all that is required, that they be tarred with suspicion. For Sosa, when he is tarred, no, the standard is higher. Clemens denies and is vindicated in various forums? Doesn't mean #### when it comes to changing votes to yes. Pettite and Arod actually admit to using. Doesn't seem to make any difference when it comes to changing votes to no.

21: Just to set aside WAR for a second, the guy won 3 MVP awards in 4 years. He was so ridiculously incredible during that stretch that he could've begun work on his HoF induction speech* right then and there.

*Granted, the speech would probably be something on the order of f-u, but whatever.

Bill James on Barry Bonds' #16 all-time rating in his Historical Abstract: "This rating is based on the assumption that his career ends with the 1999 season... When people begin to take in his accomplishments, Bonds may well be rated among the five greatest players in the history of the game."

I kind of read this as being an ego-affirmation.."Look, everyone! I have a hall of fame vote! And Clemens isn't getting it! Even if he begs me!".

This is exactly what it appears to me. It's revenge of the nerds, and the sports columnists can use "!teh roids!" as an excuse to "punish" in the only way they can players they never liked to begin with (Clemens, Bonds) while fabricating some excuse for why it doesn't apply to players they did like (Sosa, Pettitte.)

It's really pathetic and juvenile, when you get right down to it. That the Hall of Fame is associated with such petulant children is disappointing.

Jolly#26 - Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you've been one of the posters that has said from the beginning you would never give your hypothetical HOF vote to a steroid user, correct? What burden of proof would you require? (I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious)

I assume you wouldn't vote for those who tested positive (Palmeiro, Manny), or those who admitted it (McGwire, A-Rod), right? But would you vote for Clemens? Bonds? Sheffield? Sosa?

"I apologize if this has already been covered, but how sure are people that Clemens took steroids/HGH/whatever?"

I don't follow the steroids threads religiously, either, but that does not seem like a popular question here.

"Has x been proven to have..." - off the charts popular.

"Ok, just between us girls, what do we actually believe on this?" - not as much, from what I've noticed anyway.

Yes. And, of course, you don't need to follow baseball to determine if McNamee is a liar.

He's no more or less credible than someone like Jose Canseco, whom the majority treats his word as gospel.

Jolly#26 - Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you've been one of the posters that has said from the beginning you would never give your hypothetical HOF vote to a steroid user, correct? What burden of proof would you require? (I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious)

I'd be interested in knowing if that particular poster would vote for Ivan Rodriguez considering that in terms of "evidence" both players are in the same "boat".

Jolly#26 - Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you've been one of the posters that has said from the beginning you would never give your hypothetical HOF vote to a steroid user, correct?

Absolutely correct.

What burden of proof would you require? (I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious)

Either credible physical evidence or credible testimony from either a teammate or someone who witnessed the juicing first hand. I don't see either of those standards being met in Clemens' case, or in the cases of Sosa, Pudge, Bagwell, and others with similar non-clouds hanging over them. Obviously there are going to be cases where there's no clear answer, and in those cases I'd give the player the benefit of the doubt. I've never been a fan of the bacne or cap size theories of evidence.

What's particularly disgusting about the writers I've seen discounting the jury verdict is that they (rightly, AFAIC) see the Hall of Fame as the highest individual honor that a player can receive, and that they also (again, rightly) see steroid use as a disqualifier for that honor. So far so good.

BUT....It therefore seems that writers with those standards should be the FIRST ones to demand the highest standards of evidence before casting an otherwise deserving player aside. I don't see why this should even be an arguable point.

And yet we've seen one writer after another ignore not only the jury verdict itself, but worse, seem to ignore the entire collapse of the prosecution's case, from tainted evidence to shifting testimony. I'm still hoping that at some point there's going to be "wait a second...." moment, and that in the long run the pack mentality will pass, and tainted testimony and evidence can be separated from testimony that doesn't contradict itself and evidence that's a lot clearer than those syringes in a coke can. I can also only wish that these same writers would someday find themselves in a similar position where everyone immediately assumed that they were guilty of an offense no matter what the evidence led to. This has not been the BBWAA's finest hour.

I'll admit I started out not believing that McNamee would have any particular reason to concoct a phony story, but that initial thought has been overwhelmed by everything that came out during the trial. If I'd been paying closer attention to the details earlier, I would've switched sooner, but I've also said all along that I was waiting for the trial to get to the truth before making a final judgment.

And as a final note, I had to give at least some weight to Clemens' from-the-gitgo responses to all the charges against him. That in itself said nothing about his innocence, but it was certainly the type of reaction that most innocent men would be likeliest to give.

We just don't deal well with grey
we're clum zee

I'd be interested in knowing if that particular poster would vote for Ivan Rodriguez considering that in terms of "evidence" both players are in the same "boat".

Not sure if this was intended for me or Andy, but I'd vote for Pudge. And Clemens, Bonds, A-Rod, McGwire, Sosa, Bagwell, Piazza, Palmeiro, Manny, and Sheffield. Drug use isn't an automatic disqualifier for me, especially since there's no evidence against half these guys and with most the ones there is it happened before MLB started caring. If the league itself didn't care, I don't see any reason why the voters should.

#36 - Thanks! I wish more of the voters were that reasonable...

What's particularly disgusting about the writers I've seen discounting the jury verdict is that they (rightly, AFAIC) see the Hall of Fame as the highest individual honor that a player can receive, and that they also (again, rightly) see steroid use as a disqualifier for that honor. So far so good.

BUT....It therefore seems that writers with those standards should be the FIRST ones to demand the highest standards of evidence before casting an otherwise deserving player aside. I don't see why this should even be an arguable point.

No, I don't think that follows at all. You have it exactly backwards. If steroids are such a scourge that you don't want to see users in the Hall, you should have a low standard of evidence, not a high one. As you say, the HOF is an honor, not a right.

And McNamee certainly meets a low standard. If one fervently believes that steroids users don't belong in the Hall, Clemens should be out. How could it logically be any other way?

I used to have a baseball video game -- I think it was for N64 -- which had funny crowd noise. My favorite one was a guy who shouted in a relatively quiet stadium, "HEY I'M AN IDIOT!"

Strat-O-Matic has a vendor yelling "Peanuts! Get your peanuts here!", except it really does not sound like "peanuts"...

BUT....It therefore seems that writers with those standards should be the FIRST ones to demand the highest standards of evidence before casting an otherwise deserving player aside. I don't see why this should even be an arguable point.

No, I don't think that follows at all. You have it exactly backwards. If steroids are such a scourge that you don't want to see users in the Hall, you should have a low standard of evidence, not a high one. As you say, the HOF is an honor, not a right.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. You're essentially saying that someone who doesn't want steroid users to be honored in the HoF is obliged to cast a net so wide that practically anyone even suspected of using would be denied entry. Why would such a blatant lack of fair play be required in order to be against steroids? And if distinctions among suspects are so irrelevant, why have you spent so much time skillfully picking apart the prosecution's case against Clemens?

Your position (and pretty much the BTF consensus) is that it's wrong to bar any steroid users from the HoF. And there's nothing wrong with that POV if you sincerely believe it. But it's not as if that position and the position of clowns like Lupica are the only two allowable ones----although perhaps they are to you and your many mirror images on the yahoo side who've been howling against the jury. I frankly can't see anything in what you're saying beyond a rather primitive appeal to some sort of tribalism: You're either with us all the way or you're against us, no middle ground allowed.

And McNamee certainly meets a low standard. If one fervently believes that steroids users don't belong in the Hall, Clemens should be out. How could it logically be any other way?

It's only "logical" if you happen to believe McNamee's story, which thanks in part to your eloquent sifting through the evidence in this case, I don't. I'm not sure why that should disturb you, but then there are a lot of things about your ideas of "logic" I often fail to understand.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. You're essentially saying that someone who doesn't want steroid users to be honored in the HoF is obliged to cast a net so wide that practically anyone even suspected of using would be denied entry.

Yes.

Why would such a blatant lack of fair play be required in order to be against steroids?

You don't seem to get it: holding steroids use against players to begin with is the lack of fair play.

You've elevated your petty position -- that steroids were a blight against the game -- over honoring players who deserve the honor. So why whould making sure you are using a high standard of evidence to conclude guilt be elevated over your more important goal of seeing that users are kept out of the Hall?

Your logic here makes no sense.

Your own "logic" here makes perfect sense only if you accept your premise that "holding steroids use against players to begin with is the lack of fair play," which is nothing but a completely subjective assertion. This isn't the first time you've tried to play that silly game where you first unilaterally define the rules and then "logically" interpret them. At this point I'm not sure whose "logic" is more detached from reality, yours or Lupica's. You both make such a fetish over some forced "consistency" that the actual details of a player's guilt or innocence seem to mean nothing to either of you. To Lupica, suspicion = guilt, and to you, there's no such thing as guilt.

Yes. And, of course, you don't need to follow baseball to determine if McNamee is a liar.

He's no more or less credible than someone like Jose Canseco, whom the majority treats his word as gospel.

Really? How many times did Canseco lie to the police to cover up a rape? How many times was Canseco fired from his job for falsifying evidence? How many times did Canseco lie to prosecutors?

"Ok, just between us girls, what do we actually believe on this?" - not as much, from what I've noticed anyway.

Again, I don't understand the use of the term "believe" here. Whether he used steroids is a factual question, not a matter of faith. (Well, that's the way it ought to be, anyway. For many reporters, it actually does seem to be religious.)

Jose Canseco was arrested and charged with crimes 7-times, and repeatedly lied about his own steroid use throughout his career, and changed his story on multiple things (including how much steroids benefited him). He's basically no more or less credible than McNamee. I guarantee if he were the one who was making the allegations of injecting Clemens, you wouldn't believe him at all David.

Jose Canseco was arrested and charged with crimes 7-times,

Not one of those crimes had anything to do with honesty, to my recollection. (Checking Wikipedia, it says reckless driving, carrying a gun, battery, battery again, battery again, steroid use, and fertility drug possession). Not quite the same as fabricating evidence or lying to the police to cover up a rape or to escape prosecution for drug dealing.

"How much steroids benefitted him" is a question of opinion, not an issue of credibility.

I am not saying that Canseco is George Washington and the cherry tree. I am merely saying that it's laughable to compare his credibility with that of McNamee.

You don't seem to get it: holding steroids use against players to begin with is the lack of fair play.

Within the world of competitive sports, this is an extremist position not terribly distinguishable from birtherism and trutherism. Essentially no one believes even the milder claim that allowing steroid use doesn't distort the competition, much less the absurd claim that noting the use of steroids by competitors is itself an abuse of fair play.

Ray's bizarre position here is comparable to the idea that only someone who believes in decriminalizing all drugs has any standing to protest when a policeman plants marijuana in a person's car. He's like a lefty who says that until we overthrow capitalism, nobody except a Communist should support the income tax. Ray seems to have a curious belief that he and those who agree with his hardline "so what?" views on steroids hold some sort of exclusive copyright on the issue of fair play for anyone accused of using steroids, and that unless you share those views, you're nothing but a hypocrite if you don't like the idea of innocent players being indiscriminately lumped with the guilty ones.

"Ok, just between us girls, what do we actually believe on this?" - not as much, from what I've noticed anyway."

"Again, I don't understand the use of the term "believe" here. Whether he used steroids is a factual question, not a matter of faith."

........

is "think" better?
"conclude"?
"speculate"?

a lot of you guys know these cases backwards and forward, on every alleged steroid user.
I don't know enough about any of them to come to an informed opinion. I always figured others here did. But I guess it is not to be.

Again, I don't understand the use of the term "believe" here. Whether he used steroids is a factual question, not a matter of faith.

Yes, but this is a legal event, where facts are only tangentially related.

Ray's bizarre position here is comparable to the idea that only someone who believes in decriminalizing all drugs has any standing to protest when a policeman plants marijuana in a person's car.

Yes, comparable. I'll compare them: Nothing like that AT ALL.

Either credible physical evidence or credible testimony from either a teammate or someone who witnessed the juicing first hand. I don't see either of those standards being met ... in the case[s] of ... Pudge ...

Didn't Canseco name Pudge as a player that he personally introduced to steroids and possibly even personally injected?

Ray's bizarre position here is comparable to the idea that only someone who believes in decriminalizing all drugs has any standing to protest when a policeman plants marijuana in a person's car.

Yes, comparable. I'll compare them: Nothing like that AT ALL.

The only thing missing from that studied response is your usual red Gothic Type.

Didn't Canseco name Pudge as a player that he personally introduced to steroids and possibly even personally injected?

More troublesome than that accusation in itself was Pudge's "only God knows" response to a question about whether or not he was on that unreleased list of players who'd failed a drug test. I'd completely forgotten about that, and while it's not an admission of guilt, the contrast between that reaction and Clemens' is pretty striking. So for the time being put me down as undecided but leaning against him. I'd be interested in knowing if any other players spoke out on Pudge one way or the other between now and the first year he's eligible for the HoF ballot.

From one juror's comments, one wonders what they were talking about in there for 10 hours. She said that McNamee initiated these charges against Clemens as a revenge campaign for mentioning his kid in a tv interview...uh, mitchell report, feds questioning in regard to? geez man, 10 hours and this woman wasn't disabused of these fantasies? But yea, one thing you've got to say about turnips. They're unbiased.

Seriously. The fact that a juror sits through an entire trial and manages to fabricate a "fact" in her mind that has no relation at all to reality... it really does have to kind of make you wonder just a little about this whole trial by jury system.

I generally avoid all the steroids threads on this website, so I apologize if this has already been covered, but how sure are people that Clemens took steroids/HGH/whatever? I ask because while I’m pretty sure Bonds took something (and I don’t care what it is/was and still think he’s one of the 5 or so best players ever) I really can’t say the same for Clemens.

When roids started becoming news, my number one suspect was always Clemens. Long before I suspected Bonds or acknowledged a suspicion in McGwire. Roid use for pitchers is about the only thing that makes sense. For batters, it requires way too much work to maintain it's benefits, that effectively they are doing a crap load of work, to get the moderate benefits. For pitchers, it means they are healthy to pitch their next start.

Anyone who didn't suspect Clemens, wasn't watching baseball.

Not one of those crimes had anything to do with honesty, to my recollection. (Checking Wikipedia, it says reckless driving, carrying a gun, battery, battery again, battery again, steroid use, and fertility drug possession). Not quite the same as fabricating evidence or lying to the police to cover up a rape or to escape prosecution for drug dealing.

Not a crime, but he's hired himself out for celebrity endorsements and then had his brother take his place... does that meet the burden of lack of honesty for you?

Again, I don't understand the use of the term "believe" here. Whether he used steroids is a factual question, not a matter of faith. (Well, that's the way it ought to be, anyway. For many reporters, it actually does seem to be religious.)

What is so hard with understanding that? I believe Sosa, Bonds, McGwire, Ortiz, Schilling, Clemens, Pettite, Jeter, Edmonds, Bagwell, Piazza, Pujols, Palmiero, etc. used ped's. I don't think that is a stretch of the imagination, but to act on that belief as if there is evidence is the problem.

What is so hard with understanding that?

I thought I explained it: whether he used steroids is a factual question, not a question of faith. Therefore, I do not understand the use of the term "believe." If -- as per Howie @50 -- you want to change that "believe" to "think" or "conclude," then we have something to talk about. Like what the basis for that conclusion is.

You say "to act on that belief as if there is evidence is the problem." I say "to think it without evidence is the problem."

"Has x been proven to have..." - off the charts popular.

"Ok, just between us girls, what do we actually believe on this?" - not as much, from what I've noticed anyway.

What it comes down to is is, how common are/were PEDs. Post 2004 I guess we have a suspension rate (which is not very high) - but it's a few guys / year who GET CAUGHT. I don't know how accurate (are there still undetectables?) or widespread the testing is, but you could probably estimate use from it.

We do know that it's a random distribution of sluggers, slap hitters, pitchers, with no correlation whatsoever to spikes or on-field performance that we can detect.

Pre 2004 - who the heck knows. We have (in decreasing validity of evidence)

1) Confessed users: Canseco, McGwire, Pettite, ARod off the top of my head.
..
3) Balco associates: Bonds, others
4) Mitchell report names
5) Clemens (separate category because he's a Michell namee that has had evidence not withstand scrutiny in court)
EDIT
I forgot
6) Rumors - Sosa, Bagwell etc.

I am a little unclear about how much of Balco is FACT vs. game of shadows (a novel), and how much of it is included in the Mitchell Report. I can't tell if Bonds' trial makes him more or less likely to have used but - unlikely Clemens who is clearly partially exonerated in his trial.

Add in to this at 2) People who failed tests. Where does Braun fall? 2.5?

I haven't read the Mitchell report but I assume that includes many false positive and false negatives. Probably the greater unknown is the False Negatives. I think it's not unreasonble to conclude that a very large portion of MLB at least "Tried" PEDs sometime in their career. We will never know who "benefited" and certainly never "how much".

As others have said - you have to toss anything that happened before 2004, unless you are hard core enough to start retroactively banning the Amp users, the bat corkers, and the spit ballers. And post 2004 it seems silly to take a hard line - they are (now) against the rules and the punishments are proscribed. You get caught 50 games, 2nd offense 100, three times banned. That's pretty strict, even if not at the level of the Olympics or Tour d France.

Didn't Canseco name Pudge as a player that he personally introduced to steroids and possibly even personally injected?

And there goes my point. Canseco says it's true, so it must be true. I'm sorry, but despite what David says, I see him as no more credible than McNamee. I guarantee for a fact if it were Canseco making these allegations about Clemens, nearly everyone (including David) would not believe him at all. But because it's another player, suddenly it's full of truth.

And there goes my point. Canseco says it's true, so it must be true. I'm sorry, but despite what David says, I see him as no more credible than McNamee.

Few people are so utterly lacking in credibility as much as McNamee is. Canseco is not one of them.

Few people are so utterly lacking in credibility as much as McNamee is.

If it were Canseco making the allegations against Clemens, you would be saying the same thing about him.