Pete Rose was ignored by a majority of voters for the 15 years he was on the ballot, and McGwire and Palmeiro have fallen far short of the 75 per cent of votes needed for election in recent years.

Rose was on the ballot for 15 years?

Rose was on the ballot for 15 years?

As a write-in candidate, who wasn't allowed to be written in.

Translation: I'm unwilling to vote for a Big Bad Roider at the moment, but I might if the winds shift.

This is a strange ballot (though it's not entirely clear to me who he voted for, and who he just felt like mentioning) but it has Trammell and Raines so I can't hate it too much. I even kinda like the idea of Wells getting a few votes.

I suspect Bonds, Clemens and Sosa may receive slightly more support, but I don’t expect any of them to get the first-ballot recognition that would have been theirs if they hadn’t used drugs. The black mark against them is their arrogance in denying any wrongdoing. Everyone loves redemption stories, but they require a degree of repentance.

Yeah, 'fess up and all will be forgiven. You'll sail right into the Hall of Fame.

McGwire, who is on the ballot for the seventh year, was on 19.5 per cent of the ballots last year

Oh, wait...

Did anyone catch this from the full article:

Pete Rose was ignored by a majority of voters for the 15 years he was on the ballot, and McGwire and Palmeiro have fallen far short of the 75 per cent of votes needed for election in recent years.

Wow. How are you a HOF voter and not know that Rose never appeared on the ballot?

Yeah, 'fess up and all will be forgiven. You'll sail right into the Hall of Fame.

And it's also just further proof that for many anti-steroids crusaders, the accusation itself counts as evidence. Otherwise, why would Sosa's denials not be effective?

---

Also: Do we still think there might be a significant "first year penalty" for steroids players? McGwire and Palmeiro have actually regressed in the voting, IIRC. And McGwire's confession didn't help him at all.

And it's also just further proof that for many anti-steroids crusaders, the accusation itself counts as evidence. Otherwise, why would Sosa's denials not be effective?

Sosa has a positive test. His was one of the names leaked off of that super secret list of 104 that was supposed to be guaranteed to be anonymous IIRC.

Sosa has a positive test. His was one of the names leaked off of that super secret list of 104 that was supposed to be guaranteed to be anonymous IIRC.

There's been no evidence presented that Sosa was on the list, let alone as to what substance he allegedly tested positive for.

Some jackass at the New York Times - ok, Michael Schmidt - was allowed to run with a defamatory column (*) stating that "anonymous sources" told him that Sosa was on the list. Schmidt provided no names and no facts, and therefore no way to test the claim - not that the anonymous sources even asserted that they knew much.

And no way to test the credibility, accuracy, truthfulness, and reliability of the anonymous lawyers who "leaked" the information, except to say that if they were telling the truth they were acting dishonorably and unethically for violating a court seal - so, really, what credibility do they have.

(*) I use "defamatory" in a factual sense, not a legal one. There is no way Sosa would prevail on an actual defamation claim.

Sosa has a positive test. His was one of the names leaked off of that super secret list of 104 that was supposed to be guaranteed to be anonymous IIRC.

As Ray pointed out, there was no confirmation he was on that list, on top of that, at least one of those "leaked" lists had more names than the number that tested positive. I've seen one of those leaked list, and it looked like somebody sat at home and went through the rosters of the teams and made a judgement call, as all the names on the list were "suspected" roiders, and there were almost no scrubs at all and a much higher percentage of bats over arms. Which of course goes counter to everything we have seen since they have instituted testing.

Did anyone catch this from the full article

Nope. No one.

Some jackass at the New York Times - ok, Michael Schmidt - was allowed to run with a defamatory column (*) stating that "anonymous sources" told him that Sosa was on the list. Schmidt provided no names and no facts, and therefore no way to test the claim - not that the anonymous sources even asserted that they knew much.

He's the same writer who first reported that Manny and Ortiz had failed the 2003 test. And the fact that you have no way to confirm his reporting isn't to say that the NYT failed to confirm his sources.

I wouldn't say that we "know" Sosa used steroids, but I would say there's reason to believe he failed the 2003 test.

And the fact that you have no way to confirm his reporting isn't to say that the NYT failed to confirm his sources.

I wouldn't say that we "know" Sosa used steroids, but I would say there's reason to believe he failed the 2003 test.

Huh? Statement # 1 means that I have to prove a negative, which is the biggest problem with anti-steroid zealotry as practiced by the torches and pitchforks of the BBWAA. I have personal experience with regard to the lax standards used by the NYT in their articles.

As for statement # 2, we will never truly "know", as a writer had sources that he will not reveal - were they sources with a PR mission (Jeff Novitzky, feds trying to build a case in the media)? Funny how there was no real investigation of the leak of what was effectively an employee assistance plan !).

I ascribe to Ken Davidoff's maxims that you can punish anyone when actual MLB/MLBPA sanctioned testing was instituted - and also learn to embrace the grey of the 90's.

Huh? Statement # 1 means that I have to prove a negative, which is the biggest problem with anti-steroid zealotry as practiced by the torches and pitchforks of the BBWAA. I have personal experience with regard to the lax standards used by the NYT in their articles.

No one's asking you to prove anything. The fact that the NYT writer--who very likely has sources with knowledge of the 2003 test results, given his original reporting on Manny and Ortiz--said that Sosa failed the 2003 test is evidence that Sosa did, indeed, fail the 2003 test. We can debate how persuasive that evidence is, but I think it's fair to say that it's more likely that Sosa failed the 2003 test than that Player X who hasn't been named by the NYT or anyone else failed the test. The fact that the NYT is sometimes wrong isn't a reason to completely ignore their reporting.

And, to be clear, I don't think anyone who tested positive in 2003 should be punished, I don't think steroids should affect HOF cases beyond nudging around the borderline, and I don't think steroid use is a moral issue. I just think it's silly lump Sosa in with someone like Bagwell--for whom there really is no evidence of use.

the NYT writer--who very likely has sources with knowledge of the 2003 test results

And as I said above, what was the agenda of these sources that leaked private medical information? No reporter ever pursued this topic to its end - they all rolled over and took the information provided (most likely) from the government (the prosecution) as gospel.

I think it's fair to say that it's more likely that Sosa failed the 2003 test than that Player X who hasn't been named by the NYT or anyone else failed the test

And since I played with people that went to jail on cocaine charges in the 80's on the Royals and Giants, it's OK for a team to be suspicious when I have a bad season and not offer me a contract? That's a hell of a nudge along the borderline!

He's the same writer who first reported that Manny and Ortiz had failed the 2003 test.

And? Have those reports been subsequently proved accurate? I didn't think they had been.

And the fact that you have no way to confirm his reporting isn't to say that the NYT failed to confirm his sources.

I wouldn't say that we "know" Sosa used steroids, but I would say there's reason to believe he failed the 2003 test.

No. There's no reason.

No one's asking you to prove anything. The fact that the NYT writer--who very likely has sources with knowledge of the 2003 test results, given his original reporting on Manny and Ortiz--said that Sosa failed the 2003 test is evidence that Sosa did, indeed, fail the 2003 test.

No. It's evidence that Schmidt wrote something.

We can debate how persuasive that evidence is, but I think it's fair to say that it's more likely that Sosa failed the 2003 test than that Player X who hasn't been named by the NYT or anyone else failed the test.

"Failed the 2003 test" is meaningless gibberish that sounds like you're saying something informed and intelligent when you're actually not. What substance did Sosa supposedly test positive for? Can you tell me? Of course you can't.

And? Have those reports been subsequently proved accurate? I didn't think they had been.

Ortiz's was confirmed by Ortiz via the player's union.


Ortiz confirms positive test

I don't get why we would trust someone who's leaking confidential information. They're already violating the ethics of their profession.

And? Have those reports been subsequently proved accurate? I didn't think they had been.

Ortiz confirmed the report in the original report. Does that count as subsequent?

"Failed the 2003 test" is meaningless gibberish that sounds like you're saying something informed and intelligent when you're actually not. What substance did Sosa supposedly test positive for? Can you tell me? Of course you can't.

Yes, the fact that they didn't report which substance he tested positive for means that I'm uninformed and unintelligent. Smart take, Ray.

RDP and bob tufts

1 - if someone writes something in the newspaper with anonymous sources, it is always completely correct.

2 - if you know or work with someone in any way, who does something illegal, it means that you ALWAYS did it too. sorry bob, we're waiting for you to confess.

3 - if you accuse 120 people of something and it turns out that you were correct about 1 of them, then you MUST be correct about the other 119. it's how they do math and reporters are real good at math.

4 - anonymous sources absolutely NEVER lie or are mistaken, and since they don't have to prove it and reporters don't have to prove it, it MUST be infallible

therefore,

guys you think are clean could not possibly have used drugs and guys you don't like for whatever reason absolutely positively DID use drugs. i mean the kind of drugs you have a problem with, not harmless, good ol boy schedule 2 drugs like amphetamines/cocaine, even though illegal possession/use of them is the same legally

Ortiz's was confirmed by Ortiz via the player's union.

Ortiz confirms positive test

Thanks. And still no information as to what he tested positive for, which is a major issue.

From wiki:

Ten days later, Ortiz held a press conference before a game at Yankee Stadium and denied ever buying or using steroids but suggested the positive test might have been due to his use of supplements and vitamins at the time.[9] When asked which supplements he had been taking, Ortiz said he did not know.[10] Ortiz was accompanied at the press conference by the general counsel of the players union, Michael Weiner. Because the list of players who tested positive was seized as part of a government investigation and is currently under court-ordered seal pending the outcome of litigation, Weiner said the players union was unable to provide Ortiz with any details about his test result, including what substance he tested positive for.

On the same day, the Major League Baseball Players Association issued a statement pointing out that because of several factors, any player appearing on the list compiled by the government in 2003 did not necessarily test positive for performance enhancing drugs. Among those factors were that the total amount of players said to be on the list far exceeded the amount of collected specimens that tested positive. In addition, there were questions raised regarding the lab that performed the testing and their interpretation of the positive tests. Also, the statement pointed out that certain legal supplements that were available over the counter at the time could possibly cause a positive test result.

if i remember rightly, the banned substance list a person could test positive for included DHEA and androstenedione which do exactly zero to enhance performance in a young healthy male athlete.

they also could have included the helpful vaginal suppository drug clostebol, that freddy galvis got busted for

AND amphetamines were on the tested for list, too

and this is why you just might could want to know WHAT substance someone tested positive for

ortiz ALSO said that he was not notified of a positive test and the players union DID notify all players who had a positive test but nobody knows what the test was positive FOR. ortiz has NEVER stated that he took steroids

and in 2003, over the counter supplements actually DID contain steroids, remember? as well as androstenedione and other stuff which is chemically related to testosterone which is not effective as a muscle builder, according to people who actually USE various steroids and have chat rooms/blogs about it.

i trust that they know what actually, you know, like WORKS a heck of a lot more than i do gary wadler

What's the standard to use to "nudge along the borderline"? What sources are credible to cite? NY Times - yes, NY Post - no? Mitchell - yes? McNamee - no? Prosecutor - yes? Defense attorney - no?

Frankly, I will never trust the Times due to what they did to my wife. The paper called her "a hack with a resume" in a multi-column, multi-page political hit piece that went after Guiliani, She was not contacted by the paper for any feedback or opinion on a topic in which she was at the epicenter.

The premise and conclusion were written before all the facts were assembled because they fit the agenda and political bias of the author and editor.

That is shabby, poor journalism - and common practice in the ever shrinking industry.

over the counter supplements actually DID contain steroids

Not quite. Roughly 20% of over the counter supplements would cause a false positive for Nandrolone.

(there's no direct test for Nandrolone. They test for it indirectly and some things -- andro among them -- break down to the same thing)

bob

unfortunately, it seems to be both legal and very difficult to stop. news = opinion/gossip - and people always believe whatever is printed in the paper

ron J2

i understand what you are saying, but from what i had read 03/04, supplements had been tested and some actually DID contain steroids. and heaven knows what anything bought in the dominican had in it back then.

even if i cared about steroids, which i don't, i think there is a difference when it comes to intent. if you buy something labeled "protein muscle builder" AND you are not being tested for any trade ingredient, then as far as i'm concerned, you haven't done ANYTHING that even closely resembles "cheating"

this is like the difference between deliberately murdering someone by running them down with a car and you driving normally down the street and your axle breaks and your car goes out of control and you hit someone and they die

it is beyond depressing that we keep having this almost exact same discussion at the frequency we do since 02 or 03

As for those tainted supplements:

Congress passed the 1994 DSHEA, (a House co-sponsor, Henry Waxman, a Senate co-sponsor Orrin Hatch) which deregulated the supplement industry and tied the hands of the FDA. Substances reached the market with little warning to the 50% of Americans who bought them, and government action could only take place when there were enough reports of seriously sick or dead kids - you know, the ones that Congress tells us they are fighting for at all times.

According to a study at the time by Informed-Choice LLC, “twenty-five percent of the samples showed the presence of steroid contamination while 11 percent showed the existence of stimulants”.

Thanks Rep. Waxman and Senator Hatch. Thanks to a Congress which created the over the counter Wild West of performance enhancing drugs!

#26 BBC you're right. At least one company was putting in Madol and not disclosing it. I'd forgotten about that.

even if i cared about steroids, which i don't, i think there is a difference when it comes to intent. if you buy something labeled "protein muscle builder" AND you are not being tested for any trade ingredient, then as far as i'm concerned, you haven't done ANYTHING that even closely resembles "cheating"

Absolutely agree. It's a tough borderline, but a player who does everything he "legally" can to improve his performance is 100% a great guy and team player and a professional, but if he slides even 1% over the line, all the sudden he's a cheater and disgrace to the game. Considering that the border between legal vs illegal was shifting or never defined(after all, why is HGH all the sudden illegal, but not body building supplements? And how is an athlete supposed to know which crosses the line? I mean if we all the sudden discover that a flower from Brazil that is pulverized and eaten as a spice, gives you the exact same benefits of roids, would that be against the theoretical rules?)

The zealots act like there is no grey areas(except as it pertains to Pettite) when the entire spectrum of things is grey.