Well, this bit is pretty chuckle-headed:

Voters cannot split careers. A particular argument, stunning in its lack of sense, makes the rounds about Bonds. Since suspicions of his possibly using performance-enhancing substances began in the late 1990s, Bonds could be Hall of Fame by virtue of his three MVP awards pre the PES era. Don’t you love that stance: it’s OK for someone to cheat if they’ve already had a fine career but if you’re a marginal player struggling to stay in the big leagues or a Triple-A player watching your peers use any means available to reach the show, you’re out of luck. No cheating allowed.

Huh? If one believes that Bonds was clean through 2000 and since we have no failed tests for Bonds (barring any leaks to come), it wouldn't be unreasonable to decide he was an HoFer through 2000 already and, while you have your suspicions, you don't have enough evidence to not vote for him due to "cheating".

As to the marginal players -- they were of course welcome to take as many PEDs as they wanted pre-testing and nobody called them a cheater. Heck, even the ones who were caught later or got connected to investigations have generally been ignored unless they were big names. And even fairly big names (Paul Lo Duca and, after much opprobrium, even Giambi and Sheffield) are not being hounded about this.

And in the post-testing era, as long as they're not caught, everyone seems to assume they're clean.

Anyway, an HoF vote for Bonds under the above logic wouldn't be a slap in the face to Alex Sanchez but rather an acknowledgment that Bonds always was 100 times the player Sanchez was -- no matter how much Sanchez cheated. :-)

The brightest sportswriter I know, Bruce Jenkins of the San Francisco Chronicle,

That explains a lot, Ted. That explains a lot.

I enjoyed Robinson as a play-by-play announcer when he was with the Giants. But having listened to him fill-in for various radio hosts on KNBR over the years and now reading his columns, it's clear that insightful analysis is not something that comes naturally to him--if at all. Nor is he an especially good storyteller.

Memo to self: Keep chucklehead insult in reserve.

Huh? If one believes that Bonds was clean through 2000 and since we have no failed tests for Bonds (barring any leaks to come), it wouldn't be unreasonable to decide he was an HoFer through 2000 already and, while you have your suspicions, you don't have enough evidence to not vote for him due to "cheating".

We don't?

Explanation of

The brightest sportswriter I know, Bruce Jenkins of the San Francisco Chronicle

:

Jenkins is a tennis fan and one of the few sports columnists apart from Bud Collins to write about it with any frequency. Robinson's big national gig is as a tennis announcer for NBC's coverage of the French Open and Wimbledon. So they've spent a lot of time bonding over strawberries and champagne in the UK.

Plus Jenkins and Robinson are SF Bay Area neighbors.

Plus Jenkins and Robinson are SF Bay Area neighbors.

Is that what we're calling such relationships these days? Good to know.

Chip:

You mean they are next door neighbors, in some undisclosed Bay Area neighborhood? Or they both live in the Bay Area?

Note, the latter would not make them "neighbors". There are 7 million people living in the Bay Area.

Jenkins is a tennis fan and one of the few sports columnists apart from Bud Collins to write about it with any frequency.

Jenkins on tennis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jenkins on baseball; it's almost as if Jenkins goes intentionally dense and old-school for the sake of old-school just to be an ass when it comes to baseball.

We don't?

I said it wouldn't be unreasonable to decide that you didn't.