PEDs, Steroids and the Hall of Fame

[dietdew]

Why do we talk about this in the past tense. The steroid era hasnt ended and wont end as long as steroids are an effective way to improve performance.

Dan Patrick has mentioned several times on his radio show that there is a doctor who deals performance enhancers to MLB players. They are supposed to be undetectable and cost something like $100,000 to get started and then a certain amount of $ per month after that.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

As many here know, I could care less about PED usage in baseball when it comes to judging for the Hall of Fame. I am also convinced (again, in a logic based opinion) that at least one current member of the HOF used/abused PEDS. (And no, I'm not referring to anyone specifically.)

My sole issue with this entire topic is the judge and jury.

The writers who never cared to report the goings on inside the locker rooms, the management and ownership that turned an eye, MLB officials who could claim "innocence" by claiming that there was a rule on the books, etc.

These hypocritical ***** want both sides...the profits that came with it, and then the cast stones down upon those same players they covered up for or chose to do nothing about.

What percentage of players used? We'll never know.

What players were clean? We'll never know them all.

What players used? We'll never know them all.

The only things we have are stats and era.

I mostly agree with this, except stats and era *aren't* the only things taken into consideration when voting for HOFers.

Pre-steroid era players were also judged with regard to character, integrity and sportsmanship - all subjective traits to judge - and the steroid-era guys will be judged the same way. So nothing's really changed... has it?

People are wary of other people's subjective decision-making, but subjective decision-making has *always* been part of HOF voting.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Just out of interest, but when did you take the stance that people needed to be proven innocent?

This.

I laugh when I see people with this ridiculous sentiment. They want to allow cheaters into the Hall because a lot of players cheated? WTF? lol Senseless.

 

[sportscardtheory]

If you want to be really hard lined about the "guilt" part of it then only those who have tested positive should be excluded from consideration.

Simply being mentioned in a report, a book, or even admitting it openly does not make someone guilty. There is due process and without a failed drug test that process cannot begin.

But I thought you advocate the rule of the court of public opinion? Now you are saying that it needs to be decided like a court of law? Make up your mind man. Can't have it both ways.

 

[hive17]

Honestly, the only people I have problems with are the "testifiers", the guys who talked all this shat about how they never did anything or wouldn't talk about the problem, then got caught. And I think that will all be washed away by history.

Let me ask you this: what is the difference between taking something to make you heal faster, and taking a different, stronger, part of your body and surgically grafting it to an injured, weaker, part of your body? Or taking a laser and transforming your eyes from blurry messes to near 20/20 vision?

My friend has this idea that, in the future, everyone in the stands will be using HGH or some equivilent, feeling strong and healthy; yet at the same time, we'll demand that our baseball players be pure as the driven snow. And I don't think that idea is all that insane.

The thing is that these things are legal. If you have something wrong and need to fix it then fine. That is done by a doc and isn't against the law. But to juice up and you aren't even hurt? Then that is wrong.
I saw a show where they were looking into high school kids taking steroids to be like these huge sport players that use them. Now these huge stars have the money and know how to get the good illegal drugs. These kids cant do that and they are putting crap into there bodies. is this what you want for our future athletes?

Actually, steriods are not inheirantly illegal either; so by that rationale, if a doctor were to prescribe them, they'd be fine? And TJ surgery isn't even to repair a hurt tendon, it's done to actually improve the arm when damage is done. Repairing would be letting it heal and dealing with the pain.

And just because something is "legal", doesn't mean it's not cheating. The arguement on steriods is that it unfairly gives players an advantage they were not born with. Well, if that's the standard, that LASIK falls into the same category. If you can't hit because your eyes suck, too bad, it's what you were born with.

 

[justinmandawg]

This is a pointless conversation. Until the sportswriters have to live by the same rules as the players, it shouldn't matter what a guy does. The vote should go to the players, not some sportswriter that's never wore a jock.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Honestly, the only people I have problems with are the "testifiers", the guys who talked all this shat about how they never did anything or wouldn't talk about the problem, then got caught. And I think that will all be washed away by history.

Let me ask you this: what is the difference between taking something to make you heal faster, and taking a different, stronger, part of your body and surgically grafting it to an injured, weaker, part of your body? Or taking a laser and transforming your eyes from blurry messes to near 20/20 vision?

My friend has this idea that, in the future, everyone in the stands will be using HGH or some equivilent, feeling strong and healthy; yet at the same time, we'll demand that our baseball players be pure as the driven snow. And I don't think that idea is all that insane.

The thing is that these things are legal. If you have something wrong and need to fix it then fine. That is done by a doc and isn't against the law. But to juice up and you aren't even hurt? Then that is wrong.
I saw a show where they were looking into high school kids taking steroids to be like these huge sport players that use them. Now these huge stars have the money and know how to get the good illegal drugs. These kids cant do that and they are putting crap into there bodies. is this what you want for our future athletes?

Actually, steriods are not inheirantly illegal either; so by that rationale, if a doctor were to prescribe them, they'd be fine? And TJ surgery isn't even to repair a hurt tendon, it's done to actually improve the arm when damage is done. Repairing would be letting it heal and dealing with the pain.

And just because something is "legal", doesn't mean it's not cheating. The arguement on steriods is that it unfairly gives players an advantage they were not born with. Well, if that's the standard, that LASIK falls into the same category. If you can't hit because your eyes suck, too bad, it's what you were born with.

MLB allows lasik and TJ surgeries. They don't allow PED abuse. End of story. You can argue this sentiment till you are blue in the face, but the fact that MLB allows certain things and doesn't allow others makes your argument moot. Their league, their rules.

 

[muskiesfan]

I watched McGwire's entire career. To say that he is Hall of Fame worthy is laughable. His rookie card has absolutely zero to do with whether he belongs in the HOF or not. There have been plenty of people who were known for hitting the longball. There are plenty of people who know who Dave Kingman is. He hit a lot of home runs as well. He is very far from being a HOFer. Before someone gets their ******* in a bunch and freaks out, I'm not directly comparing Kingman to McGwire, I'm just saying that being good at 1 thing does not make you worthy of enshrinement.

Make no mistake, the 1998 season was big. I followed along just like everyone else. Baseball would have still survived without McGwire and Sosa. Everyone points to 1998, but there were a bunch of people that were drawn into baseball in 1996 when Cal Ripken Jr. broke Lou Gehrig's streak. It's easy to completely overlook that when blinded by homerism and love of the home run.

Casual fans love home runs. They don't like watching pitchers duels. A lot of the casual fans find baseball slow and boring. A home run is exciting though. They flock to that. That doesn't make home runs any better than any other part of the game, but because casual fans became interested in 1998 is no surprise.

Look at the hoopla that is Starsburg and Harper. They have brought in a lot of casual fans and collectors as well. Who knows what kind of career either will have, but based on the arguments for McGwire, they already qualify for Hall of Fame status.

I'm not strictly a numbers guy, but the fact that only home runs gives McGwire any potential substance as a HOFer says it all. Lets completely ignore the character issue as well. He knowingly and admittedly broke the rules of baseball, but that should be ignored as well because he could hit home runs.

If someone like McGwire makes the HOF, there's a good chance that someone like Adam Dunn will have a good shot as well. If he rebounds this season and has a few more typical Dunn seasons, he'll be over 500 home runs. He would also have more hits (only 300 behind), more walks (250 behind), more RBI (500 behind), and he already has more doubles, triples, and stolen bases. That's in 5 less seasons than McGwire. I don't see a ton of people arguing that Adam Dunn is a Hall of Famer. Why? The argument is that he is 1 dimensional. Exactly like Mark McGwire.

 

[Gonzaleznut]

If you want to be really hard lined about the "guilt" part of it then only those who have tested positive should be excluded from consideration.

Simply being mentioned in a report, a book, or even admitting it openly does not make someone guilty. There is due process and without a failed drug test that process cannot begin.

But I thought you advocate the rule of the court of public opinion? Now you are saying that it needs to be decided like a court of law? Make up your mind man. Can't have it both ways.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR ANYTHING!!! The court of public opinion exists whether I advocate for it or not. I would say that someone who takes the innocent until PROVEN guilty stance should only exclude those who have actually failed a drug test during their playing days.

What do Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Jeter, Bagwell, Ivan Rodriguez and Juan Gonzalez have in common?? None failed a drug test. Therefore you can neither confirm or deny if they used PEDs.

 

[muskiesfan]

If you want to be really hard lined about the "guilt" part of it then only those who have tested positive should be excluded from consideration.

Simply being mentioned in a report, a book, or even admitting it openly does not make someone guilty. There is due process and without a failed drug test that process cannot begin.

But I thought you advocate the rule of the court of public opinion? Now you are saying that it needs to be decided like a court of law? Make up your mind man. Can't have it both ways.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR ANYTHING!!! The court of public opinion exists whether I advocate for it or not. I would say that someone who takes the innocent until PROVEN guilty stance should only exclude those who have actually failed a drug test during their playing days.

What do Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Jeter, Bagwell, Ivan Rodriguez and Juan Gonzalez have in common?? None failed a drug test. Therefore you can neither confirm or deny if they used PEDs.

Bonds admitted to using steroids. McGwire admitted to using steroids. Though they were not allowed into evidence, MLB had 2 failed tests by Bonds, a 2001 sample at BALCO and the 2003 "anonymous" list that names keep coming from. Sosa's name was also released for failing the 2003 test that led to the current testing.

Those 3 used steroids, that's a fact. Bonds and McGwire admitted it, Bonds and Sosa failed the 2003 test.

So yes, I can confidently say that Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa used steroids.

 

[hive17]

Honestly, the only people I have problems with are the "testifiers", the guys who talked all this shat about how they never did anything or wouldn't talk about the problem, then got caught. And I think that will all be washed away by history.

Let me ask you this: what is the difference between taking something to make you heal faster, and taking a different, stronger, part of your body and surgically grafting it to an injured, weaker, part of your body? Or taking a laser and transforming your eyes from blurry messes to near 20/20 vision?

My friend has this idea that, in the future, everyone in the stands will be using HGH or some equivilent, feeling strong and healthy; yet at the same time, we'll demand that our baseball players be pure as the driven snow. And I don't think that idea is all that insane.

The thing is that these things are legal. If you have something wrong and need to fix it then fine. That is done by a doc and isn't against the law. But to juice up and you aren't even hurt? Then that is wrong.
I saw a show where they were looking into high school kids taking steroids to be like these huge sport players that use them. Now these huge stars have the money and know how to get the good illegal drugs. These kids cant do that and they are putting crap into there bodies. is this what you want for our future athletes?

Actually, steriods are not inheirantly illegal either; so by that rationale, if a doctor were to prescribe them, they'd be fine? And TJ surgery isn't even to repair a hurt tendon, it's done to actually improve the arm when damage is done. Repairing would be letting it heal and dealing with the pain.

And just because something is "legal", doesn't mean it's not cheating. The arguement on steriods is that it unfairly gives players an advantage they were not born with. Well, if that's the standard, that LASIK falls into the same category. If you can't hit because your eyes suck, too bad, it's what you were born with.

MLB allows lasik and TJ surgeries. They don't allow PED abuse. End of story. You can argue this sentiment till you are blue in the face, but the fact that MLB allows certain things and doesn't allow others makes your argument moot. Their league, their rules.

I'm not giving my OPINION to try and change MLB's rules. That would be a waste of time (much like arguing with you is). My arguement is very valid, it just won't change anything because MLB has made up their minds. I just find it a little hypocrtical that "some" medical procedures are ok, and some aren't.

 

[muskiesfan]

Honestly, the only people I have problems with are the "testifiers", the guys who talked all this shat about how they never did anything or wouldn't talk about the problem, then got caught. And I think that will all be washed away by history.

Let me ask you this: what is the difference between taking something to make you heal faster, and taking a different, stronger, part of your body and surgically grafting it to an injured, weaker, part of your body? Or taking a laser and transforming your eyes from blurry messes to near 20/20 vision?

My friend has this idea that, in the future, everyone in the stands will be using HGH or some equivilent, feeling strong and healthy; yet at the same time, we'll demand that our baseball players be pure as the driven snow. And I don't think that idea is all that insane.

The thing is that these things are legal. If you have something wrong and need to fix it then fine. That is done by a doc and isn't against the law. But to juice up and you aren't even hurt? Then that is wrong.
I saw a show where they were looking into high school kids taking steroids to be like these huge sport players that use them. Now these huge stars have the money and know how to get the good illegal drugs. These kids cant do that and they are putting crap into there bodies. is this what you want for our future athletes?

Actually, steriods are not inheirantly illegal either; so by that rationale, if a doctor were to prescribe them, they'd be fine? And TJ surgery isn't even to repair a hurt tendon, it's done to actually improve the arm when damage is done. Repairing would be letting it heal and dealing with the pain.

And just because something is "legal", doesn't mean it's not cheating. The arguement on steriods is that it unfairly gives players an advantage they were not born with. Well, if that's the standard, that LASIK falls into the same category. If you can't hit because your eyes suck, too bad, it's what you were born with.

MLB allows lasik and TJ surgeries. They don't allow PED abuse. End of story. You can argue this sentiment till you are blue in the face, but the fact that MLB allows certain things and doesn't allow others makes your argument moot. Their league, their rules.

I'm not giving my OPINION to try and change MLB's rules. That would be a waste of time (much like arguing with you is). My arguement is very valid, it just won't change anything because MLB has made up their minds. I just find it a little hypocrtical that "some" medical procedures are ok, and some aren't.

By your argument, eyeglasses and contact lenses should not be allowed in baseball either. Both improve your eyesight just like LASIK. One is a surgery, but the end result is the same. I guess MLB should not allow players to wear eyeglasses or contact lenses because it improves their eyesight giving them an "unfair advantage".

I keep editing this post because I suck at using the keyboard today. ::facepalm::

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

... I just find it a little hypocrtical that "some" medical procedures are ok, and some aren't.

It depends on the procedure you're talking about though. Procedures or performance enhancers that can or could cause harm should definitely NOT be allowed.

 

[hive17]

[quote="hive17":3avxv9xy]Honestly, the only people I have problems with are the "testifiers", the guys who talked all this shat about how they never did anything or wouldn't talk about the problem, then got caught. And I think that will all be washed away by history.

Let me ask you this: what is the difference between taking something to make you heal faster, and taking a different, stronger, part of your body and surgically grafting it to an injured, weaker, part of your body? Or taking a laser and transforming your eyes from blurry messes to near 20/20 vision?

My friend has this idea that, in the future, everyone in the stands will be using HGH or some equivilent, feeling strong and healthy; yet at the same time, we'll demand that our baseball players be pure as the driven snow. And I don't think that idea is all that insane.

The thing is that these things are legal. If you have something wrong and need to fix it then fine. That is done by a doc and isn't against the law. But to juice up and you aren't even hurt? Then that is wrong.
I saw a show where they were looking into high school kids taking steroids to be like these huge sport players that use them. Now these huge stars have the money and know how to get the good illegal drugs. These kids cant do that and they are putting crap into there bodies. is this what you want for our future athletes?

Actually, steriods are not inheirantly illegal either; so by that rationale, if a doctor were to prescribe them, they'd be fine? And TJ surgery isn't even to repair a hurt tendon, it's done to actually improve the arm when damage is done. Repairing would be letting it heal and dealing with the pain.

And just because something is "legal", doesn't mean it's not cheating. The arguement on steriods is that it unfairly gives players an advantage they were not born with. Well, if that's the standard, that LASIK falls into the same category. If you can't hit because your eyes suck, too bad, it's what you were born with.

MLB allows lasik and TJ surgeries. They don't allow PED abuse. End of story. You can argue this sentiment till you are blue in the face, but the fact that MLB allows certain things and doesn't allow others makes your argument moot. Their league, their rules.

I'm not giving my OPINION to try and change MLB's rules. That would be a waste of time (much like arguing with you is). My arguement is very valid, it just won't change anything because MLB has made up their minds. I just find it a little hypocrtical that "some" medical procedures are ok, and some aren't.

By your argument, eyeglasses and contact lenses should not be allowed in baseball either. Both improve your eyesight just like LASIK. One is a surgery, but the end result is the same. I guess MLB should not allow players to wear eyeglasses or contact lenses because it improves their eyesight giving them an "unfair advantage".

I keep editing this post because I suck at using the keyboard today. ::facepalm::[/quote:3avxv9xy]

I'm not talking about equipment (eyeglasses or contact lenses); I'm talking about physically changing your body to be better at a sport than you would be otherwise. That's what PEDs accomplish; that's what TJ surgery accomplishes; that's what Lasik accomplishes.

I bring all this up only to make the point that I don't think the issue is black or white, which is what the OP was going for ("everybody in, or nobody in").

 

[hive17]

... I just find it a little hypocrtical that "some" medical procedures are ok, and some aren't.

It depends on the procedure you're talking about though. Procedures or performance enhancers that can or could cause harm should definitely NOT be allowed.

Every procedure and every drug has some risk to it, and the potential for harm exists either way. We just happen to think we know more about the potential harm for some things over others.

 

[sportscardtheory]

If you want to be really hard lined about the "guilt" part of it then only those who have tested positive should be excluded from consideration.

Simply being mentioned in a report, a book, or even admitting it openly does not make someone guilty. There is due process and without a failed drug test that process cannot begin.

But I thought you advocate the rule of the court of public opinion? Now you are saying that it needs to be decided like a court of law? Make up your mind man. Can't have it both ways.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR ANYTHING!!! The court of public opinion exists whether I advocate for it or not. I would say that someone who takes the innocent until PROVEN guilty stance should only exclude those who have actually failed a drug test during their playing days.

What do Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Jeter, Bagwell, Ivan Rodriguez and Juan Gonzalez have in common?? None failed a drug test. Therefore you can neither confirm or deny if they used PEDs.

Since, as others have stated, the PED issue is steeped in the court of public opinion, any player who is even THOUGHT to have abused PEDs will most likely receive less votes for Hall induction. These players still receive votes, just less than they would have if not linked to PEDs. That's just the way it is.

 

[muskiesfan]

I'm not talking about equipment (eyeglasses or contact lenses); I'm talking about physically changing your body to be better at a sport than you would be otherwise. That's what PEDs accomplish; that's what TJ surgery accomplishes; that's what Lasik accomplishes.

I bring all this up only to make the point that I don't think the issue is black or white, which is what the OP was going for ("everybody in, or nobody in").

I agree that it is not a simple black and white issue. I just feel that Lasik isn't a good comparison. I get your point though.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

... I just find it a little hypocrtical that "some" medical procedures are ok, and some aren't.

It depends on the procedure you're talking about though. Procedures or performance enhancers that can or could cause harm should definitely NOT be allowed.

Every procedure and every drug has some risk to it, and the potential for harm exists either way. We just happen to think we know more about the potential harm for some things over others.

Yes of course. But going back to your initial point here, this certainly does not mean its hypocritical to consider some procedures or drugs... safe.

 

[elmalo]

I watched McGwire's entire career. To say that he is Hall of Fame worthy is laughable. His rookie card has absolutely zero to do with whether he belongs in the HOF or not. There have been plenty of people who were known for hitting the longball. There are plenty of people who know who Dave Kingman is. He hit a lot of home runs as well. He is very far from being a HOFer. Before someone gets their ******* in a bunch and freaks out, I'm not directly comparing Kingman to McGwire, I'm just saying that being good at 1 thing does not make you worthy of enshrinement.

Make no mistake, the 1998 season was big. I followed along just like everyone else. Baseball would have still survived without McGwire and Sosa. Everyone points to 1998, but there were a bunch of people that were drawn into baseball in 1996 when Cal Ripken Jr. broke Lou Gehrig's streak. It's easy to completely overlook that when blinded by homerism and love of the home run.

Casual fans love home runs. They don't like watching pitchers duels. A lot of the casual fans find baseball slow and boring. A home run is exciting though. They flock to that. That doesn't make home runs any better than any other part of the game, but because casual fans became interested in 1998 is no surprise.

Look at the hoopla that is Starsburg and Harper. They have brought in a lot of casual fans and collectors as well. Who knows what kind of career either will have, but based on the arguments for McGwire, they already qualify for Hall of Fame status.

I'm not strictly a numbers guy, but the fact that only home runs gives McGwire any potential substance as a HOFer says it all. Lets completely ignore the character issue as well. He knowingly and admittedly broke the rules of baseball, but that should be ignored as well because he could hit home runs.

If someone like McGwire makes the HOF, there's a good chance that someone like Adam Dunn will have a good shot as well. If he rebounds this season and has a few more typical Dunn seasons, he'll be over 500 home runs. He would also have more hits (only 300 behind), more walks (250 behind), more RBI (500 behind), and he already has more doubles, triples, and stolen bases. That's in 5 less seasons than McGwire. I don't see a ton of people arguing that Adam Dunn is a Hall of Famer. Why? The argument is that he is 1 dimensional. Exactly like Mark McGwire.

So, is Harmon Killebrew being in the Hall of Fame laughable as well?

 

[Titans74]

Steroids and PED's aside, there are and always have been certain criteria that signed your ticket to Cooperstown whether or not you were a one dimensional player. 500 home runs, 3000 hits, 300 wins, to name a few, make you a lock for the HOF. I don't care if you are a stat compiling, full time DH who only played night games for 24 seasons, if you hit 500 home runs you belong in the HOF. Anyone to think Mark McGwire wasn't a HOF player is nuts.