In light of the Duke lacross situation, are we making the same mistake with Mark McGwire (or Bonds?)

Estil

Okay, as you all are aware by now, the Duke Lacross players who were accused of raping a stripper had all the charges dropped and actually declared "innocent" by the DA (not the usual "insufficent evidence") and now the prosecutor (and to a lesser extent, the Duke faculity/staff who jumped to conclusions) is under hot water for jumping to conclusions regarding the accused players. Now if you'll recall, the coach of the team was forced to resign, the entire lacross season was canceled, all because of allegations, which turned out to be totally unfounded.

Now in light of that situation, I am now even more convinced that we (the fans and media especially) are making the same big mistake regarding Mark McGwire. Now, I remember watching him play during his magical 1998 season and he was nothing but a class act all the way. There was no question he was going into the Hall of Fame. But yet, now due to the McCarthy-like allegations of steroids of what seems like every other ballplayer, not only was Mr. McGwire unfairly denied his going into the HOF on the first ballot, but it also ruined the chances of Ripken/Gwynn of going in unanimously. So far, I've yet to encounter one factual piece of evidence that even suggests McGwire ever used any kind of illegal substances (remember, McGwire freely admited using "andro" which at that time was perfectly legal in MLB) during his playing career.

As for McGwire speaking at the Congressional hearings, it just occured to me why Mr. McGwire did not "wish to talk about the past". Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that he was in fact innocent. Well, my educated guess would be that McGwire DID witness other players using 'roids but did not want to be put into position to violate the "code of the clubhouse" (what goes on in the clubhouse stays in the clubhouse). Furthermore, Palmeiro was the one who most vigrously denied using steroids (with the whole pointed finger and everything) and yet he did in fact test positive for 'roids later on. Now suppose McGwire did testify that he absoultely did not use 'roids the same convincing manner that Palmeiro did. Now after what happened to Palmeiro, do you think after that McGwire's denial would be believed, regardless of the fact (again) that to this date no real evidence that McGwire used 'roids has yet to surface (no positive tests, no receipts, no credible witnesses, nothing).

So to the Hall of Fame voters next year; do the right thing. VOTE MCGWIRE IN THE HALL. This is the United States of America, you are innocent until proven guilty. We made the mistake of presuming guilt for the Duke lacross players and look what happened. Don't make the same mistake again. I know I'm probably in the minority here, but as the Duke lacross case showed, the majority is not always right, and until and unless I see some real evidence that McGwire used illegal steroids during his playing career, then I say, McGwire in '08.

bigfische

Didnt the Duke guys deny their allegations? Yup. Mcgwire couldnt even bring himself to do that. No Hall For You!

SanctionII

In a "court of law" one is presumed innocent of criminal charges until the criminal prosecutor "proves" that you are guilty of the crime you have been charged with.

In the "court of public opinion" no such presumption exists. Depending on many factors, a particular set of facts (i.e. the Duke Lacrosse Team party and the events alleged to have taken place there) fits the "template" of what is "newsworthy". Woe to anyone who finds themselves involved in such a "newsworthy" event, particularly if one happens to be the person against whom scorn, ridicule is to be heaped (according to the prevailing political correctness of the day). A prime example is the Duke Lacrosse team members (from an upper class white background).

Whether McGwire makes it inot the HOF or not is largely a publicity/popularity contest presided over by the sports media types who vote on the candidates.

bri2327

Even in McGwire never took a steroid in his life he is in no way or shape a hall of famer IMO.

Michigan

His refusal to testify before Congress might have slammed the door for good on the HOF.

frankhardy

<< <i>Even in McGwire never took a steroid in his life he is in no way or shape a hall of famer IMO. >>



I must respectfully but vehemently disagree.

grote15

Bonds was a first ballot lock for the HOF before he started using steroids somewhere around the 1999 season. Even with all those steroid-assisted home runs, I don't think McGwire should be a lock for the HOF by any means, and without the steroids he's little better than Dave Kingman. I don't think it's a fair analogy to compare rape allegations against Duke lacrosse players with steroid abuse, in any case.

calaban7

I really hope this question is a joke. Somehow common sence seem to be dismissed , quickly , in the court of public opinion. Within a day , I and anyone else with a brain knew there was some serious credibility issues with the accuser. The name Tawanda Brawley was swiftly left in the gutter of facts. In the Duke case , there was NEVER any evidense presented that even looked close to being real. As the days and weeks progressed the evidense was damming that we had nothing but liars making charges. No DNA match. The 3 wealthest families that were simply pulled off a list. Alibies that were verified by electronic verification , that would easily stand on their own. The pregnant, done this before( falsely accusing ) liar that kept changing her story.

As the a**clown lawyer , who knew how to make rhyming babbling sentences better that anything else , said " If the evidense doesn't fit you must aquit. "

I've heard a saying that Liars love liars, and cheaters love cheaters. All those people that supported this lying nut down at duke-town, I guess can't wait for the next liar to give them their fill of non-truth. The end justifies the means to them. When we grew up learning how to play games or sports, winning was important, but how you won was more important. If anyone out there thinks that Bonds , McGwire, Sosa, Raffy or any of the others , got there or bulked up like that from working out at the gym, or drinking Ovaltine, or taking Flintstone vitamins everyday , there's a women down in Dukeland that needs your moral support. She like Barry counts on idiots to believe them, instead of the truth. As the famous line from the kids movie AMERICAN TALE says . "Who are you going to believe , me or your own eyes ? "

So back to the original question
"In light of the Duke lacross situation, are we making the same mistake with Mark McGwire (or Bonds) ?
Only if what comes out of their mouths , which matches what lands in the toilet, is the same as what is between your ears. Then only then can it be said , maybe there has been a mistake made.

BobaFett72

There is no doubt in my mind that a great many major leagues juiced in the majors, including bonds, sosa McGwire, Palmeiro.

Bonds was a lock for the HOF. McGwire was really a one dimensional player with good power, awful defense; Kingman like average...

There was serious doubt in my mind about the Duke case; that has played out to my expectations.

If Mark M. had come clean, been honest and been forthright he WOULD be in the hall.

perkdog

Everyone knows I like Bonds so I dont need to talk about him. McGwire IMO put together some incredible seasons at the plate, I know the steroid issue hurts him ( like Bonds ) but take away the steroid issue and I would think he put together a HOF career. His rookie year he had 49 bombs and then had a few years where I believe he had back to back 9 hr seasons due to injury but did bounce back and was a succesfull HR hitter for enough seasons to warrant the hall. Again this is aside from the 'roids, I wont argue for him to be inducted as much as I would for Bonds.

Estil

Once again, at least every other post AGAIN is making the 'roids allegations with nothing credible to back them other than so-called "common sense". And as I explained (with one possible guess why), McGwire not testifying before Congress does not in any way imply guilt whatsoever. McGwire had his reasons for doing so and frankly, I don't blame him at all for no longer trusting the "guilty till proven innocent" media at all.

And if McGwire still doesn't get in the Hall, then I call on Oakland and/or St. Louis (especially the later) to retire his number. They can always undo the number retirement if it turns out McGwire was in fact guilty, plus you consider the fact many players consider jersey retirement to be a greater honor than the HOF. The whole point is that I'm not at all dismissing the fact that there is a possiblity that McGwire used illegal steroids, but without any credible evidence to back it up, presumption of innocence must prevail.

And no, this not "a joke topic".

calaban7

One of the many things I like about this forum is the ability to agree to disagree. I've have read many post and said , yea,yea,yea. Others, well I'm not so sure about that. With some people, I'm sure glad they live somewhere else .

I remember , I had a good friend that worshipped Jose Canseco. With his twin brother Ozzie and the rest of the league to compare with , I always knew something wasn't right. Does common sence lead people astray ? You bet, but all the muscle head I knew were slow, not truely strong and more important ALL had an ego issue.

Could I be wrong on this one? I very well could be. I just always wondered how any of these guys , bulk up like that, start doing things to the baseball like they do, with out a "LITTLE " help. I've yet to here an explaination that makes any sence, that doesn't point to assistance from outside resources.

Thanks for this forum.

bigfische

It didnt matter if Mcgwire didnt trust the media. He wasnt at a press conference when he all but admitted steroid use. He was summoned before the United States government. Yes, it was a big show of publicity for congress, but it was an official hearing and he, "wasnt there to talk about the past". Even a fan with the biggest rose-colored glasses can see that if there was nothing to hide in the past, why not just say you didnt do it. He has an eye witness ratting him out that has been proven credible. It doesnt take much of a leap to judge his guilt or innocence in this case.
Duke allegations were made by a frickin whore/prostitute. Not the most credible evidence, and the DNA match was not there from pretty early on. I have a feeling the majority of people that can think for themselves (apart from the media) could see that all was not right with the allegations. The media of course did not let the case die because it was a huge story for them to spew out at us. It had it all, Black vs white, rich vs poor, haves vs have nots, Men vs women, and that is not to mention the DA looking at a tough re-election race coming up so o course this was gonna be his big case to tout throughout his campaign. What did Canseco have to gain?

This is why people can just use " commen sense" to see that the cases are totally different. I didnt type it all but i put a lot of it out there.

perkdog

<< <i>
Could I be wrong on this one? I very well could be. I just always wondered how any of these guys , bulk up like that, start doing things to the baseball like they do, with out a "LITTLE " help. I've yet to here an explaination that makes any sence, that doesn't point to assistance from outside resources.

Thanks for this forum. >>



Here is my response to this. Im not saying these guys are innocent but just sharing a thought here, (All joking aside) When I graduated High school in '88 I weighed 155 llbs, and I maybe could have bench pressed 200 llbs, as far as sports go I started playing softball around 1990, back then I could not hit a softball out of 2 local fields (about 260 feet to the fence) After a few years I started on the free weights and have never stopped. At 36 I am in better shape now than I was in high school and my early 20's, I can easily bench press 300 llbs,I crush the ball out of both those fields now and weigh 185 ( 8% body fat ). I have never taken a supplement other than a protein shake, nothing. My point is that if a regular Joe-blow like myself who works a full time job and still works out and attempts to eat right can stay in better shape in his 30's than in his 20's then a Pro althlete can much much easier. These guys have personal chefs, trainers, ect. ect. Obviously I cant compare myself to a pro-althete but if I can be a better althete in my mid thirties than why cant proffessional althetes be?

Volver

<< <i>Bonds was a lock for the HOF. McGwire was really a one dimensional player with good power, awful defense; Kingman like average...

There was serious doubt in my mind about the Duke case; that has played out to my expectations.

If Mark M. had come clean, been honest and been forthright he WOULD be in the hall. >>



McGwire did win a Gold Glove in 1990

cheeks

I agree with perkdog, I was avg. athlete in HS and ok in college, but when I began to work for a living in the banking world I played for the banks's industrial soft ball team for 17 years and I noticed than when I worked out with heavy weights, especially the bench press I gained about ten pounds of muscle and and began batting cleanup because I could really crush a softball in my mid thirties. Much further than I could when I was in my early twenties. Am in my mid sixties now and compete in Sr. Olympics (shot put and discus) and really attribute my strength to the heavy bench press and leg presses. I will admit my body fat is 27% which is much higher than it use to be but not bad for an old fart.

grote15

I'd also like to think that Mark was clean, too, but c'mon now. He admitted (was caught after an observant reporter noticed it in the locker room) taking androstenedione (a steroid now banned by MLB) and God knows what else during the course of his career. There's just no way that a player can morph from 1987 McGwire to 1998 McGwire without the help of steroids. Maybe Barry is clean, too, huh? I mean, he's never tested positive, right? So why the stigma on him? And OJ wasn't convicted either...

grote15

It didnt matter if Mcgwire didnt trust the media. He wasnt at a press conference when he all but admitted steroid use. He was summoned before the United States government. Yes, it was a big show of publicity for congress, but it was an official hearing and he, "wasnt there to talk about the past". Even a fan with the biggest rose-colored glasses can see that if there was nothing to hide in the past, why not just say you didnt do it. He has an eye witness ratting him out that has been proven credible. It doesnt take much of a leap to judge his guilt or innocence in this case.

That pitiful performance of his (second only to the other finger-wagging cheater Palmiero and the suddenly non-English understanding Sosa) just confirmed what was painfully obvious to anyone who watched him play during the mid to late '90s. At least he retired before testing positive unlike Palmiero, but neither one will be getting into the Hall anytime soon, though I'd vote Palmiero in before Kingman, er, I mean, McGwire anyway.

storm888

"The comparison is apples and oranges."


//////////////////////////////////////////////////

Estil

<< <i>I'd also like to think that Mark was clean, too, but c'mon now. He admitted (was caught after an observant reporter noticed it in the locker room) taking androstenedione (a steroid now banned by MLB) and God knows what else during the course of his career. There's just no way that a player can morph from 1987 McGwire to 1998 McGwire without the help of steroids. Maybe Barry is clean, too, huh? I mean, he's never tested positive, right? So why the stigma on him? And OJ wasn't convicted either... >>



No, he was not "caught" taking andro. He freely admitted taking it and they have no right to hold it against McGwire now, as it was a perfectly legal suppliment at the time (first Fifth Amendment, now ex post facto rules; does American rights even matter anymore?).

I'm sorry, but y'all are going to have to do better than "common sense" or "c'mon now". If that's the best case that can be made for McGwire taking illegal suppliments (such as steroids), then every year that goes by w/o him going into the HOF is a miscarriage of justice of the worst kind. The media made the same mistake in "assuming guilt" with the lacross players, and I believe they're doing it again with McGwire. I guess Rush Limbaugh is exactly right. The nature of the evidence (or in McGwire's case, lack of any evidence) does not matter in the least. All that matters is the seriousness of the charge.

grote15

No, he was not "caught" taking andro. He freely admitted taking it

Freely admitted? You must be joking, right? If you recall the actual story when it broke, the only reason he "admitted" taking andro was because he was exposed by the press as doing so. Otherwise, he wouldn't have revealed anything.

You can claim all you want that McGwire never injected himself with steroids or that he was "exercising his fifth ammendment right" when he refused to testify before Congress, but you'll certainly be in the minority with that opinion, and rightfully so.

I suppose you think Barry Bonds is innocent too, as he has never tested positive for steroids either. Why not start a thread railing about all the injustices done to Bonds. I mean, he's just trying to win a championship, according to him. Wonder why Selig and Aaron and the feds feel differently? They obviously aren't as enlightened as you are, however.

Botton line is Mark McGwire is Dave Kingman on steroids and doesn't deserve to be in the HOF in the first place.

Edit: As others have also stated here, and correctly so, the analogy between the Duke lacrosse players being falsely accused and the use or abuse of steroids in MLB is ill-conceived and inappropriate anyway. You've been listening to too much talk radio, IMO.

262Runner

Estil,

I agree with you 100%. McGwire used suppliments that were legal when he used them. How do you condem him for that? Bonds has never tested positive and if you look at a picture of him at each of his homerun milestones (each 100) his size grows gradually, kinda like me.

Like others have said, I was an average athlete in High School and college. Now, 40 years Old, I am one of the top runners in local competitions as well as a very good showing in the Boston Marathon. I have never taken anything other that natural vitamins and suppliments, yet my strength and endurnce has improved with age. eating right, staying in shape over 10 to 20 years will make a difference in your performance

McGwire and Bonds have the best of everything, why wouldn't they get bigger, stronger and faster with all that they have available, legally?

Estil

Of course I'm in the minority, that much is obvious. But the majority is not always right.

BTW, I'm not at all surprised at the treatment Bonds is getting from the media, as he's never been a very friendly guy to the media or the fans to begin with (and this is also true in terms of his popularity in the baseball card hobby, especially in the 90s). I don't know enough about the Bonds situation (as I've never been a fan of his anyway) to make a fair judgement on the 'roids issue either way.

grote15

Of course I'm in the minority, that much is obvious. But the majority is not always right.

I will agree with you there. Believe me, I wish that this whole steroids mess was never such an issue, as it has already permanently tainted many great feats and achievments, but I just can't buy the fact that these guys weren't cheating by using steroids.

storm888

"...I just can't buy the fact that these guys weren't cheating by using steroids."

/////////////////////////////////////////////

That is the crux of the problem with letting
any of them into the HOF.

IF, the subject drugs were legal/allowed, there
would not be the "cheating" problem. BUT, they
are not and there is.

basestealer

It's not in light of the Duke case that we must presume McGwire and Bonds innocent. That presumption of innocence is the backbone of the USA. It is a miserable and pointless affair to discuss principals amongst the CU forum members who have already tried and convicted these players without a shred of evidence (other than their performance, heresay, and their size).

McGwire was not a horrible fielder, for a guy 6"5 he played first base very well, with very few errors, and did win a gold glove. He wasn't "slightly better than Kingman", he was far and away better--the stats speak for themselves. It's a joke that anyone would say that and not puke up shortly after. McGwire was a lock for the hall of fame. Sosa is too, and so is Bonds. If any of these players tested positive for steriods, and none of them have, it would be a different story. This witch hunt is transparent, and everyone participating in it appears to lack of mind of their own, which is not surprising.

Estil

<< <i>It's not in light of the Duke case that we must presume McGwire and Bonds innocent. That presumption of innocence is the backbone of the USA. It is a miserable and pointless affair to discuss principals amongst the CU forum members who have already tried and convicted these players without a shred of evidence (other than their performance, heresay, and their size).

McGwire was not a horrible fielder, for a guy 6"5 he played first base very well, with very few errors, and did win a gold glove. He wasn't "slightly better than Kingman", he was far and away better--the stats speak for themselves. It's a joke that anyone would say that and not puke up shortly after. McGwire was a lock for the hall of fame. Sosa is too, and so is Bonds. If any of these players tested positive for steriods, and none of them have, it would be a different story. This witch hunt is transparent, and everyone participating in it appears to lack of mind of their own, which is not surprising. >>



Ummm, I thought being 6'5" would be an advantage for a first sacker, since that increases your reach for catching throws to first base.

basestealer

<< <i>

<< <i>It's not in light of the Duke case that we must presume McGwire and Bonds innocent. That presumption of innocence is the backbone of the USA. It is a miserable and pointless affair to discuss principals amongst the CU forum members who have already tried and convicted these players without a shred of evidence (other than their performance, heresay, and their size).

McGwire was not a horrible fielder, for a guy 6"5 he played first base very well, with very few errors, and did win a gold glove. He wasn't "slightly better than Kingman", he was far and away better--the stats speak for themselves. It's a joke that anyone would say that and not puke up shortly after. McGwire was a lock for the hall of fame. Sosa is too, and so is Bonds. If any of these players tested positive for steriods, and none of them have, it would be a different story. This witch hunt is transparent, and everyone participating in it appears to lack of mind of their own, which is not surprising. >>



Ummm, I thought being 6'5" would be an advantage for a first sacker, since that increases your reach for catching throws to first base. >>


It was an advantage to some extent, but his size seriously limited his mobility. If the ball was hit to McGwire, he fielded it well. But you didn't see him leap over towards second base to make an amazing catch. His size (or lack of mobility) is probably also why he hardly ever hit a triple or stole a base. Mattingly and Grace are ideal first basemen, not hulking creatures. First basemen are generally poor fielders to begin with.

basestealer

<< <i>I've seen McGwire play tons of times, being that I live in the Bay Area, and he made PLENTY of diving stops toward second or the foul line. If you don't believe that to be the case, that is because you must be drawing your impression from later on in his career as a Cardinal, where he did seem to just sort of stand there. >>


Yes, I am judging his defense by all the years that he played. Remember, I'm the one that said he was a decent fielder, and noted his gold glove. He made the decision in the mid 90's to change his body, and thus his game. You aren't going to be 265 pounds and diving for balls on a routine basis--but that "stand there" fielder that he became also went from a 30 homer guy to a 60 homer guy, and he was never more recognized than when he made that change. So the sport wanted it, and he delivered. The "all around player" is a dead concept in today's game.