Let's get something straight once and for all

gregmo32 · October 27, 2013 9:32PM

Until Barry Bonds and/or Roger Clemens are in the HOF, we cannot consider anyone else (see David Ortiz, etc) who has been suspended for performance enhancing drugs during their career for induction. That is just basic logic, right?
If there were not the cloud of PED's, those guys are Michael Jordan in cleats.

There has to be 100% agreement on this, right?

Yankees001 · October 27, 2013 9:38PM

This is a free country, we do not have to agree.

We do need to get along.

Dave

Raulsmaster · October 27, 2013 9:43PM

Not really. They should be in

gregmo32 · October 27, 2013 10:15PM

I didn't say they should not be in. I said that no one else who used PED's should be in, if they are NOT in.

bobsbbcards · October 27, 2013 10:27PM

<< I didn't say they should not be in. I said that no one else who used PED's should be in, if they are NOT in. >>

Agreed. And they should be in.

TheMick6 · October 27, 2013 10:35PM

Not that I'm in favor of this idea but I think eventually there will be an area in the hall covering a fifteen to 20 year window about baseball called the steroid era. Seems kind of silly but how do you keep out certain players. The whole era was tainted. There are still ball players cheating and always will be. I think the writers and the Hall are just afraid that they will elect a player and have concrete proof come along that he used. Then what do you do? I don't know about you but the thought of Bonds , McGwire and Sosa on stage with Aaron, Mays, Bench etc just makes me a little nauseated. I think the living Hall of Famers are keeping those guys out as well. They make there opinions known and it has a huge effect on the writers who vote.

halosfan · October 27, 2013 10:45PM

News flash .... The PED era is not over. It is here to stay. The
Doors to the Hall are welded shut.

olb31 · October 28, 2013 1:01AM

<< News flash .... The PED era is not over. It is here to stay. The
Doors to the Hall are welded shut. >>

It's more rampant than ever at every level.

Mickey71 · October 28, 2013 1:34AM

It's more sophisticated than ever. I've wondered if there's something going on in Detroit?

itzagoner · October 28, 2013 1:41AM

if it's really the Hall Of "Fame", then all famous guys should be allowed, no matter what they are famous for.

their baseball achievements made them famous, as well as their transgressions. otherwise, it should be called "Hall Of Famous Guys A Majority Of Whom Sportswriters Begrudgingly Approve".

but, at this point who really cares when guys like Salty and Wong are rewriting history?

stown · October 28, 2013 2:13AM

<< we cannot consider anyone else (see David Ortiz, etc) who has been suspended for performance enhancing drugs during their career for induction. >>

When did Ortiz get suspended for PEDs? Are you talking about the anonymous survey from '03(?) that got leaked?

ReggieCleveland · October 28, 2013 2:23AM

Yeah, Ortiz never got suspended for PEDs.

olb31 · October 28, 2013 2:25AM

<< Yeah, Ortiz never got suspended for PEDs. >>

AROD is still innocent also.

FirstBeard · October 28, 2013 2:40AM

Isn't Nolan Ryan in the HOF? Rickey Henderson? So some PED guys get in but not others. Hmmmmm.

If Selig chose to not enforce the non-existent rule during that era, it shouldn't now be applied retroactively and in an inconsistent manner. The HOF is a joke until Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, etc. are in.

Disagree with me. That is what the internet is for...

markj111 · October 28, 2013 2:47AM

<< Until Barry Bonds and/or Roger Clemens are in the HOF, we cannot consider anyone else (see David Ortiz, etc) who has been suspended for performance enhancing drugs during their career for induction. That is just basic logic, right?
If there were not the cloud of PED's, those guys are Michael Jordan in cleats.

There has to be 100% agreement on this, right? >>

No.

MiniDuff · October 28, 2013 2:55AM

Agree completely. Best pitcher and hitter of an era where virtually everyone did it, or was aware of it and did nothing. Also agree completely that the 'steroid era' may have passed, but the bigger PED era has been in full swing for decades.

WalterSobchak · October 28, 2013 3:14AM

I agree completely that if Bonds/Clemens do not get in, then NONE of the steroid guys should.

RyanAdmirer · October 28, 2013 3:23AM

<< I agree completely that if Bonds/Clemens do not get in, then NONE of the steroid guys should. >>

+1

lightningboy · October 28, 2013 3:37AM

I forth, fifth and infinity that.

2 players who dominated in ways that very few ever have ---- case closed
.

UnwoundSage · October 28, 2013 4:09AM

<< 

<< we cannot consider anyone else (see David Ortiz, etc) who has been suspended for performance enhancing drugs during their career for induction. >>

When did Ortiz get suspended for PEDs? Are you talking about the anonymous survey from '03(?) that got leaked? >>

Never suspended but did test positive.

Anyone that believes there aren't already tainted players in the Hall are either naive or just plain dumb.

TheMick6 · October 28, 2013 4:33AM

I would never argue that there arnt tainted payers already in. Tainted by steroids??? Not so sure about that. I'm sure ill start to see posts about greenies, cocaine and the spitter but I'm sooty none if those are as excessive as steroid use IMHO. Steroids take HOF caliber players and make them legendary ball players just look at Bonds. A HOF caliber player before the juice and to say the juice didn't help is just stupidity. It essentially allows players to have 162 opening days!! It's all about rapid recovery and not breaking down during the season. That's the greatest advantage of modern PED's.

joejoemay · October 28, 2013 4:39AM

Nothing in the election rules http://baseballhall.org/hall-famers/rules-election/bbwaa that would prohibit them from being elected. Guys have always tried to recover faster or gain an extra step since the game was invented…the adage that “It’s only cheating if you get caught” might start applying. I feel the BBWAA is going to hammer anyone suspected to have done so as bad as folks who were actually caught. I say take the vote from the BBWAA of America and give it to those qualified to make the decision….those all ready in the HoF. These guys know better than the writers how the game has evolved and if they want guys who doctored the ball (cheating as bad as using steroids), or who bet on games like Rose in there along side of them. There are 62 living HoFers. So 62 votes for enshrinement and you’re in…You get 61…you don’t, unless no one else hit 62. Would be perfect since the steroid thing really came to a head with Sosa and McGwire’s hunt for 62. Read the list of names of living HoFers…think those guys would keep Rose, Bonds, and Clemens out? I don’t think so…maybe for a while but not forever. It would be awesome each January to get them in Cooperstown for a Baseball Hall of Fame Congress to elect at least one new member (Each HoFer standing and voting yes or no on each guy on the ballot…not this secret ballot BS). Each year every guy who gets a nod from all 62 (eldest HoFers) gets in. No one gets 100%? The closest guys get debated and one selected. I am betting guys like Dale Murphy would have made it…maybe even before HoFer Roberto Alomar (just because one was more likable). Also think these guys would put guys in who are normally left to wait for the Veteran’s Committee…think Don Mattingly. I think you eliminate that all together…a long as you get one vote you stay on. Regardless of the number of members there are only ever 62 votes (Oldest 62 members or until they retire their seat or have another HoFer vote for them…under 62 living HoFers then go with 100% of the vote). I do not think the BBWAA can or will do a good job of getting the right folks in any more…I think the retired players are in the best position to judge on these players merits. Would love to see how Ryan and Henderson vote on PEDs players…they played against them. Now to answer your question…yes Bonds and Clemens should get in before any other PEDs player but that is not for me to say if either of them should be in there at all.

FirstBeard · October 28, 2013 4:44AM

" It essentially allows players to have 162 opening days!! It's all about rapid recovery and not breaking down during the season. That's the greatest advantage of modern PED's. "

Exactly. And lets be careful because universally beloved players like Ripken, Pudge, and Nolan are not without suspicion for PED/Roid use. If there is going to be some retroactive enforcement of a rule that didn't exist, it has to be applied evenly and consistently.

JHS5120 · October 28, 2013 4:52AM

<< Exactly. And lets be careful because universally beloved players like Ripken, Pudge, and Nolan are not without suspicion for PED/Roid use. If there is going to be some retroactive enforcement of a rule that didn't exist, it has to be applied evenly and consistently. >>

I disagree with this. In my opinion, Nolan Ryan used PED's, but I would never support his removal from the Hall. No one is retroactively enforcing a rule, Canseco hasn't been suspended by the MLB, no fines have been given to him, nothing. No one is trying to enforce anything. The baseball writers are simply voting on who they feel should and should not be allowed in with the information they have available. Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, Ortiz all should not be inducted because we know they broke the Cardinal rule of modern baseball, they used Performance Enhancing Drugs. No one cares if they cheated, baseball is full of cheaters and it is often praised. They will not get in because they used PED's. There really isn't much more to it.

TheMick6 · October 28, 2013 4:55AM

Pains me to admit it being a die hard O's fan from South Baltimore but I wouldn't be all that shocked if Ripken took something along the way. Pudge shrunk one season pretty dramatically (forget which one) and Ryan just kept going and going like Clemens did. I'm still glued to the season every year but as a collector I live in the fifties!

sportscardtheory · October 28, 2013 4:58AM

<< 

<< Exactly. And lets be careful because universally beloved players like Ripken, Pudge, and Nolan are not without suspicion for PED/Roid use. If there is going to be some retroactive enforcement of a rule that didn't exist, it has to be applied evenly and consistently. >>

I disagree with this. In my opinion, Nolan Ryan used PED's, but I would never support his removal from the Hall. No one is retroactively enforcing a rule, Canseco hasn't been suspended by the MLB, no fines have been given to him, nothing. No one is trying to enforce anything. The baseball writers are simply voting on who they feel should and should not be allowed in with the information they have available. Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, Ortiz all should not be inducted because we know they broke the Cardinal rule of modern baseball, they used Performance Enhancing Drugs. No one cares if they cheated, baseball is full of cheaters and it is often praised. They will not get in because they used PED's. There really isn't much more to it. >>

A side note to this; the voters are told to vote how they wish, and if even a suspicion of PED use without evidence can affect votes, as it does. Bagwell is a perfect example. It may seem harsh to keep a guy out based on suspicion alone, but that's just how it is. We can't change how they vote, only accept it and move on from it.

grote15 · October 28, 2013 4:58AM

Anything that keeps Bonds and Clemens out of the Hall I'm in favor of. May as well put Pete in too.

Tabe · October 28, 2013 8:02AM

<< It's more sophisticated than ever. I've wondered if there's something going on in Detroit? >>

Have ya looked at any of the top Detroit players? Not sure how much roiding going on there but what I see is a whole bunch of dudes eating Little Caesars pizza.

Tabe · October 28, 2013 8:10AM

Also, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Pudge used roids. First of all, he played in Texas with Juan Gone, A-Rod, Raffy, and others. Secondly, his power disappeared after 2004 - when MLB started caring about players testing positive. And just visually you could see he got a LOT smaller after his first year in Detroit.

mgugs46 · October 29, 2013 12:44PM

<< Until Barry Bonds and/or Roger Clemens are in the HOF, we cannot consider anyone else (see David Ortiz, etc) who has been suspended for performance enhancing drugs during their career for induction. That is just basic logic, right?
If there were not the cloud of PED's, those guys are Michael Jordan in cleats.

There has to be 100% agreement on this, right? >>

David Ortiz was never suspended

bobbybakeriv · October 29, 2013 1:02PM

<< 

<< Until Barry Bonds and/or Roger Clemens are in the HOF, we cannot consider anyone else (see David Ortiz, etc) who has been suspended for performance enhancing drugs during their career for induction. That is just basic logic, right?
If there were not the cloud of PED's, those guys are Michael Jordan in cleats.

There has to be 100% agreement on this, right? >>

David Ortiz was never suspended[/q

Neither was Clemens nor Bonds....

MiniDuff · October 29, 2013 1:15PM

I think they were referring to Pudge Fisk. Rodriguez probably has near unanimous suspicion.

Maurice · October 29, 2013 2:28PM

<< When did Ortiz get suspended for PEDs? Are you talking about the anonymous survey from '03(?) that got leaked? >>

Never suspended but did test positive. >>

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ortiz#Alleged_performance-enhancing_drug_positive_test_in_2003

Alleged performance-enhancing drug positive test in 2003

On July 30, 2009, The New York Times reported that Ortiz and then-teammate Manny Ramirez were among a group of over 100 major league players on a list compiled by the federal government, that allegedly tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs during 2003 survey testing.[11] Five months before the Times allegations surfaced, Ortiz stated in an interview that players who tested positive for steroids should be suspended for an entire season.[11] Before the Red Sox's game that afternoon, Ortiz declined to comment on the report, saying, "I'm not talking about that anymore."[11] Afterwards, he confirmed that he'd been told that he was on the list and promised to speak with the media once he "[got] to the bottom of" the matter.[12]

Ten days later, Ortiz held a press conference before a game at Yankee Stadium and denied ever buying or using steroids and suggested the positive test might have been due to his use of supplements and vitamins at the time.[13] When asked which supplements he had been taking, Ortiz said he did not know.[14] Ortiz was accompanied at the press conference by the general counsel of the Major League Baseball Players Association. Because the list of players 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[15] pointing out that because of several factors, any player appearing on the list compiled by the federal government in 2003 did not necessarily test positive for performance enhancing drugs. Among those factors were that the total number of players said to be on the list far exceeded the number 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.

GDM67 · October 29, 2013 2:39PM

I didn't read Greg as taking a position one way or the other. He just wrote that if those two guys aren't in, no one with lesser numbers is likely to make it, either.

1985fan · October 29, 2013 2:57PM

MLB would be better off if they told these dopey, old fogey writers who think they are the standard bearers of morality for the hall to knock it off, and ONLY focus on the numbers on the field. Period. Put them in, and on their plaques detail their PED use. I've repeatedly said the same thing - the hall is a museum, and baseball trying to duck its head in the sand on this entire era is doing its fans a disservice by trying to pretend the PED era didn't exist.

Maurice · October 29, 2013 3:06PM

"Let's get something straight once and for all"

...Papi was never suspended and the 2003 alleged positive test has no validity. This thread is a joke.

FirstBeard · October 29, 2013 11:41PM

<< 
David Ortiz was never suspended[/q

Neither was Clemens nor Bonds.... >>

Neither was McGwire. Guys who broke the actual rule: Braun, Melky, etc.

If the "Hall" wants to keep guys in the latter category out - fine. But to punish players retroactively for a non-existent, unenforced rule from the 1970s-2003-ish is retarded. I certainly have no vote or say in the matter, but looking at it objectively as a fan, that is how I come out. And for the record, I didn't/don't like Bonds, Ortiz or Clemens (pre or post PED allegations). As for my dislike of Bonds - this is coming from a SF Giant fan.

Let's get something straight once and for all

Comments