@olb31 said:
they all do something and have been since at least the 70's, maybe earlier. my high school football lteam did roids in 1980. so you know if high school's were doing them in 1980 certainly the pros were. plus many of the "roids" were never illegal until 2002, i believe.
I've mentioned often in similar threads that classmates at my high school in the 80s were taking steroids, as well. This was in a small town in flyover country out in the boondocks, by guys with no chance of playing anywhere beyond high school. Yes, they were known to be the football players and the wrestlers, but they played all of the other sports, as well.
If the guys in my school could access it, then just about anyone anywhere could have gotten it.
The idea that steroids didn't find its way into baseball until the late 90s is naive, and I just roll my eyes when people act as if they've definitively sorted out who did it "clean" and who did it "dirty".
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Craig..
Even if you have "hard evidence" you should be left with some doubt, because even that isn't irrefutable proof. For example: Fingerprints, widely considered hard evidence... quite unreliable. DNA samples? 99% accurate barring human error, but sometimes only identifies proximity.
Further, the lack of hard evidence doesn't, itself, offer firm proof of your position any more than not seeing a tiger in the dark means the path is safe.
Now, will you allow me my opinion or do you want to continue to promote a misunderstanding of "what evidence is"?
i'm with you. steriods or no steroids clemens is probably the best pitcher of all-time. bonds is one of the top 5 players of all-time.
personally i think they all do something to get an edge. the astros they out right cheated as an organization. there are no limits what players or teams won't go to win/make $$$$.
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Not true. His statistics are circumstantial evidence of his usage. Sometime in mid 1996 he was reborn and became superman.
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Craig..
Even if you have "hard evidence" you should be left with some doubt, because even that isn't irrefutable proof. For example: Fingerprints, widely considered hard evidence... quite unreliable. DNA samples? 99% accurate barring human error, but sometimes only identifies proximity.
Further, the lack of hard evidence doesn't, itself, offer firm proof of your position any more than not seeing a tiger in the dark means the path is safe.
Now, will you allow me my opinion or do you want to continue to promote a misunderstanding of "what evidence is"?
you (or anyone else) are welcome to your own opinion, as incorrect as it may be.
you have offered nothing but strawmen.
what is conjecture? it is something that you BELIEVE is true, but that is not proven to be true.
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Not true. His statistics are circumstantial evidence of his usage. Sometime in mid 1996 he was reborn and became superman.
we have gone over statistical "evidence" on this message board ad nauseam over the years. If you are willing to go down that rabbit hole there are a whole bunch of players for which there is statistical "evidence" of PED use.
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Craig..
Even if you have "hard evidence" you should be left with some doubt, because even that isn't irrefutable proof. For example: Fingerprints, widely considered hard evidence... quite unreliable. DNA samples? 99% accurate barring human error, but sometimes only identifies proximity.
Further, the lack of hard evidence doesn't, itself, offer firm proof of your position any more than not seeing a tiger in the dark means the path is safe.
Now, will you allow me my opinion or do you want to continue to promote a misunderstanding of "what evidence is"?
you (or anyone else) are welcome to your own opinion, as incorrect as it may be.
you have offered nothing but strawmen.
what is conjecture? it is something that you BELIEVE is true, but that is not proven to be true.
can you prove Clemens used steroids?
Can you prove he didn’t? I simply think there’s more evidence that he did. If an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth and you have to guess if he did or didn’t to save the planet? You are going to say he did and we both know it. If not… donate your brain to science.
@craig44 said:
we have zero idea who really tested positive and who didnt.
This isn't quite accurate. David Ortiz has admitted he tested positive on that 2003 test. You can argue whether the test was accurate or not - personally, I think Manfred casts doubt in order to protect Ortiz and other superstars rather than because of actual knowledge the tests weren't accurate - but Ortiz tested positive.
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Craig..
Even if you have "hard evidence" you should be left with some doubt, because even that isn't irrefutable proof. For example: Fingerprints, widely considered hard evidence... quite unreliable. DNA samples? 99% accurate barring human error, but sometimes only identifies proximity.
Further, the lack of hard evidence doesn't, itself, offer firm proof of your position any more than not seeing a tiger in the dark means the path is safe.
Now, will you allow me my opinion or do you want to continue to promote a misunderstanding of "what evidence is"?
you (or anyone else) are welcome to your own opinion, as incorrect as it may be.
you have offered nothing but strawmen.
what is conjecture? it is something that you BELIEVE is true, but that is not proven to be true.
can you prove Clemens used steroids?
Can you prove he didn’t? I simply think there’s more evidence that he did. If an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth and you have to guess if he did or didn’t to save the planet? You are going to say he did and we both know it. If not… donate your brain to science.
the burden of proof is not on me. I am not the one making the allegations. I am saying there is no credible proof. all of the combined brain power and resources of the federal government could not prove he lied about taking PED. do you really think you can?
all you have offered thus far are strawmen, beliefs, opinions and conjecture.
@craig44 said:
we have zero idea who really tested positive and who didnt.
This isn't quite accurate. David Ortiz has admitted he tested positive on that 2003 test. You can argue whether the test was accurate or not - personally, I think Manfred casts doubt in order to protect Ortiz and other superstars rather than because of actual knowledge the tests weren't accurate - but Ortiz tested positive.
yes, you are correct, we do know one player. Ortiz. I acknowledged that the players association contacted him that he tested positive. he stated they did not tell him (or know, I cant remember which) what substance he tested for. he then said he would research it. that is the last we know about it.
that would be one of the 96. or is it 104 on the "list"
@bgr said:
who cares. over half the players were on the juice. whether they put any of em in or not we all got eyes.
but life or death... someone asks me. 100% the guy was on something. Stop it.
If you've met Clemens for more than 5 minutes you will leave that knowing this is a guy who would do anything to be the best. whatever it takes. the guy refers to himself as 'rocket'... what more do you need. rocket needs fuel!
So a guy being cocky=steroid use? If that is the case, I think nearly all superstars in all major sports are steroid users.
unless you have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test, all you have is conjecture.
That wasn't what I said.
Your thesis isn't valid by the way. Without those things... you are not left with merely conjecture.
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
Craig..
Even if you have "hard evidence" you should be left with some doubt, because even that isn't irrefutable proof. For example: Fingerprints, widely considered hard evidence... quite unreliable. DNA samples? 99% accurate barring human error, but sometimes only identifies proximity.
Further, the lack of hard evidence doesn't, itself, offer firm proof of your position any more than not seeing a tiger in the dark means the path is safe.
Now, will you allow me my opinion or do you want to continue to promote a misunderstanding of "what evidence is"?
you (or anyone else) are welcome to your own opinion, as incorrect as it may be.
you have offered nothing but strawmen.
what is conjecture? it is something that you BELIEVE is true, but that is not proven to be true.
can you prove Clemens used steroids?
Can you prove he didn’t? I simply think there’s more evidence that he did. If an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth and you have to guess if he did or didn’t to save the planet? You are going to say he did and we both know it. If not… donate your brain to science.
the burden of proof is not on me. I am not the one making the allegations. I am saying there is no credible proof. all of the combined brain power and resources of the federal government could not prove he lied about taking PED. do you really think you can?
I didn't start this by asking for to to support your opinion that Clemens did not and I have not, during this back-and-forth, and I only asked you most recently to point out the inequity you approach our two positions with.
all you have offered thus far are strawmen, beliefs, opinions and conjecture.
I find this odd to have you say this. I didn't respond to you other than I made a statement... My Opinion... on the matter in proximity to statements of yours.
You're using terms like "beliefs" and "conjecture" to denigrate my opinion while you support your opinion with terms like "hard evidence".
I'm not even trying to argue that your opinion isn't correct here. This is what you are doing regarding mine and you're using a very antagonistic approach that is neither rationally derived nor carefully rendered.
I remember watching Clemens career and I remember seeing him speak on the matter during the hearings. I remember Pettitte's testimony. I've also followed the saga over the years and periodically reviewed the available information during the course of discussions such as these. I wouldn't consider myself to be the "nation's leading expert" on the matter but I know what I think I need to know to form my own opinion. I'll characterize it by saying this is not an opinion I take any further than similar conversations as these. I would also vote him into the HOF. I have also met him... at a PE event... once. But I did have about a 10 minute conversation with him. We did not talk about steroids, but he's an interesting dude.
Strawman arguments. I'm not sure you know what they are given I haven't used one. I'm not attacking your position and I'm not stating your position. I used some analogous metaphor to explain the concept of "because we haven't found proof isn't proof that proof doesn't exist". I am not the burden holder here as I'm not asking you to defend your opinion.
You have accused me twice of using a Strawman. Please point it/ them out.
Being able to "prove" something beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal hearing is apparently the sole burden of proof in existence for you.
The criminal judicial burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' which is a much higher standard than that of 'more likely than not', which is referred to as "preponderance of the evidence".
You're using an improperly reasoned argument that because the evidence in the case of Clemens does not meet the stricter standard that it's proof that he never used PEDs. In this case the government was unable to meet these standards - there must be no logical explanation other than the defendant committed the crime. The absolute highest burden of proof in the U.S. Legal System.
And how could anyone possibly do something that the weight of the "federal government" couldn't.
This really happens more often than you seem to think. I'm not saying that I could do any better in meeting that burden of proof. It came down to whether the jury believed McNamee or not. Now you've chiseled it into stone. He's Clean!
It's such a shaky foundation you've built for yourself there. You're using a system which is biased to protect the innocent to ignore a preponderance of evidence.
McNamee's testimony is damning. So it's all about whether you believe it or not. What I start to look for is whether someone's statements have changed over time and how they have progressed. His stance has not changed and I don't see any evidence that he has benefited from his statements. In fact his life seemed to pretty much deteriorate after his career in sports was destroyed by the fallout of the Clemens saga.
Pettitte's statements and his own admission. This was certainly confusing, but it added Access and Availability to the mix. it was proof from Clemens that, at least, his wife had used it for "recovery".
I see this as a preponderance. So this is why I say that I think it's more likely than not... 70-30 for me.
@ArtVandelay said:
My top 10 most deserving to be in the Hall of Fame.
Lefty O'Doul
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Joe Jackson
Cecil Travis
Jeff Kent
Tommy John
Dale Murphy
Thurman Munson
Johan Santana
Keith Hernandez
I bet if Garvey wore pinstripes from 71 to 83 he would be in the HOF.
Garvey has the same problem as Curt Schilling and Ted Nugent. They all have a big R next to their name.
Blame it all u want on politics, but Shilling telling the BBWoA what they could do with themselves nearly from the gitgo was poor strategy. Some might call it moronic.
With his overall stats Shilling was no Randy Johnson with overwhelming #s that can overtake his mouth and attitude.
Bottom line if Shilling had kept his tude in check regarding the HOF and the writers he would have been in long ago.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972) Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
@80sOPC said:
I’d say any of the players from that era that gained significant mass and had mid to late career resurgence are suspect.
I also don’t really care, the rules at the time were in transition and these guys were all top of sport players before drugs became mainstream.
These guys are some of the best to play, ever, and should be in the Hall.
I think where it gets tricky too is we can judge by saying does he pass the eye test. Does he have incredible muscle mass? But then Profar and Tatis fail and if I had been given 50 guesses and would win a prize if I was right dont think I would guess them. Even though in retrospect, okay, yeah, maybe it fits. If Ryan Braun can find a way to pass a test and keep using maybe he gets in and we dont label him a user. If you look at Luis Gonzalez and Brady Anderson at one point you probably say no. Then wait for them to hit 50 HRs and yes, them. So the eye test can kind of fail. Its not just guys who can bench 300 or look like they can bench 300 that are using.
There is another angle to all this. There is a The Verve song called The Drugs Dont Work. It would be a less cool song but The Drug Tests Dont Work. Or just sometimes dont work. I would say rarely work. With their salaries I dont see how AROD and Manny Ramirez could have failed. Because clearly there is a way to get by the test. Masking agents and whathaveyou. You look at Bonds and he has probably been labeled as the most guilty of using steroids, the poster boy for PEDs. But he did not fail an official MLB drug test.
So it kind of feels like okay drug test failed, multiple drug tests failed, yeah very high % chance you did it, not certain but high. Everyone else I think we just really dont know. The drug tests fail. The eye test fails. The eye test is probably the one that matters most when it comes to getting into the Hall which feels kind of silly. Why did you not vote him in? Well uh...big. Real big man. So no.
Comments
I've mentioned often in similar threads that classmates at my high school in the 80s were taking steroids, as well. This was in a small town in flyover country out in the boondocks, by guys with no chance of playing anywhere beyond high school. Yes, they were known to be the football players and the wrestlers, but they played all of the other sports, as well.
If the guys in my school could access it, then just about anyone anywhere could have gotten it.
The idea that steroids didn't find its way into baseball until the late 90s is naive, and I just roll my eyes when people act as if they've definitively sorted out who did it "clean" and who did it "dirty".
well then, what exactly are you left with if you dont have hard evidence, an admission or a failed test?
let me guess, heresay, slander and libel
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Craig..
Even if you have "hard evidence" you should be left with some doubt, because even that isn't irrefutable proof. For example: Fingerprints, widely considered hard evidence... quite unreliable. DNA samples? 99% accurate barring human error, but sometimes only identifies proximity.
Further, the lack of hard evidence doesn't, itself, offer firm proof of your position any more than not seeing a tiger in the dark means the path is safe.
Now, will you allow me my opinion or do you want to continue to promote a misunderstanding of "what evidence is"?
craig44
i'm with you. steriods or no steroids clemens is probably the best pitcher of all-time. bonds is one of the top 5 players of all-time.
personally i think they all do something to get an edge. the astros they out right cheated as an organization. there are no limits what players or teams won't go to win/make $$$$.
Not true. His statistics are circumstantial evidence of his usage. Sometime in mid 1996 he was reborn and became superman.
Keith Hernandez
is the phillies dude taking? raleigh? judge? ohtani? or just bonds mcgwire sosa and the gang
you (or anyone else) are welcome to your own opinion, as incorrect as it may be.
you have offered nothing but strawmen.
what is conjecture? it is something that you BELIEVE is true, but that is not proven to be true.
can you prove Clemens used steroids?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
we have gone over statistical "evidence" on this message board ad nauseam over the years. If you are willing to go down that rabbit hole there are a whole bunch of players for which there is statistical "evidence" of PED use.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Can you prove he didn’t? I simply think there’s more evidence that he did. If an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth and you have to guess if he did or didn’t to save the planet? You are going to say he did and we both know it. If not… donate your brain to science.
This isn't quite accurate. David Ortiz has admitted he tested positive on that 2003 test. You can argue whether the test was accurate or not - personally, I think Manfred casts doubt in order to protect Ortiz and other superstars rather than because of actual knowledge the tests weren't accurate - but Ortiz tested positive.
I bet if Garvey wore pinstripes from 71 to 83 he would be in the HOF.
ON ITS WAY TO NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
Garvey has the same problem as Curt Schilling and Ted Nugent. They all have a big R next to their name.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
the burden of proof is not on me. I am not the one making the allegations. I am saying there is no credible proof. all of the combined brain power and resources of the federal government could not prove he lied about taking PED. do you really think you can?
all you have offered thus far are strawmen, beliefs, opinions and conjecture.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
yes, you are correct, we do know one player. Ortiz. I acknowledged that the players association contacted him that he tested positive. he stated they did not tell him (or know, I cant remember which) what substance he tested for. he then said he would research it. that is the last we know about it.
that would be one of the 96. or is it 104 on the "list"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I didn't start this by asking for to to support your opinion that Clemens did not and I have not, during this back-and-forth, and I only asked you most recently to point out the inequity you approach our two positions with.
I find this odd to have you say this. I didn't respond to you other than I made a statement... My Opinion... on the matter in proximity to statements of yours.
You're using terms like "beliefs" and "conjecture" to denigrate my opinion while you support your opinion with terms like "hard evidence".
I'm not even trying to argue that your opinion isn't correct here. This is what you are doing regarding mine and you're using a very antagonistic approach that is neither rationally derived nor carefully rendered.
I remember watching Clemens career and I remember seeing him speak on the matter during the hearings. I remember Pettitte's testimony. I've also followed the saga over the years and periodically reviewed the available information during the course of discussions such as these. I wouldn't consider myself to be the "nation's leading expert" on the matter but I know what I think I need to know to form my own opinion. I'll characterize it by saying this is not an opinion I take any further than similar conversations as these. I would also vote him into the HOF. I have also met him... at a PE event... once. But I did have about a 10 minute conversation with him. We did not talk about steroids, but he's an interesting dude.
Strawman arguments. I'm not sure you know what they are given I haven't used one. I'm not attacking your position and I'm not stating your position. I used some analogous metaphor to explain the concept of "because we haven't found proof isn't proof that proof doesn't exist". I am not the burden holder here as I'm not asking you to defend your opinion.
You have accused me twice of using a Strawman. Please point it/ them out.
Being able to "prove" something beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal hearing is apparently the sole burden of proof in existence for you.
The criminal judicial burden of proof is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' which is a much higher standard than that of 'more likely than not', which is referred to as "preponderance of the evidence".
You're using an improperly reasoned argument that because the evidence in the case of Clemens does not meet the stricter standard that it's proof that he never used PEDs. In this case the government was unable to meet these standards - there must be no logical explanation other than the defendant committed the crime. The absolute highest burden of proof in the U.S. Legal System.
And how could anyone possibly do something that the weight of the "federal government" couldn't.
This really happens more often than you seem to think. I'm not saying that I could do any better in meeting that burden of proof. It came down to whether the jury believed McNamee or not. Now you've chiseled it into stone. He's Clean!
It's such a shaky foundation you've built for yourself there. You're using a system which is biased to protect the innocent to ignore a preponderance of evidence.
McNamee's testimony is damning. So it's all about whether you believe it or not. What I start to look for is whether someone's statements have changed over time and how they have progressed. His stance has not changed and I don't see any evidence that he has benefited from his statements. In fact his life seemed to pretty much deteriorate after his career in sports was destroyed by the fallout of the Clemens saga.
Pettitte's statements and his own admission. This was certainly confusing, but it added Access and Availability to the mix. it was proof from Clemens that, at least, his wife had used it for "recovery".
I see this as a preponderance. So this is why I say that I think it's more likely than not... 70-30 for me.
I’d say any of the players from that era that gained significant mass and had mid to late career resurgence are suspect.
I also don’t really care, the rules at the time were in transition and these guys were all top of sport players before drugs became mainstream.
These guys are some of the best to play, ever, and should be in the Hall.
Blame it all u want on politics, but Shilling telling the BBWoA what they could do with themselves nearly from the gitgo was poor strategy. Some might call it moronic.
With his overall stats Shilling was no Randy Johnson with overwhelming #s that can overtake his mouth and attitude.
Bottom line if Shilling had kept his tude in check regarding the HOF and the writers he would have been in long ago.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
I think where it gets tricky too is we can judge by saying does he pass the eye test. Does he have incredible muscle mass? But then Profar and Tatis fail and if I had been given 50 guesses and would win a prize if I was right dont think I would guess them. Even though in retrospect, okay, yeah, maybe it fits. If Ryan Braun can find a way to pass a test and keep using maybe he gets in and we dont label him a user. If you look at Luis Gonzalez and Brady Anderson at one point you probably say no. Then wait for them to hit 50 HRs and yes, them. So the eye test can kind of fail. Its not just guys who can bench 300 or look like they can bench 300 that are using.
There is another angle to all this. There is a The Verve song called The Drugs Dont Work. It would be a less cool song but The Drug Tests Dont Work. Or just sometimes dont work. I would say rarely work. With their salaries I dont see how AROD and Manny Ramirez could have failed. Because clearly there is a way to get by the test. Masking agents and whathaveyou. You look at Bonds and he has probably been labeled as the most guilty of using steroids, the poster boy for PEDs. But he did not fail an official MLB drug test.
So it kind of feels like okay drug test failed, multiple drug tests failed, yeah very high % chance you did it, not certain but high. Everyone else I think we just really dont know. The drug tests fail. The eye test fails. The eye test is probably the one that matters most when it comes to getting into the Hall which feels kind of silly. Why did you not vote him in? Well uh...big. Real big man. So no.