PEDs in Sports Part 1 of 2

[CH David]

So I am doing a two part thread on the subject of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs. In the United States, there are 4 major sporting events. Hockey, Basketball, American Football, and Baseball. The latter two are known for steroids more than the former.

As it is baseball season, and training camp for football starts in a few weeks, I will start with baseball, and part 2 will be football.

So I have had a few little chit chats on the subject of steroids and PEDs in baseball on these forums, nothing major though. So I want this to be a true discussion of steroids in baseball. What are your thoughts on steroids in baseball? Are you glad they are now banned? Do you think that users should be allowed into the Hall of Fame even though they had to enhance their strength just to be a good ball player?

I am against the use of steroids, and against the numbers acheived while on them. I belive that they are detriment to the game of baseball, and also a horrible example for children. I am extremely happy they are banned, because it is cheating the game in my opinion.

I don't care about the argument "oh well other people were using them, so it is okay" or "This is the Steroid Era, so they should be allowed in the Hall of Fame". Bullshit. They should not be, or at the very least, their stats from when they were on PEDs should be wiped clean. Explain to me with a logical reason as to why Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, hell even Roger Clemens now, should be in the Hall of Fame. People think that Barry Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame with Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams?

I want your opinion on steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in America's National past-time. I want to know why you think people should or should not be allowed in the Hall of Fame. Lets get a legitimate discussion going on steroids in baseball.

Discuss it and go.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I decided to answer this by responding to quotes.

What are your thoughts on steroids in baseball?

Steroids are terrible, and detrimental to both users and the children who for some reason look up to athletes as role models. The only benefit would be if children stop looking up to athletes, and start looking up to people who actually do good in the world.

Are you glad they are now banned?

YES

Do you think that users should be allowed into the Hall of Fame even though they had to enhance their strength just to be a good ball player?

DEFINITELY, leaving them out would make the hall of fame the "Hall of Players that are good people." The Hall of Fame is to recognize the greatest baseball players, regardless of transgressions. And in case you are wondering, Pete Rose not being in the Hall is a travesty.

I am against the use of steroids, and against the numbers achieved while on them. I believe that they are detriment to the game of baseball, and also a horrible example for children.

I agree with everything you said, except for 1 thing. I am definitely NOT against the numbers achieved during the era.

I am extremely happy they are banned, because it is cheating the game in my opinion.

Now that steroids are banned, it is cheating the game to use them. Unfortunately, beforehand, it was not cheating, rather it was using a substance to make yourself better (much like using supplements that every athlete uses)

I don't care about the argument "oh well other people were using them, so it is okay" or "This is the Steroid Era, so they should be allowed in the Hall of Fame". Bullshit. They should not be, or at the very least, their stats from when they were on PEDs should be wiped clean.

How do you determine what the numbers would be without steroids? do you subtract 30 feet from Home Run Totals? I mean it's impossible to say well, Bonds gained 20 home runs by juicing. If we are going to allow flaws in people character to keep people from being enshrined in the Hall of Fame, well there would be nobody in the Hall of Fame. Everybody has character flaws.

Explain to me with a logical reason as to why Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, hell even Roger Clemens now, should be in the Hall of Fame.

Well, neither player has ever tested positive for steroids. That alone is reason enough, but here are 3 more
1. If they did steroids (they most likely did, but there is no positive test or videotape of it happening, therefore I have to say "if"), they did it before it was against baseballs rules, and therefore it cannot be held against them.
2. Both were Hall of Famer's PRIOR to supposed steroid use (Bonds is reported to use until after McGwire in 1998, and Clemens is reported to use after he went to the Blue Jays in 1997).
3. It is suspected that at least half of baseball was on steroids, so then we should just not induct anybody into the Hall of Fame for 15 years, because they would have been cheaters.

People think that Barry Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame with Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams?

Yes, because Bonds is the best power hitter of the modern era. At least until Albert Pujols and Alex Rodriguez possibly beat his numbers. He was also one of the best players on the field whenever he played for a long period of time, and that is one of the biggest reasons for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.

I want your opinion on steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in America's National past-time. I want to know why you think people should or should not be allowed in the Hall of Fame. Lets get a legitimate discussion going on steroids in baseball.

To put a long story short, I believe players who were RUMORED or SUSPECTED of using steroids SHOULD be in the hall of fame, because they never cheated. If somebody was CAUGHT (A-Rod, Manny Ramirez), they should still be in the hall of Fame, if their numbers are worthy of such an honor. A-Rod failed a survey test in 2003, when there was no penalty, and he later admitted to using steroids for 3 years (01-03, before MLB tested for it). Manny failed 1 test earlier in the 2009 season, and was suspended 50 games, and that should be the end of it. Barring players from career achievements because of 1 bad decision affecting a small portion of their career is unfair to the player.

Feel free to disagree with me if you like.

 

[Slyfox696]

I firmly believe that those who wish to exclude players based upon a supplement which was NOT against the by-laws of baseball from the Hall of Fame are incredibly narrow-minded and self-indulgent...bad people. The fact of the matter is that steroid use in the 90s has NOTHING to do with the Black Sox scandal, nor Pete Rose. They are entirely separate issues, separated by one MAJOR fact. What the Black Sox did, and what Pete Rose did, was AGAINST BASEBALL RULES. Taking steroids, regardless of the legality of them, were not.

Second of all, I still protest the "guilty until proven innocent" theory. With Barry Bonds, we have loads of evidence, and with Clemens, almost the same amount. Sosa has been recently confirmed to fail a test. But, where's the evidence against Mark McGwire? This is what I'd love to have happen. I'd love for ONE person to provide proof that Mark McGwire was taking something illegal, or against baseball rules. One person prove it. I dare you.

The fact of the matter is that you can't. Whether that's because he's innocent, or just good at hiding doesn't matter. Yes, McGwire was found to have had Androstenedione in his locker during the magical '98 season, but it wasn't against the law at the time. The SOLE argument against McGwire is McGwire's testimony before Congress, where he NEVER admitted to having them, only protested to the fact that he was being asked to answer the question. And you know what? Perhaps he did it to prevent guilt, but I don't blame him for doing it if he was innocent. I mean, what does he gain by protesting innocence in front of a witch trial? Not a thing.

So, I have a better offer for the thread starter. Provide to me one reason why these people's records SHOULD be erased, when they NEVER violated the by-laws of baseball. They never did anything that gave them an unfair advantage at baseball. Why? Because it wasn't against the rules.

Now tell me how you can seriously enforce a new policy retroactively. I would love to hear it.

 

[Stormtrooper]

...where's the evidence against Mark McGwire? This is what I'd love to have happen. I'd love for ONE person to provide proof that Mark McGwire was taking something illegal, or against baseball rules. One person prove it. I dare you.

The fact of the matter is that you can't. Whether that's because he's innocent, or just good at hiding doesn't matter. Yes, McGwire was found to have had Androstenedione in his locker during the magical '98 season, but it wasn't against the law at the time.

I don't want to be a jerk, but is this proof enough?

Androstenedione (also known as 4-androstenedione) is a 19-carbon steroid hormone produced in the adrenal glands and the gonads as an intermediate step in the biochemical pathway that produces the androgen testosterone and the estrogens estrone and estradiol.

This is what McGwire freely admitted to taking.

In 1998, after an article written by Associated Press writer Steve Wilstein, McGwire admitted to taking androstenedione, an over-the-counter muscle enhancement product defined since 2004 by the United States Congress as an anabolic steroid.

This says what he took was an anabolic steroid. Yes, it wasn't classified as an anabolic steroid when he took it, bu it's not like the drug magically became a steroid when the government banned it. It always was a steroid, and the government finally caught up.

an FBI steroid sting operation known as "Operation Equine" conducted in the early 1990's linked McGwire and Canseco to a steroid dealer by the name of Curtis Wenzlaff.

Oh, let me guess. The steroid dealer was just a friend to McGwire, McGwire and him never talked about steroids.

The SOLE argument against McGwire is McGwire's testimony before Congress, where he NEVER admitted to having them, only protested to the fact that he was being asked to answer the question. And you know what? Perhaps he did it to prevent guilt, but I don't blame him for doing it if he was innocent.

Those hearings were complete and utter horse crap. However, he did look guilty when he refused to answer the question. If he didn't do it, nothing bad can happen if he said no. By saying "My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family, and myself," he pretty much fell on his own sword.

what does he gain by protesting innocence in front of a witch trial? Not a thing.

If he took steroids and said he didn't take them, he would be in deep trouble (just look at Barry Bonds, who is on trial now for perjury). However, if he didn't take steroids, and he said he didn't, then he wouldn't have any problems long-term (they would have grilled him at the hearings, then the episode would be over), and his legacy wouldn't have been tarnished. He didn't say anything so he wouldn't be committing perjury.

==================================
I am not saying that McGwire cheated. I have no problems with players who used Steroids before they were banned. However, I am saying that there is evidence that he used steroids.

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't want to be a jerk, but is this proof enough?

First of all, it's from Wikipedia, so no. But, for argument's sake, we'll entertain the notion that Wikipedia has at least a modicum of credibility.

This is what McGwire freely admitted to taking.

Never denied it. Of course, it wasn't illegal either.

This says what he took was an anabolic steroid. Yes, it wasn't classified as an anabolic steroid when he took it, bu it's not like the drug magically became a steroid when the government banned it. It always was a steroid, and the government finally caught up.

So, then what he did wasn't against the law, nor the rules of baseball, right?

Oh, let me guess. The steroid dealer was just a friend to McGwire, McGwire and him never talked about steroids.

You're right. Clearly if you're friends with someone who runs afoul of the law, you obviously are a buyer. Good logic.

Those hearings were complete and utter horse crap. However, he did look guilty when he refused to answer the question. If he didn't do it, nothing bad can happen if he said no. By saying "My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family, and myself," he pretty much fell on his own sword.

And see, that's the point I'm making.

Since when does not loudly proclaiming innocence run tantamount to guilt? That's one of the dumbest theories sports people cling to "well, he didn't deny it, so he must be a 'roider". So fucking stupid, I can't believe people actually believe it.

If he took steroids and said he didn't take them, he would be in deep trouble (just look at Barry Bonds, who is on trial now for perjury). However, if he didn't take steroids, and he said he didn't, then he wouldn't have any problems long-term (they would have grilled him at the hearings, then the episode would be over), and his legacy wouldn't have been tarnished. He didn't say anything so he wouldn't be committing perjury.

Why should he have to? Mark McGwire was no longer in baseball. Why should he have to proclaim innocence on a subject that was only up for debate in the first place because it would get TV news cameras?

That's ridiculous. Hell, I probably would have refused to answer, just on the principle of it. It was a ridiculous witch hunt, which served ZERO purpose.

I am not saying that McGwire cheated. I have no problems with players who used Steroids before they were banned. However, I am saying that there is evidence that he used steroids.

There is ZERO evidence that Mark McGwire EVER used a performance enhancing drug that was illegal, either by the rules of baseball, or the rules of the government. ZERO evidence.

 

[Stormtrooper]

First of all, it's from Wikipedia, so no. But, for argument's sake, we'll entertain the notion that Wikipedia has at least a modicum of credibility.

Actually, its not some crap that a 17 year old with no life put on Wikipedia. This was brought to attention by Associated Press writer Steve Wilstein, who wrote an article about it for the AP. He was villified because it would hurt baseball. Here is a link to an article about the author (I cannot find the actual article, because it was 11 years ago now)

You're right. Clearly if you're friends with someone who runs afoul of the law, you obviously are a buyer. Good logic.

no, but this article tells you that McGwire was linked to the aforentioned person, not just friends with him. I wish I linked this article earlier, but alas, I didn't. My bad.

Since when does not loudly proclaiming innocence run tantamount to guilt?

Since when does not saying no run tantamount to innocence? if somebody asked you "did you kill 5 people today?" and you didn't, would you say "I don't want to talk about the past." or will you say "NO." If someone is innocent, they say they are innocent to make sure that people understand their innocence. If someone is guilty, they own up to it like a man (read Jason Giambi, to a lesser extent Alex Rodriguez), or they fight the accusation until they end up in prison (like Bonds and Clemens will likely end up). McGwire dodged, ducked, dipped, dived, and dodged the questions, and looked guilty doing it.

That's one of the dumbest theories sports people cling to "well, he didn't deny it, so he must be a 'roider". So fucking stupid, I can't believe people actually believe it.

It isn't MUST be a 'roider, but it's "he's probably a 'roider." Unfortunately, there is a large portion of America who believes guilty until proven innocent on this topic, when everybody else in baseball was doing it. Their opinion is jaded because every time they turn around, someone who everyone thought was clean just admitted to using.

Hell, I probably would have refused to answer, just on the principle of it. It was a ridiculous witch hunt, which served ZERO purpose.

It was a ridiculous witchhunt. However, you would face the same media backlash McGwire, because there is all this evidence, and you aren't defending yourself.

There is ZERO evidence that Mark McGwire EVER used a performance enhancing drug that was illegal, either by the rules of baseball, or the rules of the government. ZERO evidence.

there is one thing you are forgetting. WHAT HE ADMITTED TO TAKING IN AN AP NEWS ARTICLE IN 1998 IS CONSIDERED AN ANABOLIC STEROID! So he took fucking steroids. It doesn't matter that it was legal or not at the time. If I took a medication, and 5 years later it becomes something illegal, I still took it 5 years prior, but nothing bad can come of it. Legalities were never in question in my posts. I would vote for him for the hall of fame, based solely on his power numbers, and for bringing baseball out of the depths of hell after the strike. If McGwire said at the hearings "I took Andro in 1998 when it was legal and not considered a steroid" then after a month of "OH MY GOD HE TOOK A STEROID" nobody would give a shit, and he would be in the Hall of Fame. Instead he refuses to answer any question, looks like a fool, and will not get in the Hall of Fame.

 

[Slyfox696]

Actually, its not some crap that a 17 year old with no life put on Wikipedia. This was brought to attention by Associated Press writer Steve Wilstein, who wrote an article about it for the AP. He was villified because it would hurt baseball. Here is a link to an article about the author (I cannot find the actual article, because it was 11 years ago now)

It's Wikipedia. It's never credible.

no, but this article tells you that McGwire was linked to the aforentioned person, not just friends with him. I wish I linked this article earlier, but alas, I didn't. My bad.

And that SAME article you linked to says, "No evidence against McGwire or any other steroid user was collected".

So, what's your point?

Since when does not saying no run tantamount to innocence?

Since before the United States was ever founded, and then again in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified which made reference to the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine, and finally again (if my research is correct) in 1894 when the Supreme Court overturned a lower court's findings because the jury had not been instructed to presume innocence until proven guilty.

And, since you're accusing McGwire of taking illegal supplements, on top of the legal ones everyone already knows he was taking, we must then presume his innocence.

Boy, I bet you never expected that answer to your rhetorical question, did you?

if somebody asked you "did you kill 5 people today?" and you didn't, would you say "I don't want to talk about the past." or will you say "NO."

And if someone came up to me tomorrow and accused me of cheating on my girlfriend, there's not a chance in hell I'd even begin to entertain that notion.

Hypothetical situations don't work.

If someone is innocent, they say they are innocent to make sure that people understand their innocence.

You mean like Roger Clemens, who has shouted to anyone who would hear him of his innocence?

It isn't MUST be a 'roider, but it's "he's probably a 'roider."

And guys like Reggie Jackson PROBABLY took amphetamines...doesn't keep them out of the Hall of Fame, now does it?

Unfortunately, there is a large portion of America who believes guilty until proven innocent on this topic, when everybody else in baseball was doing it. Their opinion is jaded because every time they turn around, someone who everyone thought was clean just admitted to using.

Well, now that's just some fine logic. "Everyone else was doing it, so obviously you were." Makes a lot of sense.

But, ignoring the incredible ridiculousness of that logic, let's address what you're saying for a moment. Let's say many baseball players were on steroids in the 90s. So what? How does that keep them out of the Hall of Fame? They never did anything that broke any rules of baseball, so how can you hold it against them? It's not like they were on an unfair playing field ANYONE could get juiced. Hell, steroids weren't even illegal until 1990 or 1991, if I'm not mistaken.

They didn't break any of the rules of baseball, so how can you keep them out of the Hall of Fame? It makes no sense.

It was a ridiculous witchhunt. However, you would face the same media backlash McGwire, because there is all this evidence, and you aren't defending yourself.

Oh really? And what evidence was there in 2005 that Mark McGwire had taken illegal supplements in 1998? What evidence are you referring to?

there is one thing you are forgetting. WHAT HE ADMITTED TO TAKING IN AN AP NEWS ARTICLE IN 1998 IS CONSIDERED AN ANABOLIC STEROID!

But, in 1998, what he took was NOT illegal, and NOT against baseball rules, hell it wasn't even considered an anabolic steroid at the time. So, how can you keep him out of the Hall of Fame for taking a legal supplement? How does that even begin to make sense?

So he took fucking steroids. It doesn't matter that it was legal or not at the time.

How does it not matter? Andro was something that EVERYONE could take, did not break any rules of baseball, and was not against the law. How can you keep a guy out of the Hall of Fame because he broke no rules and no laws?

Were you absent the day they taught logic in school?

If McGwire said at the hearings "I took Andro in 1998 when it was legal and not considered a steroid" then after a month of "OH MY GOD HE TOOK A STEROID" nobody would give a shit, and he would be in the Hall of Fame.

What would be the purpose of that? Everyone already knew he took it. Why open himself to questions about the past, when he had no desire to talk about the past? I mean, you want to talk about looking guilty, try this on "Yes, I took Andro back then, but I refuse to talk about anything else". For fuck's sake, you should think your arguments through before you post them on here.

Instead he refuses to answer any question, looks like a fool, and will not get in the Hall of Fame.

Which is a ridiculous tragedy and a miscarriage of baseball justice. To think that people who don't have the first clue as to the work it took to be as great as McGwire was, to sit on their high horse and condemn a man who is known as a good father, and who NEVER has been found to have done anything illegal, to keep him out of the Hall of Fame is beyond ridiculous.

The man was the Steve Austin of baseball back in 1998, saving a game/business that had shot itself in the foot a few years before, was facing massive financial troubles, dwindling attendance, and an overall lack of interest. And the way he's repaid is being kept out of the Hall of Fame, despite ZERO hard evidence that he ever did anything illegal, and the undisputed fact that he never broke the rules of baseball. What a fucking tragedy.

 

[CH David]

Damn, Sly is on the topic, I have my work cut out for me to even attempt this.

Which is a ridiculous tragedy and a miscarriage of baseball justice. To think that people who don't have the first clue as to the work it took to be as great as McGwire was, to sit on their high horse and condemn a man who is known as a good father, and who NEVER has been found to have done anything illegal, to keep him out of the Hall of Fame is beyond ridiculous.

Shoeless Joe Jackson didn't do anything illegal, and there were reports from his teammates that he wasn't in on the fix in 1919. Keeping him out is ridiculous as well. Pete Rose bet on his team to win, he wasn't throwing games, he would get my vote to be in the Hall of Fame. Just my opinion.

The man was the Steve Austin of baseball back in 1998, saving a game/business that had shot itself in the foot a few years before, was facing massive financial troubles, dwindling attendance, and an overall lack of interest. And the way he's repaid is being kept out of the Hall of Fame, despite ZERO hard evidence that he ever did anything illegal, and the undisputed fact that he never broke the rules of baseball. What a fucking tragedy.

Now onto Big Mack. Sly, I can't argue that there is no evidence that he did anything illegal back in the 90s. No way of getting around that. Since they were banned in 2003 you can't really throw it out. You have me there. According to an article from espn.com

Jay McGwire writes in his proposal that his brother "began to use, but in low dosages so he wouldn't lift his way out of baseball. Deca-Durabolin helped with his joint problems and recovery, while growth hormone helped his strength, making him leaner in the process. I became the first person to inject him, like most first-timers he couldn't plunge in the needle himself. Later a girlfriend injected him."

I realize that this isn't hard evidence that he did use them, and it is hearsay, but to me he used them since 1994. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3851381
This is the rest of the article for those interested. Also, according to said article, Jay McGwire said that the drugs were for survival and not for records, as his body was in pretty shitty condition towards the end of his career so take that as you will.

Now Sly you also wanted me to give you a legit reason why their numbers should be thrown out or not allowed in the Hall, because they didn't have an unfair advantage because it wasn't against the rules. I disagree that just because something isn't against the rules, you can't have an unfair advantage. Steroids were not against the rules in the 90s, so they were fair game, but it was an unfair advantage because not everyone was taking them. Do you think Sammy Sosa would not have hit as many home runs as he did without taking PEDs? He was a scrawny little shit, especially playing at Wrigley where the wind is crazy. If you had to take a drug, whether it be an anabolic steroid or HGH, legal or not, why did you need to take it? Frank Thomas was a tank, he didn't need steroids. Same with Jim Thome while he was with the Indians, Tony Gwynn even, although he wasn't a power hitter. As I read in the article, McGwire may have needed it so his joints would heal properly and he could continue to play baseball. Maybe I can let that slide if it is legitimately for health reasons. But I will say that unless the BBWAA has a complete 180 turnaround in thought, he will not make the Hall of Fame, as he has finished in the lower percentages in his years of being eligible. Maybe that is why I can let it slide.

Whether you care to admit it or not, steroids have cast a shadow over baseball. Now that they are banned, a lot of people are still asking "oh he is has been crushing the ball all season, I wonder if he did steroids." Albert Pujols, Ryan Howard, Prince Fielder, they have to deal with this shadow. Instead of people marveling at how amazing they are, instead it is the question and wonder if steroids could be a possibility, and we have to wait until the end of their careers to know they did it clean, or find out through a drug test if they weren't.

So Sly, go ahead and rip my post apart. I look forward to saying to myself, why the fuck did I challenge Slyfox?

 

[BooCocky]

Using Marks brother is stupid, it has been said that they never had a good relationship because of what Jay stood for. He was a body builder who would use substances to enhance his physique. I remember reading a little excerpt in the book and it said there relationship was never good, it just took a turn for the worse as they got older.

McGwire admitted to taking creatine, which can be found in stores. At the time it wasn't illegal. McGwire was always a large man and him refusing to talk about the past was awesome. He was basically saying I dare you to find evidence. That's it, IMO McGwire is an innocent man and he should be allowed in the HOF.

So I believe steroids should be allowed in sports. It's a choice, and if they choose to destroy there body, so be it.

 

[FromTheSouth]

This is going to be unpopular, but I don't care about steroids in the least. If someone wants to shorten their life to better entertain me, then that is their decision. It is unfair to the others that never used, however, in baseball, until 2003, that is the guys fault who didn't use for not using.

I think it is important to note here that the issue of steroids is far more important when debating their use in baseball, as the record holders in baseball are esteeemed as great men. But, the record holders can, for the most part, be questioned. Willie Mays has admitted to using amphetamines to increase his alertness. "Greenies" were more common in the 50's and 60's than steroids are today. Babe Ruth, and all of his massive numbers were against no black or hispanic players. What do these have to do with steroids? SImply put, steroids, greenies, and racism were all within the rules of baseball, or, at the very least, not a violation of the rules. The Hall of Fame is not the Hall of Never Breaking a Law, or else any DWI, or in Ty Cobb's case, hate crime, would be enough for exclusion. If the voters want to penalize players for steroid use, then that is up to them, but baseball's "banning" of steroid users, much the same as the travesty of "banning" Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose, does not make up for the lax enforcement and failure to get ahead of a problem that baseball is famous for. I do not blame the players for marring the game. I blame those in charge for their complete and utter ability to fall asleep at the wheel time and again and then pass blame to the athletes who have made them all filthy rich.

I think football has gone too far with their policy. Players are getting four game suspensions for diuretics more than thay are for steroids. Honestly, weight loss drugs are not always steroid precursors, they are not juicing with ephedrine. It is tough to look at a GNC label and determine if any of the hundreds of ingredients are derivatives of one of the few banned substances, especially for a general education major who got a community college's worth of education in three years, just trying to stay eligible.

I would say that a suspension for using actual steroids is fine, if that's the direction the league wants to go, but suspending a 350 pound man because he is trying to get down to 325, when that is obviously what he is doing, is stupid. I think Roger Goodell enjoys too much his reputation as a hard ass. Pete Rozell and Paul Tagliabue built a league based on TV and exposure, and now Goodell is trying trying to push integrity when all he is doing is abusing power and harming the league.

In either instance, if Hall of Fame voters want to weigh steroids that heavily, then that is all good for them. I just hope that they weigh the stats of those who didn't ever get caught or even accused more heavily. Are Jeff Bagwell's 449 clean homers in 15 years enough to get him in on the first ballot now? (I hope it's the second ballot so that he and Biggio can go in together, but that's a new topic)

As I have stated, I don't care about steroids. I never thought athletes were role models, and with millions of dollars on the line, I think every one of us would at the very least consider something that will make us recover faster, be it TEST IV or HGH. Shit, I'll drink gallons of bull semen if I can sign a five year 60 million dollar deal.

 

[Slyfox696]

Shoeless Joe Jackson didn't do anything illegal, and there were reports from his teammates that he wasn't in on the fix in 1919. Keeping him out is ridiculous as well. Pete Rose bet on his team to win, he wasn't throwing games, he would get my vote to be in the Hall of Fame. Just my opinion.

Actually, he did. You can dispute whether or not he threw the games, but it is almost universally agreed that he took money.

Taking money to fix games is a violation of baseball rules. Taking steroids in the 1990s, was not.

Now onto Big Mack. Sly, I can't argue that there is no evidence that he did anything illegal back in the 90s. No way of getting around that. Since they were banned in 2003 you can't really throw it out. You have me there. According to an article from espn.com I realize that this isn't hard evidence that he did use them, and it is hearsay, but to me he used them since 1994. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3851381
This is the rest of the article for those interested. Also, according to said article, Jay McGwire said that the drugs were for survival and not for records, as his body was in pretty shitty condition towards the end of his career so take that as you will.

His brother is not a reliable source, for two reasons. First, like Becker said, it's been known that Mark and his brother did not have a good relationship. Second, Jay was trying to sell a book, in order to make himself rich. He had incredible motivation to trump up the truth.

Now Sly you also wanted me to give you a legit reason why their numbers should be thrown out or not allowed in the Hall, because they didn't have an unfair advantage because it wasn't against the rules. I disagree that just because something isn't against the rules, you can't have an unfair advantage. Steroids were not against the rules in the 90s, so they were fair game, but it was an unfair advantage because not everyone was taking them.

Randy Johnson was 6'10" tall, which means that the ball came out of his hand from a different angle, and closer to the plate than it did for most pitchers.

That is an unfair advantage. Are we going to keep Randy Johnson out of the Hall of Fame now?

Do you think Sammy Sosa would not have hit as many home runs as he did without taking PEDs?

No, not a chance. The difference between the two is that Sosa has been confirmed to have taken them, McGwire has not.

But, even that aside, while Sosa may not have hit as many home runs, who says that he would have been facing pitching that was as good as it was?

He was a scrawny little shit, especially playing at Wrigley where the wind is crazy. If you had to take a drug, whether it be an anabolic steroid or HGH, legal or not, why did you need to take it? Frank Thomas was a tank, he didn't need steroids. Same with Jim Thome while he was with the Indians,

Of course they did steroids. Everyone in the era did steroids, that's why we're throwing the era out, right?

But I will say that unless the BBWAA has a complete 180 turnaround in thought, he will not make the Hall of Fame, as he has finished in the lower percentages in his years of being eligible. Maybe that is why I can let it slide.

And if they were keeping him out based purely upon the fact that feel his career wasn't good enough, then so be it. I'd think they're wrong, but I'd be fine with it.

The problem is that McGwire isn't being kept out because of his baseball career, he's being kept out because of something NO ONE has ever been able to prove that he did. That just doesn't work for me.

Whether you care to admit it or not, steroids have cast a shadow over baseball.

Agreed. But, the shadow was cast all over baseball. And, not only that, the shadow we speak of was not a shadow of baseball illegality. We have alcoholics in the Hall of Fame, we have drug users of the "Greenies" in the Hall of Fame, we have spousal abusers in the Hall of Fame...but we can't have a guy who has been found to have broken no laws and no rules of baseball? We can't have the guy who brought baseball back? We can have an asshole like Ty Cobb, whom was hated by almost every other player in the major leagues, he was rude and unprofessional, who charged into the stands to beat up a handicapped man in the Hall of Fame, but we can't have a guy like Mark McGwire? Really?

 

[FromTheSouth]

To add to what Sly said, the greatest hitter of all time, Ted Williams, had an unfair advantage. He ahd 20/10 vision, and could actually see the seams spinning on a pitch. Albert Pujols is a beast of a man. All kinds of guys have advantages over others.

There are millions of dollars on the line. I cannot fault someone for taking advantage of a hole in the rule book. Now, the guys who have tested positive after 2003, that may be a different story. These guys did break the rules. But, are you going to tell me that Manny Ramierez isn't a Hall of Famer? He was suspended for taking a fertility drug that supposedly works as a masking agent. He never tested positive for steroids, just a "banned substance." Where do you draw the line on offenders? Do you bar only the actual steroid users or do you ban suspects? Are you innocent until proven guilty in baseball's kangaroo courts the same way that you are in a court of law? The standards are different for the governing body of a sport then they are a court, but how would you vote for these users? This question is for Sly and Chi. Yes or no for-

McGwire?

Sosa?

A-Rod?

Manny?

Rafael Palmeiro?

Roger Clemens?

Andy Pettite?

Barry Bonds? Bonds won three MVP's in the 90's when he was a skinny kid with a quick bat.

I would vote for every one of those guys, despite any accusations or even evidence.

 

[CH David]

Randy Johnson was 6'10" tall, which means that the ball came out of his hand from a different angle, and closer to the plate than it did for most pitchers.

That is an unfair advantage. Are we going to keep Randy Johnson out of the Hall of Fame now?

That is my point though Sly. In your previous post you said that because it wasn't against the rules, there was no unfair advantage. I proved that it was an unfair advantage for the guys that took them, compared to those who didn't. By the way, there are other tall pitchers in the league, not as dominant as Randy, but still like 6'7 or taller, with a different angle, so using Randy Johnson as an argument for an unfair advantage is ridiculous.

Of course they did steroids. Everyone in the era did steroids, that's why we're throwing the era out, right?

Wrong, I never said throw the era completely out. I'm saying people that used them. But then again, I am in the minority, so maybe I should rethink my stance on former players who took them. Also, why would someone like Frank Thomas advocate for drug testing as far back as 1995? I'm sure you are going to say it would be a perfect cover. If he were listened to back then, he would have been in trouble back then as well.

And if they were keeping him out based purely upon the fact that feel his career wasn't good enough, then so be it. I'd think they're wrong, but I'd be fine with it.

The problem is that McGwire isn't being kept out because of his baseball career, he's being kept out because of something NO ONE has ever been able to prove that he did. That just doesn't work for me.

Agreed. But, the shadow was cast all over baseball. And, not only that, the shadow we speak of was not a shadow of baseball illegality. We have alcoholics in the Hall of Fame, we have drug users of the "Greenies" in the Hall of Fame, we have spousal abusers in the Hall of Fame...but we can't have a guy who has been found to have broken no laws and no rules of baseball? We can't have the guy who brought baseball back? We can have an asshole like Ty Cobb, whom was hated by almost every other player in the major leagues, he was rude and unprofessional, who charged into the stands to beat up a handicapped man in the Hall of Fame, but we can't have a guy like Mark McGwire? Really?

Ok Sly, you have me here. Every person in the Hall of Fame should be shipped to the Hall of Shame because they did drugs outside of the game and drank when not playing. Ty Cobb was an asshole, Charles Comiskey was a cheapskate who wouldn't pay his player's bonuses, yet they are in the Hall of Fame. I can give in a little bit to men that got away with them like McGwire, he isn't proven to have taken them, but we know he did, but it wasn't illegal so you have that. You have me there. I could possibly vote for McGwire depending on who else is up for election for the Hall of Fame.

I think it was FTS that brought up Ted Williams. I'm not saying advantages such as height or eye sight are wrong. Those are natural advantages that were with them for their life. I am saying, for people to have to resort to adding a substance to their system to be a better and stronger player, that that is wrong.

But let me ask you this Sly. Why was it so important to take steroids? Not just McGwire, but in general? Why did people have to take an added substance to increase strength? Granted, greenies kept the players focused, and were performance enhancers, but not strength enhancers. But performance is still performance.

Lastly, so if people take a banned substance now, and are caught, do they still make the Hall of Fame for you and why?

 

[FromTheSouth]

Those people do make the Hall to me. People have cheated in baseball since day one. "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying" is the motto of the league. From corked bats to spitballs, baseball has been rife with cheaters. The last fifty years have done much to combat the cheaters, however, baseball players always seem to be one step ahead.

If steroids are a dividing line, why are amphetamines not? I would argue that a drug that allows for greater focus DURING THE GAME is worse cheating than something that allows you to bench press an extra two days a week or recover more quickly.

 

[CH David]

Those people do make the Hall to me. People have cheated in baseball since day one. "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying" is the motto of the league. From corked bats to spitballs, baseball has been rife with cheaters. The last fifty years have done much to combat the cheaters, however, baseball players always seem to be one step ahead.

If steroids are a dividing line, why are amphetamines not? I would argue that a drug that allows for greater focus DURING THE GAME is worse cheating than something that allows you to bench press an extra two days a week or recover more quickly.

Well I agree, which is why I said that performance is performance. It sucks that players have had to take substances the past however many years, because in my opinion it cheats the game. Scuffing the ball during the infancy of the MLB went on until someone died from it. Would we really want steroids to go on until someone died during a game from them, or killed their wife out of roid rage. I guess my question now is, why is it so important to add to your strength? The way baseball is now going, you have to be more athletic, and not just rely on strength alone. Adam Jones, Gordon Beckham, the Upton brothers, etc. Athleticism is now the direction baseball is going for. So taking steroids nowwould be a step back, wouldn't it?

 

[Cowboyfromhell]

Let me throw my 2 cents into this thread, which is a pretty good one.
First, as far as the Hall of Fame goes, I believe that the players should be eligible to be inducted based on their numbers, regardless of any suspicion or any confirmed tests. I believe this simply because there is no way of telling, with 100% certainty, the exact number or percentage of players using PED's. People always throw the big names out, Sosa and McGwire, Palmero etc... But what about the short relief guy out of the bull pen, or the 5th star PED's and obviously those guys aren't going in the HOF, but they were still playing on the same diamond as guys who are might go in the HOF, thus affecting their stats.
So if Big Mac, ARod and Clemens get in the HOF, which I think they all should, you just have to look on their plaque and see when they played and know they played in the steroid era. You can come to your own conclusions and opinions. I would rather have someone included that did PED's than to unjustly keep someone out that did not but people have questions about. It will forever be known as the steroid era, just like all the other eras knowledgeable baseball fans discuss.
I think amphetamines are just as bad, not maybe physically for the user, but in the edge it gives a player over a long, grueling season. And since those have been banned the number of ball players being "diagnosed" with ADHD has increased because the meds that treat that have a similar effect on the body as greenies do (especially if you don't actually have ADHD). So are those guys cheating because they found a loop hole and because they have a doctor's script to take the meds, thus MLB doesn't suspend them for illegal substances?
And for my personal opinion on steroids, it disappoints me that we had a steroid era, and I don't like that kids see this as a viable option, but I can't honestly say that if I was in the bigs that I wouldn't have tried them. I'm not going to lie, I am very completive (verrrry) and if the league didn't ban them (so I'm talking prior to 2003) I would have probably tried them. After 2003, there is no way I would, but prior, yeah, Jose Canseco probably would have been shooting roids in my ass cheek in a bathroom stall. And then told everybody about it in a book.