Get off your high horse

[Jimmy Jazz]

so punish everyone?

and what years of service do you begin and end this blanket guilty verdict on the entire player's union?

are you thinking of something along the lines of - every player whose career included the years between 1989 - 2012 are automatically disqualified from HOF eligibility.

for example, Trout, Harper and Machado, if they accomplish HOF caliber careers, are disqualified because they played in the same year as Melky. is this what you have in mind?

I said: "They need to either simply vote in the best players of the steroid era regardless of how they tested or not vote anyone in."

There are 2 options there. I would advise the former. The current muddle is absurd.

[weird-O]

I said: "They need to either simply vote in the best players of the steroid era regardless of how they tested or not vote anyone in."

There are 2 options there. I would advise the former. The current muddle is absurd.

I understand what you said, I just don't think it's a logical approach. why should the writers be forced to vote in a player they don't want (ex: Raffy Palmiero) so that they can vote in a player they do want (ex: Biggio)?

I used Raffy because he has the HOF credentials, but his dirty test, and > 15% of the votes garnered, are telling us he's not welcome in the Hall.

I used Biggio because he is already at 72% of the vote so far, so the writers clearly favor him.

you're suggesting that they either vote Raffy in, or leave Biggio out until they vote Raffy in. I don't see how that's a good approach. what did Biggio do wrong? why should he be excluded because Raffy was cheating and the hall voters don't want him in?

[Jimmy Jazz]

The writers basically need to get over themselves and the whole 'he cheated oh my god' nonsense. Guys have long taken performance enhancers. But suddenly it matters because why?

And yeah vote in the best of the era straight up or don't vote anyone in. Even if you're certain Biggio never took steroids (doubtful given who he was surrounded by) he still benefited from having all those hulking behemoths in the lineup behind him.

[weird-O]

The writers basically need to get over themselves and the whole 'he cheated oh my god' nonsense. Guys have long taken performance enhancers. But suddenly it matters because why?

that's pretty much what Justice was saying on the radio.

my personal opinion is that we can't compare HGH, etc. to "uppers" of the 1950's-60's or cocaine of the 1980's.

doing coke didn't help a player hit the ball further. speed didn't make a player's muscles repair faster, allowing them to lift more and build more muscle mass faster than the normal rate of growth for a human.

so I don't think that argument works. those drugs didn't do anything more for a player than he could achieve with a good night's sleep and eating healthy.

just to be clear, I'm not calling you out. it's just a slow period for baseball, and this is something to talk about. and I respect your opinions.

[Gizmo]

I'm not sure what the answer is on this issue. The truth is that it doesn't bother me too much either way, whether they let everyone in or none of them.

Many of these players, like Bonds and Clemens, would have had HOF careers without the steroids. I also think that some of these guys would have just been very good career players instead of HOF types. I have no idea how you try to figure all of that out.

What I do no is that imo there is no comparing the 'drugs' of previous generations with what players used during the steroid era. No way in hell. Belanger would have probably hit 25-30 HR's with the stuff available now. Take a look at Bonds when he was young and then take a look at him when it was obvious he was using. I might have been in the minority of baseball fans, but I never enjoyed seeing him walk his swollen head and body up to the plate covered in body armour and simply swing away for the fences. The previous generation of 'PED's' were nothing compared to what the steroid era drugs could do in terms of strength and stamina.

I'm with Earl on this when he said that he somewhat understood a player wanting to perform better, but regardless of how you felt on the issue, it absolutely made a mockery of the records. That is probably my biggest issue, the smashing of records and milestones that simply would not have happened, or even come close to happening, without the steroids.

In the end, if I had a vote, I would probably vote in those guys who I thought were HOF players even without the steroids. Or maybe not.

[bmore_ken]

They need to either simply vote in the best players of the steroid era regardless of how they tested or not vote anyone in. This business where the voters attempt to determine who was and was not clean is ridiculous.

I agree. If you have the numbers you should get in. No one was complaining when Sosa, Bonds, and McGuire were having a home run derby breaking a HR mark that had stood for almost 50 years in consecutive years. Give me a break

[weird-O]

I agree. If you have the numbers you should get in. No one was complaining when Sosa, Bonds, and McGuire were having a home run derby breaking a HR mark that had stood for almost 50 years in consecutive years. Give me a break

people were complaining, but it wasn't the owners or players' union. it was former players, industry people and writers who were in the know. but their concerns were falling on deaf ears because the money was rolling in.

most of the poeple who were in a position to change things, did nothing because they were all sharing in the rewards of success. Jim Bowden has talked about this several times on the air. he said he knew, and he shared that other execs knew as well. but there wasn't any power to do anything about it. remember, it wasn't a formal violation yet and there was no formal testing during the heyday of home run mania.

it's absurdly hypocritical for anyone in the players' union or anyone at the ownership level and above to try and tell us they were concerned. if the other sports hadn't taken such a hard stance and made MLB stand out as the lone objectors to testing, they would have stayed with businesss as usual.

but that doesn't mean no one was complaing. and what we hear now are the voices of those people finally being heard loud and clear. the power has reached their hands, and they're exercising it by abstaining from voting for Clemens and Bonds.

[hector]

I understand the HOF voters need to deal with this since the dopers are now becoming eligible for consideration. However, I think all this drama is an absolute joke coming from an industry that can't vote in Pete Rose. He was "Charlie Hustle" and anybody who thinks he didn't give 100% as a player never saw him play. He wouldn't be voted in because of what he did as a manager but rather as one of the very greatest players of all time.

[weird-O]

I understand the HOF voters need to deal with this since the dopers are now becoming eligible for consideration. However, I think all this drama is an absolute joke coming from an industry that can't vote in Pete Rose. He was "Charlie Hustle" and anybody who thinks he didn't give 100% as a player never saw him play. He wouldn't be voted in because of what he did as a manager but rather as one of the very greatest players of all time.

I think Pete's exclusion goes beyond the "crime" he committed. here are some points I'm referring to.

1) when he was caught, he denied everything even though MLB showed him the evidence they had.

2) MLB tried to handle that situation discretely to save face for the league and him. Pete decided to go public and count on the fans to overwhelm the league in protest. that didn't happen. actually, the opposite happened, most people said "screw Rose".

3) even though he signed the admission of guilt, he continued his public campaign to embarrass the league into caving to his demands for re-entry.

4) when he finally admitted he bet on Reds games, he did it in the form of a self-serving, cash grab, book deal.

5) when MLB showed him a little tenderness and allowed him to appear at the all-century team celebration, he once again used the high profile event to rub MLB's nose in it for keeping him out.

6) Johnny bench and the veterans committee don't want him in.

7) for as much trouble as juicing has caused, gambling is considered exponentially worse in the opinion of MLB and the vets. gambling is considered the tip-top violation a player, manager, etc could ever do to hurt the game.

there are others, but I think the point has been made. Rose won't sniff the HOF in his lifetime, unless he buys a ticket to take the tour.

I've always suspected they will vote him in after he dies. that will be their way of sticking it to him for all the embarrassment he caused the sport and the league. he'll just be a plaque on the wall.

[bmore_ken]

I understand the HOF voters need to deal with this since the dopers are now becoming eligible for consideration. However, I think all this drama is an absolute joke coming from an industry that can't vote in Pete Rose. He was "Charlie Hustle" and anybody who thinks he didn't give 100% as a player never saw him play. He wouldn't be voted in because of what he did as a manager but rather as one of the very greatest players of all time.

Aww hell here comes the blizzard this weekend. I actually agree with a hector post

[weird-O]

Aww hell here comes the blizzard this weekend. I actually agree with a hector post

I'm stopping for bread and milk on my way home

[hector]

I think Pete's exclusion goes beyond the "crime" he committed. here are some points I'm referring to.

1) when he was caught, he denied everything even though MLB showed him the evidence they had.

2) MLB tried to handle that situation discretely to save face for the league and him. Pete decided to go public and count on the fans to overwhelm the league in protest. that didn't happen. actually, the opposite happened, most people said "screw Rose".

3) even though he signed the admission of guilt, he continued his public campaign to embarrass the league into caving to his demands for re-entry.

4) when he finally admitted he bet on Reds games, he did it in the form of a self-serving, cash grab, book deal.

5) when MLB showed him a little tenderness and allowed him to appear at the all-century team celebration, he once again used the high profile event to rub MLB's nose in it for keeping him out.

6) Johnny bench and the veterans committee don't want him in.

7) for as much trouble as juicing has caused, gambling is considered exponentially worse in the opinion of MLB and the vets. gambling is considered the tip-top violation a player, manager, etc could ever do to hurt the game.

there are others, but I think the point has been made. Rose won't sniff the HOF in his lifetime, unless he buys a ticket to take the tour.

I've always suspected they will vote him in after he dies. that will be their way of sticking it to him for all the embarrassment he caused the sport and the league. he'll just be a plaque on the wall.

Thanks for the information. I think MLB and the HOF voters are hypocrites to the extreme and here are my comments to the seven points:

1. Denying an allegation from MLB has nothing to do with performance on the field.
2. Is speaking out in public grounds for keeping someone out of the HOF?
3. Is a public campaign to present your position grounds for keeping someone out of the HOF?
4. Is a book deal grounds for keeping someone out of the HOF?
5. Was participation in an all-century event supposed to have the same prestige as the HOF?
6. Are the objections from Bench and the Veterans Committee based on performance on the field?
7. Not hustling and then placing a bet for your team to lose would be bad. Rose always hustled. Is gambling a new barrier against entry into the HOF?

It's the hypocricy of MLB and the voters that bother me the most about this subject. Steroid users abused the game, inflated statistics, and denied it when caught. MLB executives knew about it and looked away. The attempt by these phonies to set a high moral standard in the Rose case is laughable given their culpability on steroids.

I'm just curious about one detail. Are there any other very high achieving players being barred from the HOF other than Rose? You're very well informed (although a bad forecaster) so I thought you're the person to ask.

[hector]

Aww hell here comes the blizzard this weekend. I actually agree with a hector post

Welcome to the club. You're approaching genius level but still have a way to go.

[weird-O]

Thanks for the information. I think MLB and the HOF voters are hypocrites to the extreme and here are my comments to the seven points:

1. Denying an allegation from MLB has nothing to do with performance on the field.
2. Is speaking out in public grounds for keeping someone out of the HOF?
3. Is a public campaign to present your position grounds for keeping someone out of the HOF?
4. Is a book deal grounds for keeping someone out of the HOF?
5. Was participation in an all-century event supposed to have the same prestige as the HOF?
6. Are the objections from Bench and the Veterans Committee based on performance on the field?
7. Not hustling and then placing a bet for your team to lose would be bad. Rose always hustled.

I'm not the guy to make these points to or ask these question to. I'm just sharing what I know about that situation.

Is gambling a new barrier against entry into the HOF?

it's not a new barrier, but it is a barrier. if a MLB employee bets on baseball, it can earn them a lifetime ban from the sport.

Rose voluntarily signed an admission of guilt. MLB said they wouldn't formally "charge" him with gambling on the Reds if he signed it. Rose claims they told him they would re-visit his ban in 1 year and discuss the possibility of reinstatement. he didn't even wait the full year to start crying for public support.

It's the hypocricy of MLB and the voters that bother me the most about this subject. Steroid users abused the game, inflated statistics, and denied it when caught. MLB executives knew about it and looked away. The attempt by these phonies to set a high moral standard in the Rose case is laughable given their culpability on steroids.

the problem with this argument is that the steriod era happened after the Rose ban. and as I mentioned before, gambling on baseball is seen as a greater offense than using PEDs

I'm just curious about one detail. Are there any other very high achieving players being barred from the HOF other than Rose? You're very well informed so I thought you're the person to ask.

yes

[Jimmy Jazz]

that's pretty much what Justice was saying on the radio.

my personal opinion is that we can't compare HGH, etc. to "uppers" of the 1950's-60's or cocaine of the 1980's.

doing coke didn't help a player hit the ball further. speed didn't make a player's muscles repair faster, allowing them to lift more and build more muscle mass faster than the normal rate of growth for a human.

so I don't think that argument works. those drugs didn't do anything more for a player than he could achieve with a good night's sleep and eating healthy.

just to be clear, I'm not calling you out. it's just a slow period for baseball, and this is something to talk about. and I respect your opinions.

Congress has held hearings on steroids in baseball starting in 1973. And just what was that Mickey Mantle took to help his hip?
http://www.journalgazette.net/articl.../1092/SPORTS05

I also think you're underestimating how grueling a baseball season can be and how much amphetamines can help with that. It's not the same as HGH but it's not like they're so totally different.

[weird-O]

Congress has held hearings on steroids in baseball starting in 1973. And just what was that Mickey Mantle took to help his hip?
http://www.journalgazette.net/articl.../1092/SPORTS05

I also think you're underestimating how grueling a baseball season can be and how much amphetamines can help with that. It's not the same as HGH but it's not like they're so totally different.

not all steriods are preformance enhancing anabolic steriods. when I feel like I'm getting sick, I take zicam, which is a steriod. it keeps the illness at bay, but it doesn't help me hit a softball further. Prednizone (sp?) is a steriod, but my dog didn't suddenly start running 10 mph faster or jumping 4 feet higher after taking it to clear up an ailment.

again, speed will get you up for a game. but it won't make you stronger or faster. you'll just feel stronger and faster. a tired, slow runner will be just as slow after taking a few uppers. he just won't be as tired for a little while.

perform your own experiments. do something pysical for a week, note your performance. then note your performance in that same activity after taking 5 hr energy.

[hector]

not all steriods are preformance enhancing anabolic steriods. when I feel like I'm getting sick, I take zicam, which is a steriod. it keeps the illness at bay, but it doesn't help me hit a softball further. Prednizone (sp?) is a steriod, but my dog didn't suddenly start running 10 mph faster or jumping 4 feet higher after taking it to clear up an ailment.

again, speed will get you up for a game. but it won't make you stronger or faster. you'll just feel stronger and faster. a tired, slow runner will be just as slow after taking a few uppers. he just won't be as tired for a little while.

perform your own experiments. do something pysical for a week, note your performance. then note your performance in that same activity after taking 5 hr energy.

Your dog sounds like a lazy beast.

[weird-O]

Your dog sounds like a lazy beast.

and he has a habit of getting excessivley angry, out of the blue, for no appearent reason.

[hector]

and he has a habit of getting excessivley angry, out of the blue, for no appearent reason.

Your mutt may be frustrated by his master's difficulty in seeing the future. Maybe Rin Tin Tin (RTT) is psycholgically damaged and depressed. Would you like me to talk to your beast? If I can deal with government people on a daily basis, RTT should be enlightening by comparison.

[weird-O]

Your mutt may be frustrated by his master's difficulty in seeing the future. Maybe Rin Tin Tin (RTT) is psycholgically damaged and depressed. Would you like me to talk to your beast? If I can deal with government people on a daily basis, RTT should be enlightening by comparison.

I don't think your daily calls to the Welfare office, screaming about why you deserve an increase to your benefits, count as talking to government people. asking MVA tellers for dates, while trying to get your suspended license reinstated, doesn't count either.

sorry buddy

break the cycle of dependency Hector.