Steroids Era to consume Hall voters

[Old Sweater]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AlO2SbvIiRBFKHjGcBuorAsRvLYF?slug=ap-halloffame

NEW YORK (AP)—Still glowing over his election to the Hall of Fame, Barry Larkin was asked about next year’s sure-to-be-controversial vote: the first appearances of Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa on the Cooperstown ballot.

“All I know is playing and competing against some of these guys, they’re the best—period,” he said.

The BBWAA hasn’t elected three candidates in one year since 1999 and hasn’t voted in four since 1955. Next year’s ballot also includes first-time eligibles Mike Piazza, Curt Schilling and Craig Biggio, along with holdovers Jack Morris, Jeff Bagwell, Lee Smith and Tim Raines.

As Hall President Jeff Idelson pointed out, only 207 of the approximately 18,000 players who have appeared in the major leagues have earned induction to Cooperstown. Some voters will keep the doors locked on Steroids Era sluggers and Clemens—and even players only rumored to have used PEDs.

“I’m not going to vote for any of the people that are linked to steroids. I could change down the road, but that’s the real strong feeling I have now,” said Hal Bodley of MLB.com, the former lead baseball writer for USA Today. “I have such a great passion for the game that anything that taints it in the least way, I have a problem with it.”


I agree with Larkin. Then as far as Hal Bodey goes, was he on his high horse about amphetamines? If not, he isn't true to his word.

For the numbers they gave, 207 HOF'ers out of 18,000 players, I went to BR and they say 17,407 have played the game, so...............

207/17,407=.0118 of players have made the HOF. Myself, I don't think the HOF can be watered down that much with a little over 1% of players being in the HOF. Even if you take off the incredible 10%(IMO 2%) off of some of the so called tainted players, they still have numbers that are HOF worthy. I wish to heck that MLB would have really done something about PED testing right at the start so these high horse, self righteous BBWAA writers didn't have more ammo for their wannabe God like stance.

As far as the veterans committee goes, I keep thinking about what Wilson said about in the future when there may be genetic blood doping. The veterans committee may go pffftttt to PED's and vote the accused or presumed user in anyways and myself, I hope they do even though I won't be around to see it. I blame MLB much more than the players.

[Mudge]

"Oh, what tangled webs we weave
When first we practice to deceive."

MLB and its coevals can stew on this one for a while.

[runningshoes]

I like Bodley's attitude.

[yankeebiscuitfan]

I like Bodley's attitude.

Me too. If there is proof that players have used steroids or other PED's, the HOF will lose any credibilty when they are voted in.

[yankeebiscuitfan]

I like Bodley's attitude.

Me too. If there is proof that players have used steroids or other PED's, the HOF will lose any credibilty when they are voted in.

[Old Sweater]

I like Bodley's attitude.


“I have such a great passion for the game that anything that taints it in the least way, I have a problem with it.”

What about greenies? That is tainting the game in the least way by his standards. I would have to say that amphetamines enables contact with the ball more then PED's. What MLB needed to do was establish a hard line right after WWII like they have for gambling. None of this amphetamines is okay but PED's is a no no.

[runningshoes]

What about greenies? That is tainting the game in the least way by his standards. I would have to say that amphetamines enables contact with the ball more then PED's. What MLB needed to do was establish a hard line right after WWII like they have for gambling. None of this amphetamines is okay but PED's is a no no.

I agree but that ship has sailed. I don't think we should turn a blind-eye to the steroid problem because players used greenies way back when. Do they still use them now?

[Old Sweater]

I agree but that ship has sailed. I don't think we should turn a blind-eye to the steroid problem because players used greenies way back when. Do they still use them now?

Without an honest independent tester, we'll never know. MLB will never lose control over themselves releasing players names, which equals a blind eye to the problem.

[Old Sweater]

Amphetamine use has historically been especially common among Major League Baseball players and is usually known by the slang term "greenies".[64] In 2006, the MLB banned the use of amphetamine. The ban is enforced through periodic drug-testing. However, the MLB has received some criticism because the consequences for amphetamine use are dramatically less severe than for anabolic steroid use, with the first offense bringing only a warning and further testing

Thought I had this on file but had to go to Wiki. I'd have to say, yep, the players are still using greenies, with only a warning for a 1st offense. Wide spread use of amphetamines began after WWII and it took MLB around 60 years to put greenies on the banned list. I'm not saying MLB should turn a blind eye to PED's but they sure have except for a few selected high profile cases. The owners waited until Bonds broke the HR record before they blackballed him.

[WilsonC]

I agree but that ship has sailed. I don't think we should turn a blind-eye to the steroid problem because players used greenies way back when. Do they still use them now?

It was only banned in 2006, and still much more prevalent than steroids ever were even through the 90's.

The way I look at it is like this. For over 40 years, the culture of baseball was that it it was perfectly ok to use drugs, including illegal ones, to improve performance. It's not like it was a dirty little secret either; a book was written about it in 1970. Then another illegal drug comes into popularity, so players start using this one as well.

Then all of a sudden, this information comes back into the light in the age of celebrity gossip, and an unpopular player faces allegations of having used this drug. And then finally, the league wakes up and decides it's no longer ok to do this. It's hypocrisy to say that one illegal drug is the ultimate sin in a culture where it was implicitly, if not explicitly considered acceptable, whereas another illegal drug in the same culture, which may well even be more effective for a baseball player, gets shrugged off.

Now, I agree that mistakes of the past shouldn't dictate how we deal with mistakes of the present, but how many voters have you seen say, "Aaron and Schmidt used greenies and it was a mistake to vote for them, but I'm not going to make that same mistake with Bonds and Clemens," versus, "Bonds and Clemens used an illegal drug to achieve their records! How is that fair to past greats like Aaron and Scmidt!"

[winningbaseball]

No player using steroids should be allowed to hold any record and should not be the beneficiary of any honors.

[Retardedfly]

No player using steroids should be allowed to hold any record and should not be the beneficiary of any honors.

I have to agree. The thing that really bothers me is that in the 90's, when McGwire and Sosa were cranking out the homeruns and saving baseball, by bringing back the fans who hadn't come back after the strike and missed world series, MLB marketed the hell out of those guys. And as soon as the fans were back, and attendance was back to a good level, MLB decided it was time to clean up the game.

[Mr. Baseball]

Even if you take off the incredible 10%(IMO 2%) off of some of the so called tainted players, they still have numbers that are HOF worthy.

If we're playing poker, and I play fairly for all the hands but one, have I still cheated?

[Buccos13]

If we're playing poker, and I play fairly for all the hands but one, have I still cheated?

Agreed. Once you've cheated, it doesn't matter what your numbers are. The Hall of Fame isn't just about how good your numbers are. Your impact on the game of baseball is equally - if not more - important.

[Baseballnum3er0]

In all honesty, I never fully understood why baseball went after steriods and for the most part ignores amphetamines which are more dangerous and at least in my mind arguably have just about as large of a game day impact than steroids. I don't see why we continue to label steroid users as 'cheaters' and ignore the usage of drugs that without a prescription that has been illegal in the US since 1970.

I'm not saying that steriod users do or do not deserve the label as cheaters but in all honesty we will never know exactly who used and who did not. To put in bluntly the guessing game that HOF voters have been playing with players from the 'steriod era' is bullshit. In all honesty, I would much prefer they just vote people in to the hall based on their impact on the game as a player ignoring steroid use unless they were suspended by the league.

I have two main reasons for this. The first being like I said, we will never get conclusive proof on all of the users and it simply is not fair to let some users slide in and to turn a cold shoulder to the ones that we have some incomplete proof on but we 'just know' they used. The second reason goes back to what I first mentioned in this post with amphetamines and the larger issue that their will likely always be some type of performance enhancing drugs floating around baseball, they may not necessary have as large an effect as steroids but in principle are just as wrong.

The reason I think that we can't just take the drug that arguably the largest effect on the game and put it on a pedestal is as simple as revising MrBaseball's poker example. If that one hand that you happen to cheat in you happen to lose, isn't that still cheating? I don't should change a persons mind, just because you are bad at cheating doesn't mean you still did not cheat.

I guess my overall point is this, yes people cheated but put up a plaque or put them in a special room to explain the problems of the era and let them in the HOF.