Would you still vote for any of these guys?

[Hammerin Hank]

Why aren't guys who fail the drug tests banned from the HoF anyway? Isn't it similarly as bad as betting or throwing games?

[imgreat95]

I would still vote for any one of them.

[Brad Harris]

Why aren't guys who fail the drug tests banned from the HoF anyway? Isn't it similarly as bad as betting or throwing games?

(1) Because the Hall of Fame's Board of Directors has enough sense not to impose its own punishment on players and let the Commissioner's Office handle it.

(2) No, it's not. And it's nowhere close.

(3) Nothing that's been made public, to date, would convince me any of those players listed is anything less than a bona fide Hall of Famer.

[E.Banks#14]

I'm only talking on their first ballot here, but the only one of those players I would vote for is Sammy Sosa. The other 3 have been proven to use some type of performance enhancing drugs, whether or not it was illegal at the time, is irrelevant to me. Unlike Sammy's corked bat, you can't go back and check to see if these guys were using in their primes. So we're left to assume that if they're using now, they were using back then.

[rockin500]

Why aren't guys who fail the drug tests banned from the HoF anyway? Isn't it similarly as bad as betting or throwing games?

no its not similar. not at all. throwing the game makes it as real as the WWE.

[imgreat95]

How can you go back and check to see if Sammy was using corked bats??

[moviegeekjan]

Not nearly as bad as fixing games or any activity that causes permanent banishment from the game.

[DTF955]

I voted for Sosa and Bonds for the following reasons:

1. Each plays the outfield and has proven abilities in more than batting. Bonds is an excellent fielder, Sosa a very good one in his prime IIRC. Both also steal lots of bases.

2. Sosa's never been shown to have taaken steroids, he's just like a Gaylord Perry *ever if* he corked his bat a lot. And we don't know if he did.

3. Bonds had MVP seasons before he started juicing up, if you go by the looks in pictures, fromt he slimmer 1991 to the bulky 2001 - take his career 1986-97 and he's in, though not a 1st ballot possibly.

I might stil vote for the other 2, becasue if they used something (well, I think we know McGwire did, right?) it was not banned at that time. It's like talking about spitballers in the era before 1920. Sure, it's illegal now, but the point is, it wasn't back then.

However, McGwire is another Harmon Killebrew (sp?) or Reggie Jackson, players who were dominant because of their power. McGwire in fact had incredible years in the middle '90s before 1997 (people forget his combined 58) and 1998-2000. So, he might be one player who was reaally helped a lot by steroids. However, aas I say, what he used was legal at the time.

Palmeiro, it's hard to say. Was he using something banned for years before this - we don't know. Unlike Bonds, his first 12 years were very good but not great - remember that Bonds put up 3 MVP seasons in 4 years, and could have won in 1991, maybe should have, *in an era still despressed somewhat offensively*. Like him or not now, Bonds was a superstar witht he Pirates.

Palmeiro, however, plays a less important defensive position, and while he had very good numbers, really needed the career totals to make him a sure thing.

So, yes, I admit I'm a bit biased in favor of outfielders versus frst basemen, and in favor of players with more than one tool. But in a question like this, where steroids increase bat speed and such, I think these things need taken into consideration. I've heard some say Bonds is one of the best defensive leftfielders of all time, and I doubt steroids can help that.

[cubbieinexile]

I voted for Sammy and Barry. I think they all took PEDS but I don't really care. Palmeiro I never really thought of as a HOF'er to me he is like the Slugging Lou Brock. Instead of having 3000 hits and a ton of stolen bases he has 3000 hits and lots of home runs. Granted Home runs are important but the only reason he racked up 3000 hits and almost 600 homers is because he played forever and got to play in a very friendly hitters era.

Mark has had some amazing years and mark has had some really bad years. Plus he couldn't stay healthy. Mark has 5 seasons (4 if you don't count his first season) in which he didn't crack 100 games played, and then in 1995 even with all that time off and a shortened season he still could only manage to play a little over 100 games. When healthy and hitting he was a HOF'er unfortunately he couldn't do that enough for me to consider him a HOF'er.

As for steroids and the hall, one has to remember that the Hall is a seperate institution and not part of MLB. They can induct anybody they want, and technically they don't even have to follow their own guidelines set forth for induction. Having said that I will say that right now they only way to become ineligible for induction despite having met all the requirements is to be place on the MLB Ineligible list. Right that is not the punishment for taking PEDs.

At best a voter could not vote for a player based on the integrity, sportsmanship, and character points that go into voting. Of course to me anyone that decides to go that route I would like to see their voting history and see if they voted for players that were cheaters.

[Windy City Fan]

Bonds: He was HOF material before he ever heard of BALCO.

Sosa: We have no actual proof he ever used steriods or any performance enhancing drug. There is a lot of circumstancial evidence that makes him look guilty, but we don't have any evidence to convict the man on.

McGwire: He took andro when it was both legal and not banned by MLB. I don't see how you can hold this against him. No one downgrades Ed Walsh because he threw a spitball when it was legal. The federal government didn't go back and try to convict Coca Cola for putting cocaine in its drinks after the laws were changed to make cocaine illegal.

Palmerio: He's the hardest one to call right now. First off, I want to know more about exactly what was found in his system. In my book, there is a big difference between illegal steriods, which could not be accidentially consumed, and an over the counter suppliment that could be mistakenly taken thinking it contained no banned substances. There is a certain amount of common sense that says Palmerio's story makes sense. Why now, at the end of his career when he's locking up his place as a HOF caliber player would he risk ruining it all by being caught with banned substances? It seems incredibly stupid. Not saying Palmerio is incapable of a stupid decision, just saying we need to wait and see a bit.

If he was using illegal steriods, my first reaction is to say no, he doesn't belong in the HOF. His candidacy rests solely on being good not great for a long time. Take away steriods, and his impressive counting numbers are sure to tumble. However, if steriod use is/was as rampant as we are told, then you can't say it really gave Raffy an edge vs. his peers, can you? I'm still undecided on this. I lean towards no if he was using hard core stuff, but I'm still on the fence a bit.

For the record, steriods are not as bad as throwing games. Steriods are bad, but throwing games is the ultimate baseball sin.

[E.Banks#14]

How can you go back and check to see if Sammy was using corked bats??
They X-rayed 400 some bats of Sammy's that are in the HOF and other places. None of them had cork in them.

[dgarza]

but throwing games is the ultimate baseball sin.

Silly me, I always thought college football/basketball was the ultimate baseball sin...

[E.Banks#14]

Here are some before and afters:

Sammy Sosa:

[E.Banks#14]

Barry Bonds:

[E.Banks#14]

Rafael Palmeiro:

[E.Banks#14]

Mark McGwire

[NeverJustAGame]

Major League Baseball as a business should have been more strict and kept up with the growing performance drug culture.The current policy can not be enforced to count against players from 15 seasons ago.

I do understand the win at all cost attitude that many athletes have and this is a huge reason for using performance drugs in the first place.But huge salaries based on production is the main reason for drugs in any sport.

Team owners are willing to turn a blind eye when discussing their players but easy to mouth off against other teams players. Mr Yankee George would have easily allowed Giambi to play on drugs if he was never caught.Its money in the owners eyes.

I would be willing to bet all four players on this poll have juiced.But did baseball care? NO! Thats the problem.

The powers that be in baseball could care less about little Johnny living in Columbia , SC taking drugs.They will go to Washington or on television saying dont do drugs but the past league officals have always been lax on drugs.

Does anyone remember Steve Howe? He was a six time drug loser.SIX TIMES!Thats not a policy thats a free pass and thats been baseball's stance for some thirty years.It would be very hard for any business to form and enforce policy after thirty years.

Baseball's main problem is the officals and the commish.A strong voice is needed that can make the players union see it as for the good of the game.

[MyDogSparty]

I wouldn't vote for any of them the first time around. You can add Ivan Rodriguez to that list too. After that, Barry Bonds and possibly Irod are the only two that deserve to go into the HOF in my book. I'm not one of those people who consider 500+ HR, 3000+ hits or 300+ wins an automatic ticket to the HOF.

[flash143817]

Yes for Bonds, Sosa, McGwire.

No on Palmeiro.

I was iffy on Palmeiro before but the steroids thing just pushes him out. Bonds was a first ballot guy even before steroids. Sosa and McGwire are possibly 'roid-aided but they have 2 big things in their favor anyway. First, they were the best hitters in the game during their peaks, and they both have well over 500 HR's.

Palmeiro has the counting stats but was never close to being the best hitter in the game. And now that he has steroids tainting his legacy along with a lack of dominance, Palmeiro is a "no" on my ballot.

[ballparks]

No No No No

Aren't we ashamed of ourselves as fans of the game of baseball not to turn our backs on those who have used us for their own gain?

Screw these guys. We ought to be cheering for guys like Pedro, Randy Johnson, Jim Edmonds, Derek Jeter, Johnny Damon and Greg Maddux whose success had been in spite of these over-rated artificial losers.

[cubbieinexile]

Unless of course they are cheating too.

[CurseReversed]

You know who i would vote for to get in the hall of fame? Pee Wee Herman, thats who, all those men on your poll are Rich, greedy, punk a$$ liars. Pee Wee Herman should take all thier places in the Baseball Hall Of Fame, at least you know for a fact that he isnt on steroids (ON ACCOUNT OF HES LIKE 80 LBS and doesn't even know what the name of his game show was because it only lasted 30 minutes so he wouldnt be smart enough to use em)


Faithful Red Sox Fan


"The Dumbest Question in the world is the one you don't ask"
(Sir. Jack Conley)

[BigSteve]

I voted for Sammy and Barry. I think they all took PEDS but I don't really care. Palmeiro I never really thought of as a HOF'er to me he is like the Slugging Lou Brock. Instead of having 3000 hits and a ton of stolen bases he has 3000 hits and lots of home runs. Granted Home runs are important but the only reason he racked up 3000 hits and almost 600 homers is because he played forever and got to play in a very friendly hitters era.

Raffy didn't play "forever" or really a long time at all. This is "only" his 18th season. It isn't like he played 22 seasons or something.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

I think i finally see how some players dont get 100% on ballots, I would vote yes for Sosa and McGwire because Sosa only had one corked bat. McGwire never did anything illegal, Raffy was caught using something illegal, Bonds well i just plain cant stand him, plus well I doubt hell ever get caught but anyone who watches him knows he took something illegal.

Yes yes im a bonds hater so sue me....

[RBi]

The only thing i circle around to, is 'roids were not against the rules in 1998 when mark and Sammy did the homerun dance. Actually Mark was out of the game when it was acutally banned in baseball...

YOU can not find them guilty of using when it was not against the rules... why was it not?

hmmz... I wonder how much $$$ MLB made in 1998 compared to 1997.


there is your answer...

[RBi]

I think i finally see how some players dont get 100% on ballots, I would vote yes for Sosa and McGwire because Sosa only had one corked bat. McGwire never did anything illegal, Raffy was caught using something illegal, Bonds well i just plain cant stand him, plus well I doubt hell ever get caught but anyone who watches him knows he took something illegal.

Yes yes im a bonds hater so sue me....


Giambi took a long time off last season, and this year Bonds is not rushing a comeback after knee issues...

hmmz need to get his system clean?

haha

[Naliamegod]

Giambi took a long time off last season, and this year Bonds is not rushing a comeback after knee issues...

hmmz need to get his system clean?

haha

Bonds has already been tested.

[Yankees]

Do you really think that there are only 10(or 11?) steroids users in MLB, and they have all been caught?

[RBi]

Bonds has already been tested.

When?

I thought it was a part of the deal that test results would only be given if the player failed...


it might have been rumored that he was tested, but I do not think they are telling who all are passing....

am I wrong?

[cubbieinexile]

The Giants a couple of months back got tested and Barry was one of the players that got tested. Since that testing no Giants have been suspended therefor a conclusion can be drawn of Bonds having past the test.

[Hammerin Hank]

Compare the results of this poll to one taken earlier this year:
http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=26624

Palmeiro: 52%/78%

[echy88]

None, they are all cheaters. Caught or not.

[BaseballBum12]

raffy deserves it

[ADunn44]

I would still vote for any one of them.



if you can vote for cheaters who are destroying the integrety of the game, you sure as hell better vote for Rose first, he didn't cheat to break hallowed records, he did it through sheer determination, and hard work,. Bonds, Sosa, Palmerio and Bonds had to cheat by using steriods to get where they are now

[RogersMaris]

theyre all on PEDS now>>>> *I voted for all four*

[BigSteve]

The only thing i circle around to, is 'roids were not against the rules in 1998 when mark and Sammy did the homerun dance. Actually Mark was out of the game when it was acutally banned in baseball...

YOU can not find them guilty of using when it was not against the rules... why was it not?

hmmz... I wonder how much $$$ MLB made in 1998 compared to 1997.


there is your answer...

But even though they were not officially banned by baseball, anabolic steroids were illegal in the US so it shouldn't have even been an issue (obviously it was). I'm sure that MLB rules don't officially ban shooting the other team's starting pitcher before the game so that he can't pitch, but since murder is illegal. it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it wouldm't become OK because it wasn't specifically banned by MLB.

[cubbieinexile]

Its also an illegal act to commit a violent offense to another human being, or to even attempt it. Yet pitchers are allowed to throw at batters all the time. Pitchers are breaking the law to gain an edge and MLB allows it. MLB employees used to and probably still do provide illegal drugs to their players. Creating an aura of irresponsibility.

[BigSteve]

Its also an illegal act to commit a violent offense to another human being, or to even attempt it. Yet pitchers are allowed to throw at batters all the time. Pitchers are breaking the law to gain an edge and MLB allows it. MLB employees used to and probably still do provide illegal drugs to their players. Creating an aura of irresponsibility.


But pitchers aren't allowed to throw at batters. If they intentionally hit or throw at a batter, they are ejected, so I don't see how that comparison holds up.

[cubbieinexile]

Tell that to Bob Gibson and about every single pitcher who does it and doesn't get thrown out.

So when a pitchers get ejected for throwing at a batter do we throw out all their stats for that game? Do we put an asterisks next to their seasons stats? Or how about their career? Do we say they shouldn't go to the Hall because they threw at somebody?

[BigSteve]

Tell that to Bob Gibson and about every single pitcher who does it and doesn't get thrown out.

So when a pitchers get ejected for throwing at a batter do we throw out all their stats for that game? Do we put an asterisks next to their seasons stats? Or how about their career? Do we say they shouldn't go to the Hall because they threw at somebody?

Well, maybe if throwing at someone was anywhere nearly as bad as taking steroids people would advocate that. I never even said that I wouldn't vote for these guys for the HOF or wanted to put asterisks by their stats. I'd definately vote for Sosa, probably McGwire and Bonds, and Palmeiro maybe. I just think that it's sort of silly to make an argument that Mcgwire never did anything wrong because performance enhancers like steroids weren't explicitly banned by MLB. There is such a thing as common sense.

[cubbieinexile]

Hitting a person with a baseball has already killed one human being. It has ruined many hitters careers and injured countless players.


Secondly though I doubt it, it is quite possible that Mark McGwire took supplements that were not illegal at the time, and so did a whole host of others.

[BigSteve]

Hitting a person with a baseball has already killed one human being. It has ruined many hitters careers and injured countless players.


Secondly though I doubt it, it is quite possible that Mark McGwire took supplements that were not illegal at the time, and so did a whole host of others.


And no one cares whether or not Mcgwire used a substance that was neither illegal nor banned by MLB. What they care about is that he more than likely used anabolic steroids.

[RBi]

But even though they were not officially banned by baseball, anabolic steroids were illegal in the US so it shouldn't have even been an issue (obviously it was). I'm sure that MLB rules don't officially ban shooting the other team's starting pitcher before the game so that he can't pitch, but since murder is illegal. it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it wouldm't become OK because it wasn't specifically banned by MLB.

I feel it is only fair since you took the extreme case on this one, I take the EXTREME case to the other point.

Speeding is against the law, but you do not hear about people being punished in baseball, for going above the speed limit to get to the park on time...

You see these are drastic cases on both end, IMO the bottom line is this, you can not go by "understood logic" because every persons logic is different...


and you can not punish someone for using a drug when at the time of use was not against ANY league rule... if Big Mac wen to his local law enforcment office TODAY, and said I used steroids in 1998, would he get arrested? NOPE. he would have to be caught in the act. so even though he 'broke the law' he is not in any trouble for it.

Once again, I would like to know how much $$$ MLB made in 1998, and compare that to it's revenue from 1997....

there lies your answer.... GREED, MLB is at fault for not banning these roids a long time ago, and for being one of 2 things...

Greedy, or Niave...

either way it is bad...

[BigSteve]

I feel it is only fair since you took the extreme case on this one, I take the EXTREME case to the other point.

Speeding is against the law, but you do not hear about people being punished in baseball, for going above the speed limit to get to the park on time...

You see these are drastic cases on both end, IMO the bottom line is this, you can not go by "understood logic" because every persons logic is different...


and you can not punish someone for using a drug when at the time of use was not against ANY league rule... if Big Mac wen to his local law enforcment office TODAY, and said I used steroids in 1998, would he get arrested? NOPE. he would have to be caught in the act. so even though he 'broke the law' he is not in any trouble for it.

Once again, I would like to know how much $$$ MLB made in 1998, and compare that to it's revenue from 1997....

there lies your answer.... GREED, MLB is at fault for not banning these roids a long time ago, and for being one of 2 things...

Greedy, or Niave...

either way it is bad...

But the speeding analogy doesn't hold up becuase it isn't an on-field matter and has no business being regulated by MLB or being used as a criteria for whether or not someone belongs in the Hall of Fame. It doesn't matter that "every person's logic is different". I don't know any logical reason that a person would think that it's OK to use illegal drugs because they are a baseball player, do you?

And yes, MLB was greedy and turned a blind eye until Caminitti and Canseco came out and embarassed them. However, I find it hard to believe that the MLBPA would have let steroid testing occur before those two guys came out and said what was going on in baseball. Hell, even after that the Player's Association still balked and Selig's tougher policy has little chance of being approved.

[cubbieinexile]

And no one cares whether or not Mcgwire used a substance that was neither illegal nor banned by MLB. What they care about is that he more than likely used anabolic steroids.


No one cares? I guess I remembered 1998 all wrong then.

So if people only care about the illegal stuff then what is your position on Willie Mays? What is your position on the speed freaks of the 60's and 70's?

[RBi]

and why would the MLBPA not want to be tested?

lol come on, another stat I would like to see...

the average salary for players from 1990 through 2002.

once again Greed is the issue. you can NOT hold one person responsible for this, I feel you can only learn from it.

there is no test that can prove drugs were taken, even though we are assuming that they were. Proof would be needed.

Mark was ATTACKED for not denying use to congress, I personally admired his nod out of this one, he had a great point to make. Admitting use would not help anyone, only hurt him. that was not what congress "claimed" to have wanted to do. he stuck to his guns and will pay for it i fear...


but that Cardinal gained a cub fan as a backer when he did what he did with congress...

and if he doesn t not get into the HOF, then so be it. he stood for what he felt was right, you cant knock that...

[RBi]

No one cares? I guess I remembered 1998 all wrong then.

So if people only care about the illegal stuff then what is your position on Willie Mays? What is your position on the speed freaks of the 60's and 70's?


DOH?!?!?! but wait!!! we can not disrespect those guys... that would just be a slap in the face of baseball. there is no proof of that really happening...

just "talked" about...


or how about Micky Mantle's alcoholic mind.....

hmmz

Ty Cobb's filed spikes coming in hard on a slide....

yea... we can not talk ill about those players that is disrespectful...

[BigSteve]

and why would the MLBPA not want to be tested?

Besides the fact that a sizable portion of its members were using steroids?

[BigSteve]

or how about Micky Mantle's alcoholic mind.....

hmmz

Ty Cobb's filed spikes coming in hard on a slide....

yea... we can not talk ill about those players that is disrespectful...

Are those things illegal?

[cubbieinexile]

Besides the fact that a sizable portion of its members were using steroids?


I don't take steroids or drugs of any kind yet I wouldn't want to have mandatory testing in my workplace. I think it is an assault on ones personal freedoms. And I think that in terms of baseball which is entertainment I think it is especially heinous. They are basically testing players to please the masses. So we are destroying individual freedoms so that a bunch of fat beer drinking couch potatos can keep their dream alive of one day playing professional baseball. Or worse yet keep the memory of their heroes of yesteryear on the same high pedestal. Yeah those are worthy reasons to sacrifice personal freedoms.

[RBi]

Besides the fact that a sizable portion of its members were using steroids?


Sums it up for me, no more HOF....


too many players are using PED's.... it would not be fair...

:)

[cubbieinexile]

Are those things illegal?


So is the only reason taking steroids is wrong is because it is illegal? If steroids were not illegal would you be okay with players taking steroids?

[BigSteve]

I don't take steroids or drugs of any kind yet I wouldn't want to have mandatory testing in my workplace. I think it is an assault on ones personal freedoms. And I think that in terms of baseball which is entertainment I think it is especially heinous. They are basically testing players to please the masses. So we are destroying individual freedoms so that a bunch of fat beer drinking couch potatos can keep their dream alive of one day playing professional baseball. Or worse yet keep the memory of their heroes of yesteryear on the same high pedestal. Yeah those are worthy reasons to sacrifice personal freedoms.

"Personal freedoms" don't extend to illegal activity. If MLB knows that there is a sizable drug problem within the ranks of those that they employ they have both the right and the duty to take affirmative steps to fix the problem. It's especially important to test for performance enhancing drugs becuase they compromise the integrity of the game. You can denigrate and mischaracterize the fans all you want, but the game is reliant on the fans and it always will be.

[RBi]

So if people only care about the illegal stuff then what is your position on Willie Mays? What is your position on the speed freaks of the 60's and 70's?


Echo this once more...

[BigSteve]

So is the only reason taking steroids is wrong is because it is illegal? If steroids were not illegal would you be okay with players taking steroids?

If they weren't illegal, I would think that MLB should ban them because they compromise the integrity of the game and create a competitive imbalance.

But assuming that they didn't ban steroids and that they were not illegal, I wouldn't blame anyone who used them to get a leg-up.

[RBi]

so if it a legal issue... then the law is the law... on the field, or off...

[cubbieinexile]

"Personal freedoms" don't extend to illegal activity. If MLB knows that there is a sizable drug problem within the ranks of those that they employ they have both the right and the duty to take affirmative steps to fix the problem. It's especially important to test for performance enhancing drugs becuase they compromise the integrity of the game. You can denigrate and mischaracterize the fans all you want, but the game is reliant on the fans and it always will be.


Innocent until proven guilty. Just because my co-worker is on drugs does not mean I am on drugs or that I am likely to be on drugs. Why should I lose my right to privacy just because a couple of people are doing something illegal. There is a crime problem does that mean the police should be allowed to search my home whenever they want without any proof me personally doing anything wrong? Because that is what you are asking for by having league wide testing.

Just because the game is reliant on fans does no mean that there every whim should be catered to. If that was the case we should just have a bunch of gladiators in a middle of a ring killing each other.

[cubbieinexile]

If they weren't illegal, I would think that MLB should ban them because they compromise the integrity of the game and create a competitive imbalance.

But assuming that they didn't ban steroids and that they were not illegal, I wouldn't blame anyone who used them to get a leg-up.


How do steroids compromise the integrity of the game? Furthermore how does the game have inetgrity to begin with?

[Appling]

McGwire and Sosa belong in the Hall of Fame not so much for their career homerun totals, but mostly for the fact that their homerun race in 1998 probably saved the game (after the player's strikeout /lockout year of 1994).

With or without 'Roids, Bonds has no advantage that other players don't also have -- yet no one is even close to Barry's homerun power and OBP the past few years. AT this time he gets my vote too.

Palmeiro never had an MVP season. He has 3000 career hits but is not a career .300 hitter. He has 500+ career homeruns but never won a homerun title. A lifetime runner-up type of guy -- not HOF. (With or without steroids)

[RBi]

McGwire and Sosa belong in the Hall of Fame not so much for their career homerun totals, but mostly for the fact that their homerun race in 1998 probably saved the game (after the player's strikeout /lockout year of 1994).

With or without 'Roids, Bonds has no advantage that other players don't also have -- yet no one is even close to Barry's homerun power and OBP the past few years. AT this time he gets my vote too.

Palmeiro never had an MVP season. He has 3000 career hits but is not a career .300 hitter. He has 500+ career homeruns but never won a homerun title. A lifetime runner-up type of guy -- not HOF. (With or without steroids)


WOW, I could not have broke it down any better!

"Liletime runner-up"

THAT IS PERFECT!

[BigSteve]

Innocent until proven guilty. Just because my co-worker is on drugs does not mean I am on drugs or that I am likely to be on drugs. Why should I lose my right to privacy just because a couple of people are doing something illegal.

Drug use has nothing to do with your "right to privacy". Many employers aside from MLB can and have made random drug testing a condition of employment, especially if there is suspicion/proof of widespread drug use as in MLB. You may not like it, but you don't have to like it - you can choose to work elsewhere. And I don't even know why we're arguing about this considering that the MLBPA has agreed to testing.


There is a crime problem does that mean the police should be allowed to search my home whenever they want without any proof me personally doing anything wrong? Because that is what you are asking for by having league wide testing.

There is a difference between the government taking away your constitutional rights and an employer placing reasonable conditions on your employment with that entitiy. As I said before, there is the option to no longer seek employment with that company.


Just because the game is reliant on fans does no mean that there every whim should be catered to. If that was the case we should just have a bunch of gladiators in a middle of a ring killing each other.

True, but MLB isn't enforcing this drug policy to please fans. I doubt they would even have this relatively lax system if Congress didn't step in and tell them to fix their problems.


How do steroids compromise the integrity of the game?

Because steroid users are cheating to gain an unfair advantage.

[cubbieinexile]

Testing has everything to do with my right to privacy. It is a hotbed issue with cases going to the supreme court of the states and federal courts a lot. A company might say that a condition of employement is to be tested and I might say no and they don't hire me. It is not a foregone conclusion that they are in the right and clear of any repercussions. The law is not clearly on their side.

We are arguing about testing becuase you stated that the MLBPa does not want to be tested because a lot of them are taking drugs. I countered with I don't want to be tested and I don't take drugs. In otherwords I am offering another valid reason as to why somebody would be against testing and it has nothing to do with taking drugs and trying to hide it.

Private entities cannot impinge upon your constitutional rights and right now drug testing is one of those hot button issues. 10 years ago the employee would be in the right, now the employer, down the road it will swing back.


And why is Congress stepping in? To please their voters. And who are their voters? Why fans of course. Congress is stepping in because it is easy to look righteous, no risk, and they actually don't have to solve anything or doing any work to make the situation better. They get to make some speeches get national media attention and not risk alienating a part of their voter base.

And how is steroid cheating any different then all the other forms of cheating that have happened and are happening in baseball? But again how does baseball have integrity to begin with? They lost that one a long time ago. Steroids is simply another pebble on top of Mt Everest.

[Ursa Major]

Cubbieinexile: What do you mean by this:


"So if people only care about the illegal stuff then what is your position on Willie Mays? What is your position on the speed freaks of the 60's and 70's?"

??? Having been a Willie Mays fan since 1961, I would imagine I would have heard if he was ingesting something illegal or even inappropriate.

And, looking back at all those wonderful before and after shots of the 'roid candidates, I can't help but note this -- I think Raffy had a nose job!!! Now, that's the ultimate physical alteration to abet your game. (As I recall, Joe Pepitone did it too because he couldn't see around his schnozz with his left eye to get good stereoscopic vision of pitches.

[abolishthedh]

No, and your poll didn't allow for that option unfortunately.

There has to be a downside to the player during his playing days, and/or immediately thereafter. I'm already assuming the player has made a deal with the fates over his future.

The HoF is the game's ultimate honor and it should be left that way.

I'm in COMPLETE agreement with HoFer Joe Morgan as he described his positition on ESPN's Sunday night broadcast. To paraphrase him:

"A lot of guys I played with are ticked off, but they don't want to say anything for sounding like its sour grapes. They're tired of having their accomplishments cheapened by cheaters. Well, sometimes you have to risk sounding like its sour grapes if you want to be heard."

I wouldn't vote for any of these guys, and I would have to question who in the world I might vote for among everyday players.

I just realized how relevant this topic is to a thread from a couple of years ago. We were debating the larger sin.... voting someone in who didn't deserve induction, or keeping someone out who deserved HoF induction. Well, the larger sin is to vote someone in who doesn't deserve induction because it cheapens the game. Discussing the merits of players who have yet to get into the Hall is still good for the game, on the other hand. On the basis of that, I'm not kidding here, guilty by association and the circumstantial evidence is enough for me.

[Ubiquitous]

The current view on Willie according to some biographies is that Willie was a pill popper. Though I think most of the gossip is centered around his decline phase.

During the Pittsburgh drug trials John Milner testified that he took liquid amphetamines out of Willie's locker during Willie's time as a Met.

Other speed freaks of the time brought up in the testimony was Bill MAdlock and of course Willie Stargell and a whole host of others. Other names that have popped up are Hank Aaron and Rock Raines.

[BigSteve]

We are arguing about testing becuase you stated that the MLBPa does not want to be tested because a lot of them are taking drugs. I countered with I don't want to be tested and I don't take drugs. In otherwords I am offering another valid reason as to why somebody would be against testing and it has nothing to do with taking drugs and trying to hide it.

If the MLBPA was comprised largely of players who are not drug users (and therefore are having their images wrongly tarnished by false allegations), then I'm sure that those players would have pushed for the Fehr and the Players' Association to accept drug testing when Caminitti and Canseco first spilled the beans about what was going on in baseball. Certainly, if these players really are clean, then taking one test a year to prove that is not an exceptional burden on the players. Perhaps if they were being tested before and after every game, that would be too much of an invasion of privacy. But I'm having a hard time believing that anyone who doesn't use drugs would have a problem with taking one test a year to prove that.


Private entities cannot impinge upon your constitutional rights

Of course they can, unless you believe that you have a right to bear arms in your workplace. Even Fehr said in his testimony to Congress, "While the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not directly applicable to the private employment setting. . ."


And how is steroid cheating any different then all the other forms of cheating that have happened and are happening in baseball?

It is different becuase not only is it against the rules of baseball but it is also against the law. Scoffing a ball isn't against the law and neither is corking a bat. That is the fundamental difference that makes it worse.

[Ubiquitous]

If the MLBPA was comprised largely of players who are not drug users (and therefore are having their images wrongly tarnished by false allegations), then I'm sure that those players would have pushed for the Fehr and the Players' Association to accept drug testing when Caminitti and Canseco first spilled the beans about what was going on in baseball. Certainly, if these players really are clean, then taking one test a year to prove that is not an exceptional burden on the players. Perhaps if they were being tested before and after every game, that would be too much of an invasion of privacy. But I'm having a hard time believing that anyone who doesn't use drugs would have a problem with taking one test a year to prove that.



Would you like to keep having to express you innocence everytime somebody is murdered or robbed near your town? Would you like the police to round up every citizen in an area and have them give DNA samples, stand in lineups, and give alibis?

Testing turns the whole innocent until proven guilty view and freedom on its head. You are now guilty until proven innocent, and not taking the test is as bad as being found with drugs. It perverts the whole due process that protects every single citizen of America.

[Ubiquitous]

Of course they can, unless you believe that you have a right to bear arms in your workplace. Even Fehr said in his testimony to Congress, "While the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not directly applicable to the private employment setting. . ."


The keyword is "directly" and the other keyword is "Fehr".

[BigSteve]

Would you like to keep having to express you innocence everytime somebody is murdered or robbed near your town? Would you like the police to round up every citizen in an area and have them give DNA samples, stand in lineups, and give alibis?

Testing turns the whole innocent until proven guilty view and freedom on its head. You are now guilty until proven innocent, and not taking the test is as bad as being found with drugs. It perverts the whole due process that protects every single citizen of America.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold up in the court of public opinion anyway. My point is that if I'm accused of doing something that I didn't do, and I have an easy way to prove that I didn't do it, I'd be all for taking a test to prove my innocence.

And besides that, there is a reasonable cause for testing as former ballplayers have com out and accused various players of cheating. Doesn't that indicate something about their guilt or innocence? And if it doesn't what would you need to suspect that many ballplayers use steroids?


The keyword is "directly" and the other keyword is "Fehr".

I don't understand your point. Certainly if even the head of the MLBPA agrees that constitutional rights don't apply in a case like this then that isn't a case that should be made.

[Ubiquitous]

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold up in the court of public opinion anyway. My point is that if I'm accused of doing something that I didn't do, and I have an easy way to prove that I didn't do it, I'd be all for taking a test to prove my innocence.

And besides that, there is a reasonable cause for testing as former ballplayers have com out and accused various players of cheating. Doesn't that indicate something about their guilt or innocence? And if it doesn't what would you need to suspect that many ballplayers use steroids?



I don't understand your point. Certainly if even the head of the MLBPA agrees that constitutional rights don't apply in a case like this then that isn't a case that should be made.


I don't have to prove I am innocent, you have to prove I am guilty either beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal or slightly less in civil matters. If I am innocent I shouldn't have to do anything. None of my rights should be taken away, unless you can prove they should be.

No there is a reasonable cause for rules banning drugs and harsh penalties for those who break the rules. But that does not mean we should round everybody up and test them. If their are 15 murders in two weeks in an area there is a reasonable cause to believe that their are multiple murderers in the area that does not mean we should round up every human being in the area and have each one prove their innocence.

[Ubiquitous]

A lot of people say things like since I am innocent I don't mind this intrusion or that intrusion because I have nothing to fear. Well that is baloney you have a lot to fear. Nothing is perfect and there are enough wrongfully convicted people in jail to prove that. There are enough wrongfully terminated employement cases in the court system to prove that as well.

Just because you are innocent doesn't mean you should let others trample on your rights. Your rights should be protected at all costs and at all times. There are enough bad things that could happen that do otherwise is like playing russian roulette.

[BigSteve]

I don't have to prove I am innocent, you have to prove I am guilty either beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal or slightly less in civil matters. If I am innocent I shouldn't have to do anything. None of my rights should be taken away, unless you can prove they should be.

That's all well and good when we're talking about putting people in jail, but that's not the issue. The issue is that certain players (and more broadly most players) have been accused of being steroid users and if they hide behind an "innocent until proven guilty" defense no one is going to want to hear it. Whether that's right or wrong is open for debate, but I'm just stating as fact that that's the way it is.


No there is a reasonable cause for rules banning drugs and harsh penalties for those who break the rules.

And what good is that if you have no testing program to enforce the rules?


If their are 15 murders in two weeks in an area there is a reasonable cause to believe that their are multiple murderers in the area that does not mean we should round up every human being in the area and have each one prove their innocence.

But again, several people have been accused by name. Should we test them? Wouldn't it be reasonable to investigate someone that was specifically accused of committing murder (using your analogy)?


A lot of people say things like since I am innocent I don't mind this intrusion or that intrusion because I have nothing to fear. Well that is baloney you have a lot to fear. Nothing is perfect and there are enough wrongfully convicted people in jail to prove that. There are enough wrongfully terminated employement cases in the court system to prove that as well.


Please point me to cases where drug tests have turned up false results.

[abolishthedh]

Would you like to keep having to express you innocence everytime somebody is murdered or robbed near your town? Would you like the police to round up every citizen in an area and have them give DNA samples, stand in lineups, and give alibis?

Testing turns the whole innocent until proven guilty view and freedom on its head. You are now guilty until proven innocent, and not taking the test is as bad as being found with drugs. It perverts the whole due process that protects every single citizen of America.

In no way, shape or form would my disallowing vote against these 4 ballplayers lead these ballplayers into a jail cell. All we are talking about in this thread, folks, is the HoF in baseball!

Its just the Hall of Fame, and the ACLU for cryin' out loud has no bearing on matters. These guys will still be out and about, leading normal lives, even without the Hall.

Since it is just the Hall of Fame, I see no problem with the weight of circumstantial evidence and guilt by association leading to a no vote. "Innocent until proven guilty" belongs in a court of law, not a Hall of Fame vote!

Keeping the players out of the Hall doesn't limit their freedom! Good grief. :rolleyes:

[Ubiquitous]

And what good is that if you have no testing program to enforce the rules?



But again, several people have been accused by name. Should we test them? Wouldn't it be reasonable to investigate someone that was specifically accused of committing murder (using your analogy)?



Please point me to cases where drug tests have turned up false results.
Murder is against the law we don't have random fingerprinting to prevent it or enforce the law.

No just because somebody accuses me does that mean my rights fly out the door. That is why one needs the persons permission or a court order to take DNA samples or really any personal search of ones property and body.

For false results do a google search on false positive and drug testing. It is extremely common

[Ubiquitous]

In no way, shape or form would my disallowing vote against these 4 ballplayers lead these ballplayers into a jail cell. All we are talking about in this thread, folks, is the HoF in baseball!

Its just the Hall of Fame, and the ACLU for cryin' out loud has no bearing on matters. These guys will still be out and about, leading normal lives, even without the Hall.

Since it is just the Hall of Fame, I see no problem with the weight of circumstantial evidence and guilt by association leading to a no vote. "Innocent until proven guilty" belongs in a court of law, not a Hall of Fame vote!

Keeping the players out of the Hall doesn't limit their freedom! Good grief. :rolleyes:


Thats all well and good but we are not talking about the hall. The point you quoted has to do with the players union being against testing because they want to hide the truth while I was offering an explanation as to why they would be against it.

[Pighead]

I wouldn't vote for any of them....Especially Bonds....I had the "honor" of watching that idiot stand flatfooted convinced the ball was going over the fence at Candlestick....the ball hit the fence. His response? "Why don't you put my uniform on and see if you can do better"...good, real good...the integrity of the game factors in...

Bonds has proved that he can't heal without steroids, and Sosa has proven that he can't play without steroids...

[runningshoes]

They X-rayed 400 some bats of Sammy's that are in the HOF and other places. None of them had cork in them.

So let me see, you cork a bat and leave it hanging around for the baseball world to investigate. I don't think either Sammy or the guy that corked them is him is that stupid. And I could hang around the batting cage making some bats look they were game used.

I'm noy saying he used a cork for any significant period during his career, but what are the odds the first time he used a corked bat was the first time he got caught doing it?


Bonds, Big Mac and Slammin' Sammy all get my vote (like it counts anyways).

I don't imagine there's a steriod out there ever improved a guy's swing or significantly improved a slugger's base-running abilty. Those guys aren't base stealers and I never saw one of them pass the base runner in front of him.

[Appling]

I don't have to prove I am innocent, you have to prove I am guilty either beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal or slightly less in civil matters. If I am innocent I shouldn't have to do anything. None of my rights should be taken away, unless you can prove they should be.


Should we then test only the players whose "profile" matches that of a proven user of PED's? Perhaps only those players who suddenly "bulk up" and look like The Hulk? Or those who have their best HR seasons after age 35? It would be something like checking the luggage of airline passengers who match the profile of known terrorists! (Or checking the blood alcohol level of a driver who is driving recklessly and out of control.)

But why do sampling if 100% testing is possible? So long as the testing is fair and reliable, I see no problem with random testing of each player at least once every week or two. I don't think the act of testing has itself caused any harm or illness. Doesn't tennis test each player before every match?

I know the US Supreme Court has made several rulings on the issue of "privacy" but still I am confused. Which ammendment to our Constitution guarantees each citizen a "right to privacy"?

[Ubiquitous]

Should we then test only the players whose "profile" matches that of a proven user of PED's? Perhaps only those players who suddenly "bulk up" and look like The Hulk? Or those who have their best HR seasons after age 35? It would be something like checking the luggage of airline passengers who match the profile of known terrorists! (Or checking the blood alcohol level of a driver who is driving recklessly and out of control.)

But why do sampling if 100% testing is possible? So long as the testing is fair and reliable, I see no problem with random testing of each player at least once every week or two. I don't think the act of testing has itself caused any harm or illness. Doesn't tennis test each player before every match?

I know the US Supreme Court has made several rulings on the issue of "privacy" but still I am confused. Which ammendment to our Constitution guarantees each citizen a "right to privacy"?


So how is testing everyone fair? IS throwing everybody in jail to get the ten criminals fair?

You check the blood alcohol level of a reckless driver because he is breaking the law.


Which ammendment guarantees every one to breath? Which one guarantees marriage?


the Constitution isn't about what people can do; it's about what government can do.

The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution
The Bill of Rights

The original Constitution contained no Bill of Rights, because the authors believed it wasn't necessary — since the Constitution clearly enumerated the few powers the federal government was given.

However, some of the Founding Fathers thought there could be misunderstandings. So a Bill of Rights was composed — and some states ratified the Constitution only on condition that those amendments would be added to the Constitution.

Whereas the main part of the Constitution spells out the few things that government may do or must do, the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights spell out what government may not do
The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where's the right to privacy?

It is clearly in those two amendments.

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.

(Notice also that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that government may violate the Bill of Rights if the target of its wrath is a non-citizen. Government isn't authorized to jail non-citizens indefinitely or deny them due process of law. There's a good reason for that, but that's another subject.)

[BigSteve]

So how is testing everyone fair?

It's fair because you're treating everyone equally. I don't see your point.


IS throwing everybody in jail to get the ten criminals fair?


A) You're being naive if you think that only ten players are on steroids.

B) Testing a person to determine guilt or innocence isn't the same as throwing people in jail. If you don't deserve to be punished you won't. You're comparing to dissimilar situations.


Which ammendment guarantees every one to breath? Which one guarantees marriage?

Surely you kid, right?

[Ubiquitous]

I think you are being extrememly naive.

So something is fair if it is done to everyone? So if I kill someone as long as I kill everyone its perfectly ok? Or its ok if I speed as long as everyone is doing it. Or if everybody else jumps off a cliff its ok for me to jump too. Or if everybody owns a slave then it is ok for me to own a slave.

A) You are being too literal

B) You are innocent until proven guily and the 5th amendment.

This whole you have nothing to fear if you are innocent so surrender your rights smacks too much of a fascist utopia for me. You want to test me get a court order or have me agree to one.


And no I'm not kidding again you are being naive

[wamby]

I wouldn't vote for any of them. I wouldn't vote for any player who has played in this era.

I heard Ken Rosenthal on this subject and I agreed with him 100%. He actually has a vote and said he will not vote for any player who played in the steroid era. He was asked if this lumps together the guilty and the innocent, and he said it does. He also said the innocent belong to the same Players Association as the guilty and the innocent players should have been pushing for stringent testing a long time ago. I am in 100% agreement with that line of reasoning.

[sschirmer]

I wouldn't vote for single one of them.

[leecemark]

--Ubi, the players did agree to testing. Its part of the collective bargaining agreement. I've worked for companies that have drug testing (actually most big companies have some form of it). Employers have a right to a drug free workplace just as much as employees have a right to privacy (with neither being an absolute).
--Rosenthal is an idiot. If you won't vote for anybody from the steroid generation because they didn't push for stricter testing, wouldn't you also want to boycott everybody who played before integration becasue they didn't push for that to happen sooner. Which is the greater wrong, or for that matter diluted records more?

[BigSteve]

So something is fair if it is done to everyone?

OK, it's fair because every player receives the same treatment and no person is punished until proven guilty.


B) You are innocent until proven guily and the 5th amendment.

And it's a good thing that the Bill of Rights is meant to apply to the government not to private entities. If we were talking about the government coming and demanding that you take a drug test, I'd agree that they have no right to do that. But we're not. We're talking about a private employer setting a reasonable condition (drug-free work environment) on its employees and potential employees. If they disagree with the policy, then they should feel free to seek employment elsewhere.


This whole you have nothing to fear if you are innocent so surrender your rights smacks too much of a fascist utopia for me. You want to test me get a court order or have me agree to one.

Well, it might smack of a facist utopia, but it's true - ballplayers that do not violate the drug policy have nothing at all to fear. That's a fact. The only ones punished are those who broke the rules. That doesn't sound like a principle of "facism" to me.

And anyway, the players DID agree to drug testing. Unfortunately, they didn't do it soon enough so that honest players don't get their reputations tarnished by being lumped into the same category as Giambi, Bonds, Palmeiro, and McGwire.

[Ubiquitous]

Well actually with unions involved they can disagree with the policy and even prevent it from becoming a policy. The players have to agree with the testing to allow it. So what started this whole discussion? Well someone stated that the only reason somebody wouldn't want to be tested is to hide the fact that they are guilty. I pointed out a reason that has nothing to do with guilt but with privacy.



So again what about false-positives? What do they have to fear?

[BigSteve]

I pointed out a reason that has nothing to do with guilt but with privacy.

I don't think that there's any player in the league that is innocent and is given the chance to clear his name would decline a drug test on account of "privacy". The reward for clean players is to prove their innocence - a fairly significant reward. All they surrender is their privacy. Personally, if someone accused me of being a drug user, and I was innocent, I'd take a drug test in a second.


So again what about false-positives? What do they have to fear?

How common is this? I've never heard of a false positive for performance enhancing drugs - do you have any proven examples? I believe MLB's testing involves retesting postives to ensure that it wasn't a false positive. And if the risk of a false positive was the great, I doubt the MLBPA would have signed off on testing.

[Ubiquitous]

Well if somebody accused me of being a drug user I would say, "thats nice" and go about my day. Why should I have to prove my innocence? I don't understand that. We all start innocent, you have to prove my guilt. It isn't the other way around.

Secondly drug testing doesn't prove anything, the accusations still fly, regardless of the results. If you test negative the accusers just say you cheated or that you had cycled off before the test. You can never satisfy people who throw around accusations without any real proof. They will always come up with something else. So why should I be inconvienced because of them? Why should I pay them any attention?


do a google search on false positive. How about the former Bear QB Jim Miller who got suspended for taking cold medicine?

[BigSteve]

do a google search on false positive. How about the former Bear QB Jim Miller who got suspended for taking cold medicine?

That wasn't a false positive. It was just that he unknowingly took something that was on the banned substance list. There's a big difference between what happened there and with a test giving an erroneous result.


Why should I have to prove my innocence? I don't understand that. We all start innocent, you have to prove my guilt. It isn't the other way around.

And that's only the way it works when we're talking about putting someone on trial. It doesn't work that way when we're talking about public opinion. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle not a moral one.

[abacab]

I wouldn't vote for any of them. I wouldn't vote for any player who has played in this era.

I heard Ken Rosenthal on this subject and I agreed with him 100%. He actually has a vote and said he will not vote for any player who played in the steroid era. He was asked if this lumps together the guilty and the innocent, and he said it does. He also said the innocent belong to the same Players Association as the guilty and the innocent players should have been pushing for stringent testing a long time ago. I am in 100% agreement with that line of reasoning.

You wouldn't vote for Henderson? Maddux? Ripken?

[Ubiquitous]

That wasn't a false positive. It was just that he unknowingly took something that was on the banned substance list. There's a big difference between what happened there and with a test giving an erroneous result.



And that's only the way it works when we're talking about putting someone on trial. It doesn't work that way when we're talking about public opinion. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle not a moral one.


So did you do a google search on false positive?


So public opinion is about morality? So if some people think that I am doing something against the law but yet they have no legal or civilian jurisdiction over me it behooves me to run around proving my innocences to them? Why?

I'll say it again when you are dealing with opnions and accusations nothing works. You can take a million tests it wont prove a thing to these people. Look at what Ken Rosenthal stated, he won't vote for anybody regardless of innocences from this era. Why should I have to prove anything to these people? The only people I have to prove anything too is my family and my loved ones, the rest of you are irrelevant.

[Ubiquitous]

You wouldn't vote for Henderson? Maddux? Ripken?


I wonder how long Ken has been a voter and I wonder if he would have voted for or did for the speed freaks. Did he vote for Parker and Stargell?

[BigSteve]

So did you do a google search on false positive?

Yup. I saw a bunch of links about how to beat a drug test but none that said anything about wrongly testing positive for steroids.


So public opinion is about morality? So if some people think that I am doing something against the law but yet they have no legal or civilian jurisdiction over me it behooves me to run around proving my innocences to them? Why?


If you don't care about your reputation with the fans, who go to games and pay your salary, I don't know what to say. I can't argue with that Barry Bonds Logic.

[Ubiquitous]

So show me where fans have stopped "paying my salary" because they thought I was on steroids? People thought Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were on steroids, did they lose money? No they got new contracts. People thouht Barry Bonds was on steroids di he get fired? No he got a new contract.

As for the false positives you are not looking hard enough. False readings happen 2-5% of the times and almost all of them are false positives not false negatives. Now of course you will probably counter with that is acceptable. But of course it is acceptable only if you are not one of the ones who got a false positive and have to suffer the consequences.

People are so desperate to catch "bad" people nowadays that they are completely willing to give governments and businesses powerful tools to do that. They are willing to do that because they think these tools will never be turned on them. They are wrong, innocent people are routinely abused and we are simply making these innocent peoples lives harder and creating an environment in which more innocent people will be affected negatively.



First they came for the communists,
I did not speak out
because I was not a communist.

When they came for the social democrats,
I did not speak out
because I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew;

And when they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[BigSteve]

As for the false positives you are not looking hard enough. False readings happen 2-5% of the times and almost all of them are false positives not false negatives. Now of course you will probably counter with that is acceptable. But of course it is acceptable only if you are not one of the ones who got a false positive and have to suffer the consequences.

You keep saying this, and I continue not to be able to find any examples. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point me to somewhere that has statistics on this.


People are so desperate to catch "bad" people nowadays that they are completely willing to give governments and businesses powerful tools to do that. They are willing to do that because they think these tools will never be turned on them. They are wrong, innocent people are routinely abused and we are simply making these innocent peoples lives harder and creating an environment in which more innocent people will be affected negatively.

I think you're not talking about seroids at this point but rather just making a political point. I'll ask you though - is it not within the rights of an employer to mandate a situation where their workplace is drug free and to therefore require testing of all its employees? After all, can't employees who do not like the drug testing requirements (or any other requirement set forth by the employer) then find work elsewhere? And do you not see the difference between what the government is permitted to do and what private citizens/entities are permitted to do?

[Big_Mac]

i would vote for everyone but palmeiro because hes the only one that has tested positive. all those other guys have all but admitted they took them but raffy is the only one that has tested positive

[Ubiquitous]

Is it not the right for a business to have an alcohol free workplace? Does that mean we should do breathalyzer tests everyday? Is it not right for a business to be free of embezzlers, does that mean a business should be allowed to audit their employees?

Just because you want a drug free work area does that mean you should be allowed to do testing. Just like you should not be allowed to audit everybody to prevent embezzling.

And the whole find work elsewhere is bogus. If it is found that a person was denied a job because of something that is against the law then the employer is in trouble. Drug testing is one of those grey areas that there is no definite safe answer.

I can't tell my employees and prospective employees to take IQ tests and anyone who doesn't have an IQ of 120 or higher is either fired or will not be employed. Or if they don't take them they will fired or not hired as well.


I never was talking about steroids. I'm talking about a reason to be against testing that has nothing to do with being guilty. Is there a difference between a business and government? Yes there is but businesses don't get the leeway that you seem to think they do. A business cannot unreasonably intrude upon my private life. They are allowed a certain amount of latitude in dealing with stuff that happens at work but they are not given free reign.

[BigSteve]

Is it not the right for a business to have an alcohol free workplace? Does that mean we should do breathalyzer tests everyday? Is it not right for a business to be free of embezzlers, does that mean a business should be allowed to audit their employees?


No, but I'm not arguing that people should be have to forfeit all of their rights when they're at work. The key is to strike a balance between privacy concerns and an employer's right to a clean work environment. You seem to want to believe that privacy rights are inviolable and that just isn't the case.


And the whole find work elsewhere is bogus. If it is found that a person was denied a job because of something that is against the law then the employer is in trouble.

You're right. Fortunately, drug testing isn't illegal.


I can't tell my employees and prospective employees to take IQ tests and anyone who doesn't have an IQ of 120 or higher is either fired or will not be employed. Or if they don't take them they will fired or not hired as well.

You can't higher the smartest people? Since when?

[Ubiquitous]

Public Employees (http://www.workrights.org/issue_drugtest/dt_legal_guide.html)

other tidbits (http://www.workrights.org/issue_drugtest/dt_legislative_brief.html)


Drug testing allows employers to intrude upon the private lives of their employees. The "right to be left alone" is, in the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Both the actual taking of urine samples and the analysis of the sample, which may disclose private information, violate this right to be left alone.

As stated by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, "there are few activities in our society more personal or private than the passing of urine."4 The drug testing process subjects individuals to an offensive and degrading process. Some employers even require the employee to strip and urinate into a cup in the presence of an observer in order to prevent cheating.

In addition, analysis of a person's urine can disclose many details about that person's private life other than drug use, including personal medical information. It can tell an employer whether an employee or job applicant is being treated for a heart condition, depression, epilepsy or diabetes. It can also reveal whether an employee is pregnant. Drug testing may "provide employers with a periscope through which they can peer into an individual's behavior in her private life, even in her own home. . . ."5 For all of these reasons, the Supreme Court has found that urine testing, like blood testing, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.6



Don't employers have the right to run a safe and productive workplace?

Of course they do. If employees cannot do the work, employers have a legitimate reason for disciplining or dismissing them. But drug tests do not measure job performance. Even a confirmed "positive" provides no evidence of present intoxication or impairment; it merely indicates that a person may have taken a drug at some time in the past.

Urine tests cannot determine when a drug was used. They can only detect the "metabolites," or inactive, leftover traces of previously ingested substances. Drug testing can detect marijuana that was consumed even weeks before the test date. For example, an employee who smokes marijuana on a Saturday night may test positive the following Monday, long after the drug has ceased to have any effect. In that case, what the employee did on Saturday has nothing to do with his or her fitness to work on Monday. At the same time, a worker can snort cocaine on the way to work and test negative that same morning. That is because the cocaine has not yet been metabolized and will, therefore, not show up in the person's urine.

No, the drug screens used by most companies are not always reliable. Commonly used drug tests yield false positive results at least 10 percent, and possibly as much as 30 percent, of the time.7

Unreliability also stems from the tendency of drug screens to confuse similar chemical compounds. For example, codeine and Vicks Formula 44-M have been known to produce positive results for heroin, Advil for marijuana, and Nyquil for amphetamines. Other substances known to cause false positives include Nuprin, Contac, Sudafed, certain herbal teas and poppy seeds






Private Employment Case Law

Few courts have afforded private sector employees protection against random drug testing. To date, there have only been a handful of cases won by private sector employees who either refused to take the test on privacy grounds and were fired, or whose test results were inaccurate. In most states, courts have ruled that the employment-at-will doctrine outweighs employees' privacy rights. Only in California has the highest state court held otherwise. In that state private sector employees (but not job applicants) have been found to be protected by the right to privacy contained in the state constitution.22

State Legislation

A handful of states have enacted laws restricting drug testing in the private sector. Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Montana, Minnesota, Iowa, and Hawaii have adopted laws that limit the circumstances under which employees can be required to submit to drug tests. Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon and Utah have adopted legislation that regulates drug testing in some fashion.

The laws of Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana and Vermont restrict job applicant testing. Those same states and Rhode Island limit testing of current employees to those actually suspected of using drugs to the detriment of their job performance. Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota and Montana further limit testing to employees holding safety-sensitive jobs.

For example, Iowa's Act to Regulate the Circumstance and Procedure Under Which an Employer May Request a Drug Test of An Employee or an Applicant for Employment (Iowa Code Ann. 730.5) permits testing if there is "probable cause to believe that an employee is in a position where such impairment presents a danger to the safety of the employee, another employee, a member of the public, or the property of the employer, or when impairment due to the effects of a controlled substance is a violation of a known rule of the employer."

The Maine law, An Act Relating to Drug Testing (Maine Rev. Stats Sec. 681) requires employers with more than 20 employees to establish an employee assistance program and develop a written policy before conducting drug testing. Testing must be conducted in a medical facility under the supervision of a physician and the employee or job applicant has a right to conduct his or her own test of a separate sample of urine collected at the time of the initial test. In Maine pre-employment tests can be required only if an applicant has been offered employment or a position on an eligibility roster. Employees may be tested if there is probable cause which is stated in writing. Random testing is only permitted if it has been agreed to in a collective bargaining agreement or if, "The employee works in a position the nature of which would create an unreasonable threat to the health or safety of the public or the employee's co workers if the employee were under the influence of a substance of abuse."

In addition, some states have passed laws solely addressing the issue of drug testing of public sector employees. They include Florida, Georgia, Kansas, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

[Ubiquitous]

Drug tests can reveal private details far beyond what substances a person chooses to ingest. For instance, a drug test can reveal if the employee is receiving treatment for epilepsy, depression, or AIDS. Urinalysis can also reveal if a female employee is pregnant. It is illegal to require employees to provide such information in written or verbal form--so why can employers scrutinize their bodily fluids?



I like this point.

[wamby]

You wouldn't vote for Henderson? Maddux? Ripken?

I wouldn't vote for anyone who started their career after about 1987.

[wamby]

--Ubi, the players did agree to testing. Its part of the collective bargaining agreement. I've worked for companies that have drug testing (actually most big companies have some form of it). Employers have a right to a drug free workplace just as much as employees have a right to privacy (with neither being an absolute).
--Rosenthal is an idiot. If you won't vote for anybody from the steroid generation because they didn't push for stricter testing, wouldn't you also want to boycott everybody who played before integration becasue they didn't push for that to happen sooner. Which is the greater wrong, or for that matter diluted records more?

I don't understand the connection between steroids and segregation. Segregation was, unfortunately, a socially accepted concept until the 1960s. I think the majority who could have pushed for integration did not see segregation as a problem. If there had a been a playes union in the 20s or 30s, I doubt if they would have given integration much consideration. because I don't think it wasn't seen as something that would help the game.

[Ubiquitous]

That would be the connection. Rosenthal is railing at modern players because they didn't think steroids was a big enough problem to deal with it. Saying segregation was not viewed as a problem by ball players in the 20's and 30's would be the same thing then.

[wamby]

That would be the connection. Rosenthal is railing at modern players because they didn't think steroids was a big enough problem to deal with it. Saying segregation was not viewed as a problem by ball players in the 20's and 30's would be the same thing then.

I think thats a very weak connection. I think a more appropriate comparison would be to compare steroids in 2005 to gambling in baseball around 1915.

Segregation was an issue of the entire American culture. I think there is no comparison to steroids, which do not affect the culture as a whole.

[Ubiquitous]

Drug use does affect the entire society.

[Ubiquitous]

I can't tell my employees and prospective employees to take IQ tests and anyone who doesn't have an IQ of 120 or higher is either fired or will not be employed. Or if they don't take them they will fired or not hired as well.
You can't higher the smartest people? Since when?


All I can say is try it. If you own a business or are a manger give all your employees an IQ test and then fire all the employees with an IQ under 120. See what happens. See how long you still have a job or business.

[wamby]

Drug use does affect the entire society.

You're right about that but I don't look at steroid abuse the same as I look at crack abuse.

I think comparing segregation to steroid use trivializes segregation.

[sschirmer]

You wouldn't vote for Henderson? Maddux? Ripken?

I don't recall any of these guys being choices.

[abacab]

I don't recall any of these guys being choices.

He said that he wouldn't vote for anyone who played in the "steroid era", regardless of whether they were suspected of using steroids. I assumed he meant anyone who played MLB in the last ten years.

[Sharkeater232]

Even with the steroids Sosa and McGwire aren't even good enough to make it.

[abacab]

Even with the steroids Sosa and McGwire aren't even good enough to make it.

You've got awfully high standards.

[RBi]

or a tilted opinion, considering you SHOULD not hold it against these guys, they did nothing against the "rules" of MLB.. well Mark didnt anyways, he was out of baseball before roids were banned.

[runningshoes]

I wouldn't vote for anyone who started their career after about 1987.

That's a pretty big brush you're painting with. :rolleyes:

[west coast orange and black]

Mark McGwiremcgwire's andro use is well known, but that is the extent of the list of known substances, ernie. and as others have posted both here and before, what he used was acceptable by both government and mlb standards.
...................
the image on the left is mcgwire in a tacoma uni.
don't forget: he shortly thereafter shattered the rookie home run record by 11.
i hope that you are not discounting that incrdible achievement.
...................
also, do you have images handy of tony gwynn at 21 and at 41?
of nolan ryan? thanx.

[west coast orange and black]

I wouldn't vote for anyone who started their career after about 1987.why is this, wamby?

[digglahhh]

So the legality is the only criteria... It superceeds morality and integrity. By the way, it was deemed illegal, by the society in which we live which is more powerful than baseball, not that our society always does a good job ascribing legal or criminal status to behaviors.

But for the sake of this argument, let's apply the legality logic to some other events in our country's history, outside of baseball.

If we don't hold McGwire and Sosa's actions against him because his they were not expressly prohibited by Major League Baseball who else to we have to forgive? Those who brutally slaughtered the indigenous peoples of this land, those who heartlessly lynched blacks in the South in places like Mississippi where they weren't prosecuted?

The legality argument is a loophole and a semantic deception (seeing as how roids are illegal- for you and me), not a defense. In my mind, neither McGwire, Sosa or Raffy have proven themselves worthy of the Hall without steroids (My apologies to the nutjob who somewhere on this site makes the claim that Sosa is the greatest of all time. Corked bats, roids... it's all fake, that's like saying that Demi Moore has the greatest body when its all plastic and lipo)

Anyway, Bonds is the only one who seems Hall worthy sans roids. And this is what we should use as our standard, not silly, artificial legal distinctions. Socrates taught us that something legal because it is right, not right because it is legal.

[Francoeurstein]

If Bonds reaches the 3,000 hit club he would make the HOF for sure.

[Ubiquitous]

So the legality is the only criteria... It superceeds morality and integrity. By the way, it was deemed illegal, by the society in which we live which is more powerful than baseball, not that our society always does a good job ascribing legal or criminal status to behaviors.

But for the sake of this argument, let's apply the legality logic to some other events in our country's history, outside of baseball.

If we don't hold McGwire and Sosa's actions against him because his they were not expressly prohibited by Major League Baseball who else to we have to forgive? Those who brutally slaughtered the indigenous peoples of this land, those who heartlessly lynched blacks in the South in places like Mississippi where they weren't prosecuted?

The legality argument is a loophole and a semantic deception (seeing as how roids are illegal- for you and me), not a defense. In my mind, neither McGwire, Sosa or Raffy have proven themselves worthy of the Hall without steroids (My apologies to the nutjob who somewhere on this site makes the claim that Sosa is the greatest of all time. Corked bats, roids... it's all fake, that's like saying that Demi Moore has the greatest body when its all plastic and lipo)

Anyway, Bonds is the only one who seems Hall worthy sans roids. And this is what we should use as our standard, not silly, artificial legal distinctions. Socrates taught us that something legal because it is right, not right because it is legal.


Thats a bit extreme and it doesn't apply. Killing a man is breaking the law. Using drugs is against the law. Cheating on your taxes is against the law. If you cheat on your taxes would you be fired from your job? Would you be suspended? It is possible to break the law and not have it be punishable by your employer. Your employer is not the government (well most of us, and I hope you know what I mean when I say that), your employer can't punish you for a DUI unless it directly affects your job. And when they do it is for the most part not because you were driving drunk but because the punishment of the government hampers your ability to function on the job. Loss of drving rights, jail time, so forth and so forth.

now then all of that is irrelevant because baseball until 2002 had no rules against steroids. You could say in 2000 that you were using steroids and for the most part they could not punish you. Now if the government comes over and arrests you and throws you in jail, they have something but again it isn't the steroids that you are being punished for but the conviction and punishment.

Also I would like to say that I don't think steroids is a question of morality. Its a drug our society behaves rather strangely when it comes to drugs, plain and simple.

[digglahhh]

The HOF is a private entity. It is does not have to abide by the innocent until guilty rule regarding entry. The Hall IS (a very limited)public('s) opinion. There are no legal statutes that dictate mandatory entry (although there are certainly unwritten benchmarks). For the concerns of the HOF, admit. The HOF does was not created to maintain the legal precedents of our society (as there are many "criminals" enshrined in the Hall) it does however have a responsibility to value and help encourage maintanance of the integrity of the sport. That is the crime the HOF should be concerned with not a "crime" in the legal sense.

The admissions process is incrediblly reliant on individual opinions and values, we can't selectively attack them here. Gary Sheffield will retire as a borderline candidate. If he doesn't make it (which he probably should not) won't it be at least logical to assume that his less than cordial relationship with the media negatively impacted his candidacy. Is it legal to discriminate against somebody simply because you dislike his/her personality? Of course not, but can the HOF voters do it- absolutely.

This is not a court of law!

[west coast orange and black]

...If we don't hold McGwire and Sosa's actions against him because his they were not expressly prohibited by Major League Baseball who else to we have to forgive?um, for what do you want mcgwire and sosa to be held accountable?

also: so what if someone holds the belief that sosa is the greatest (or that demi moore is attractive).
it's simply one's opinion.
no need for namecalling, dirk. no need at all.

[digglahhh]

If I remember correctly, the overarching conclusion of the discussion initiated by the claim that Sosa was the GOAT was that such a statement is absurd. So apparently we are allowed to incinuate lunacy, but it is in bad taste to actually label it as such. Now I'll readily admit that one misconception of Mr. Sosa's chemically induced prowess is not grounds for a complete psychiatric diagnosis, but it is certainly a nutty statement.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, that is the basis of meaningful discussion and a progressive society. However it is a falacy that a free society, or discussion, regards all opinions equally valid. This absolutism of everybody being entitled to their opinion and no other has the right to judge is reserved for things like favorite color or best Pizza place, not statements that can be confirmed or refuted with empirical data. Nonetheless, I apologize for my tactless castigation of a fellow poster.

Regarding your questioning of what Sosa and Big Mac should be held accountable for? Its obviously steroid abuse. If you want to fall back on the point that they never failed a drug test, and that the drug wasn't illegal, you are only deluding yourself. OJ was found innocent, I assume you wouldn't mind your daughter marrying him, so were the Rodney King cops, I assume you feel they are exemplars of fine policing. Legal loopholes are not escape clauses for morality.

Again, in the legal realm, Sosa and Big Mac are certainly innocent and I would not argue that they be penalized in any way by the court system. The HOF is a different case. The writers are allowed to make assumptions, and make judgments based upon their opinions (the ones every one is allowed to have)

The interesting caveat however is, what if something like 75% of the legue was on roids? Then judged against their roid-ridden peers they are still dominant. That poses an interesting question, because then the integrity of the game may be compromised but the integrity of competition remains relatively in tact. Tough dynamic to wrestle with.

[west coast orange and black]

glad to read that you have tamed "nutjob" to "nutty statement". much appreciated.

i agree with you that not all opinions carry equal weight. and that hof voters are allowed to make assumptions. it's just that not all assumptions prove to be correct. your take on sosa and mcgwire is that they used steroids illegally. it's your opinion... based on an assumption. i'm good with that.

[PopTop]

I've never had as big a problem with the steroids usage as a lot of fans. As I've said many times before, the crime wasn't using them, the crime was how long it took to address the issue. And what bugs me now when considering career achievements is no player with great stats from the last 10-20 years is really above suspicion. Take a guy like Craig Biggio. He still looks 12-yrs-old like he did when he came into the league as a catcher 17-odd years ago, and even he's added a little 'bulk' since then. Not as much as some of the photos posted at the start of this thread indicate of the four players in this poll. There's really no reason for me to suspect Bidge of using steroids, but there's also no proof now that he didn't. That's why baseball as an institution, from owners to players to media and even fans, letting the whole thing drag on at least 10+ seasons really screwed the pooch for everyone, if you'll pardon my French.

I ticked off Barry and Raffy in the poll here. When it came down to it, I'd probably include Sammy as well if I had a vote that counted. McGwire, in my opinion, was just too one-dimensional during his career. I'd pick Bagwell and Palmeiro to play first for me long before I'd choose Big Mac.

[wamby]

That's a pretty big brush you're painting with. :rolleyes:

The whole era has been tainted. You need a big brush for an entire era.

[wamby]

why is this, wamby?

This is about the time that I remember hearing serious discussions about steroids in baseball, around the time of the Bash Brothers.

I wouldn't want to take the chance that I was voting for someone who had juiced in the past.

[digglahhh]

I certainly don't want to be percieved as some sort of moral crusader when I say that steroids is an issue of morals. Personally, a big part of me feels that the steroid era was a natural development. As athletes are paid as much as movie stars, much to chagrin of loyal and true fans like ourselves, baseball becomes, to the public and even some of the players, equal part sport, equal part entertainment. Sad but true...

I advocate the legalization of drugs, most drugs not just marijuana, for that matter. The decision to use any substance is that of an individual. Perhaps implying steroid usage was immoral was careless on my part. It is more disrespectful to the history of the game and by extention, in the context of the HOF. Just look at the arduous task it has set on the horizon for the voters.

I certainly fell that I have the right to use drugs. And while everybody has their own morals, which may or may not condemn drug use, the players who used them were not shocked to find that the powers that be scrutinized such a decision. I walk to the beat of my own drum and hold some pretty radical beliefs, but I don't expect my principles to be reflected or rewarded within the hegemony of society.

The moral component is in the disingenous denials of use and the hypocritical condemnation of drug use (recreational or performance enhancing) by a bunch of drugs users. The is a certain amount of irony when athletes who portray themselves as alligned with popular (though narrowed minded) moral views violated their espoused values and become subject to the wrath of the same moral majority they were socially trespassing as a part of. Good for them.

If they truly believe in their freedom to decide what goes in their body, what was with all the talk about establshing charities and sending the "right" messages to kids. Honesty is a component of morality, especially in regard to oneself. These guys come off as shameless opportunists. Let's not ascribe social or political principles to a purely selfish action. Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa and Bonds are not the NEA 4.

I have more respect for Canseco than any of those who sat in front of Congress. Canseco used steroids and believed in them and therefore made no apologies. He's kinda like the Timothy Leary of the bunch. Palmeiro was not making a political or intellectual statement about the states right to regulate what he chooses to put in his own body. He was simply taking drugs and then denying it when he got caught. A pure opportunitst. Using the drugs to help himself and then denying his action claiming to be against drugs to serve his own purposes in an attempt to save himself. Completely unprincipled!

I don't hold the use of drugs against an individual personally. But I do hold hypocricy against an individuals character. Drug use may not taint these players as people, but in this case it certainly taints their accomplishments regardless of whether or not their legal or moral standing.

[four tool]

I didn't vote because I'm not sure and that should have been an option in the poll.

[Sharkeater232]

You've got awfully high standards.No, you have low ones.

[abacab]

No, you have low ones.

I see that you're another one of those "The Hall should induct one player every ten years" guys, yes? Sosa and especially McGwire are above established HoF standards.

[four tool]

I don't hold the use of drugs against an individual personally. But I do hold hypocricy against an individuals character. Drug use may not taint these players as people, but in this case it certainly taints their accomplishments regardless of whether or not their legal or moral standing.

Well articulated position. I didn't quote all of it because of sapce consideraqtions. I for one think this debate should be carried on but not in this forum. ANyone else want to find a place to do it? Or is there a thread somewhere--not necessarily on baseball forum, that already tackles it?

[ADunn44]

anyone who votes for those cheaters should vote for Rose

[jalbright]

I think the only fair way to approach the question of how to deal with these players is through the following steps:

1) Are you willing to punish players for acts which, while at least arguably against the spirit of the rules (like fair play), were not prohibited by MLB prior to 2005? If not, only transgressions after 2004 count. That would save Palmiero, for example.

2) Is there enough evidence (more likely than not is the lowest fair standard to use, but you could choose a higher standard) that the player used performance enhancing drugs? I think that with the evidence developed by the Balco investigation, you could clearly argue Barry Bonds would run afoul of this standard. I wouldn't accept Jose Canseco's word without corroboration, though. Clearly, Palmiero's positive test should suffice for most people.

3) Given your answer to question 1, is there enough evidence (again, at least more likely than not, but you could choose a higher standard) that the player's use of performance enhancing drugs made the difference between a HOF-quality career and missing the Hall? I think this question saves at least Barry Bonds, though arguably none of the others.


Personally, I don't have enough evidence to penalize Sosa or McGwire, and I think Bonds would have been a HOFer without his "flaxseed oil". If Palmiero is done as I write this, I think I'd vote no on him. If he can come back and have two decent years, I'd probably change my mind. If he can manage one decent year, it's hard to say.

Jim Albright

[Chisox]

I think the only fair way to approach the question of how to deal with these players is through the following steps:

1) Are you willing to punish players for acts which, while at least arguably against the spirit of the rules (like fair play), were not prohibited by MLB prior to 2005? If not, only transgressions after 2004 count. That would save Palmiero, for example.

2) Is there enough evidence (more likely than not is the lowest fair standard to use, but you could choose a higher standard) that the player used performance enhancing drugs? I think that with the evidence developed by the Balco investigation, you could clearly argue Barry Bonds would run afoul of this standard. I wouldn't accept Jose Canseco's word without corroboration, though. Clearly, Palmiero's positive test should suffice for most people.

3) Given your answer to question 1, is there enough evidence (again, at least more likely than not, but you could choose a higher standard) that the player's use of performance enhancing drugs made the difference between a HOF-quality career and missing the Hall? I think this question saves at least Barry Bonds, though arguably none of the others.


Personally, I don't have enough evidence to penalize Sosa or McGwire, and I think Bonds would have been a HOFer without his "flaxseed oil". If Palmiero is done as I write this, I think I'd vote no on him. If he can come back and have two decent years, I'd probably change my mind. If he can manage one decent year, it's hard to say.

Jim Albright

I am puzzled. You first say that if only transgressions after 2004 count, that saves Palmeiro, and then say no to him?

How does AFTER 2004 save Palmeiro when he tested positive in 2005? I have to assume you mean through 2004 is HOF worthy?

[jalbright]

I am puzzled. You first say that if only transgressions after 2004 count, that saves Palmeiro, and then say no to him?

How does AFTER 2004 save Palmeiro when he tested positive in 2005? I have to assume you mean through 2004 is HOF worthy?

What you're missing is the "if not, that saves Palmiero" I didn't answer all those questions. Different folks may answer them differently. I take the issue of fair play seriously enough to be willing to punish those who fail the following two questions by keeping them out. I also think that, absent PED issues, Palmiero had a HOF career in by 2004. I think the positive test, his body changes, his need for male impotence drugs plus Canseco's charges all indicate a pattern of usage for several years. He's not in by miles IMO, so you don't have to discount his performance all that much to keep him out. I'm willing to do that if he doesn't have some more good year(s).

Jim Albright

[john1972]

http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesrc/biggioud.jpghttp://www.raisport.rai.it/RaiSport/pub/static/84800/20051023MLBHoustonAstrosCraigBiggio2.jpg

[hairmetalfreek]

I wouldn't vote for any of them. There are too many greats from the past who have not gotten in to allow these guys to waltz through the door without buying a ticket.

[Colorado Express]

Barry Bonds would be the only one of these guys that would get my vote.

[JohnnyO]

I voted for all of them. Based on the numbers these guys put up, they all deserve enshrinement. The Hall of Fame, IMHO, is about baseball achievement, which can be quantitatively measured. All these players meet that standard.

[Homestead Gray]

No way we should even be talking about these guys when Pete Rose is banned from baseball. The double standard that MLB and Selig maintains is ridiculous

[Yankwood]

no, no, no and no

[gman5431]

I wouldnt vote for any of them but the poll didnt let me do that.

G Rizzle