This is just more disinformation to make the steroid boys of today seem ok. If there was steroid use in the 60′s and 70′s then let’s see the evidence. Certainly the proof of this sub-committee is not classified. What is even more laughable is that there were never any cases in the 60′s or 70′s where you saw players suddenly bulking up and having abnormal stats. In fact the decade of the 60′s is often considered the second dead-ball era due to the low hitting stats. The seventies was not much better with only one person in the whole decade of the 70′s hitting more than 50 home runs only one time.

A sad and sorrily misleading article. Has as much bearing as the Bush statements about WMD’s in Iraq.

That might or might not allow Bagwell in. It would surely allow Bonds in. It would also allow me to take Cooperstown off my bucket list and save me a few dollars.

I admit this is a mere assumption, as it’s patently possible either that your surname is Hounite or that your WordPress name is merely an adopted alias.

Still it’s an honor to meet someone who by choice or by good fortune bears that name.

Yet I must echo giant4life: what in the whole of Calhoun County are you onto here? I am not able to discern the significance.

I’m still not saying I would knowingly vote for someone who took steroids, HGH, or some other similar performance-enhancer just because there are PED users in the Hall, because had those guys faced similar scrutiny, they wouldn’t have gotten in. But I am saying that I never suspected roiders that far back, and maybe one day I’ll change my stance.

Before writing know what your’re talking about.

The Mitchell report was not an investigation but a recap of just one federal investigation of one dealer. That report by itself implicated numerous players. One can extrapolate from the Mitchell report, the fact that 7 per cent tested positive KNOWING they would be tested, the crazy, abnormal numbers, and body changes, weight gain endemic in mlb players that the use of steroids during the steroid era was not incidental but a common occurrence.

Whether or not one is doping in athletic contests is decided by TESTING. How does one evaluate Bagwell vis-a-vis peds in this steroid era when steroid use was a common occurrence. He is evaluated as GUILTY because he and every othe MLB player ran away from his testing appointment as a body (so no one player could be specifically blamed -how nice, but still doesn’t change the universal, accepted standard for determining guilt/innocence regarding doptng in athletic competion).

This crap about steroid use prior to the steroid era is old, worn out slander against the great names of the past. The use of steroids without weight training would be counterproductive for the purposes of excelling in baseball, so all a player would be doing is hurting his health. When did weight training gain prominence in baseball – the steroid era of course.

Peds have been outlawed beginning with the 1950′s. This is 2011. Wake up. Your incoherent, ridiculous, indefensible rants are useless. Unless you take affirmative action actually honoring a guy, your’re slandering him. How nuts. You’ve lost.

HONORING ped users ain’t happening.in this day and age.

The calendar now reads 2011. We can’t go back and remove Babe Ruth (drunk) and Gaylord Perry (interesting pitches) from the HOF, nor would anyone in their right mind advocate such a position. HOWEVER, we CAN do our very best to make sure those that we do enshrine in Cooperstown demonstrate the very best ideals of Baseball, ON and OFF the field.

Ty Cobb was a jerk, but there is nothing we can do about that now. But we can keep steroid users out, and make a point to our YOUTH (you know, the kids of today and ball players of tomorrow) that steroids are not acceptable and have no place in this game. Acknowledge the mistakes of the past, and do not repeat them.

Or would you rather have 10 year old kids shooting up ‘roids?

So this debate will certainly linger for a long time. But it would be interesting to see if and how the voting percentages change should all HOF members be given the right to vote along with the writers.

Also, as an aside, the reference to the court of law was simply an analogy, there was no intention of literally comparing the Hall of Fame with public safety, the analogy to the court of law was simply used in an attempt to derail Craig’s logic that since the hall already has steroid cheats, then voters have no argument to prevent other steroid cheats from also gaining entrance into the HOF. The absurd nature of the analogy was meant to show Craig’s faulty logic, not to literally compare the gravity of a Hall of Fame induction with public safety.

http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/complianceenforcement/ucm081788.htm

Also, I’m not sure if we agree on the definition of evidence. To me, there’s plenty of evidence on Bagwell.
(I know Craig has repeated ad nauseam that the allegations against Bagwell are “completely baseless”, but if you really believe that you should read a great article from FanGraphs that reviews a Verducci article on Bagwell from 1999:

http://www.fangraphs.com/not/index.php/to-the-sivault-jeff-bagwell/
)
Back to the “baseless allegations” against Bags. He was a completely marginal prospect with minuscule power (fact) who morphed into a “hall of fame” caliber power hitter (fact) after hiring a professional body builder (fact) to help him transform his body (fact, mission accomplished). He admitted to using androstenedione (fact), which the FDA considers a “steroid precursor” (fact) because the body converts it into an anabolic steroid (fact). Perhaps that’s not enough evidence alone to send Bagwell to jail for illegally using anabolic steroids, but it no doubt is enough evidence for someone to reach a very sound conclusion that Bagwell cheated his way to a hall of fame career.

Also, I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding your point, but it sounds like you are claiming there is no such thing as a “character clause” in the Hall of Fame’s voting guidelines. Perhaps there is nothing officially titled “character clause” but the Hall of Fame’s voting guidelines clearly ask voters to consider character. This is from the Hall of Fame’s website:

“Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”

Not penalizing “dirty” players isn’t fair to “clean” players is it? No, it’s not, but not everything is fair.

In particular, there no way to do it retroactively, with extremely spotty information at best, without introducing further unfairness.

Yes, some players were wronged while PEDs use went unregulated. I’m glad to hear someone correctly apply the maxim that “two wrongs don’t make a right”, is so commonly cited on the other side of the issue whenever addition of “cheaters” to a Hall that already contains “cheaters” is discussed, to further wrongs that would inevitably result from misguided and necessarily uninformed attempts to “make things right”.

As with grandfathered spitballers, it can’t be done. Lay down your pitchforks.

All that anyone is asking for is a little intellectual honesty. And a little less sanctimony.

Well said.

But to achieve a complete picture, we have to mention that in some quarters there is also a request for a little less conversation.

The easiest solution to this mess is to consider two points.

First, baseball is a game built on cheating. To deny that is to deny the obvious. True there are different levels of cheating, but from the rules-allowed stealing bases, to the “unspoken rules” against stealing signs, to recent rules changes that now outlaw supplements which were once accepted (i.e., uppers).

How about if MLB adopts a page from NASCAR and documents its penalties better, sort of like when they take away team points for building illegal cars?

If a player is caught scuffing or otherwise doctoring the baseball (I’m talking to you Perry) throw him out of the game. Oh wait, they already do that. Caught corking the bat? Suspension. Never mind, they already do that too.

What about bigger offenses? Spiking the coffee so it changes color and speeds up metalolism or maybe got caught taking some other banned substance? Seems like a 50-game suspension might work. What? That’s in place also?

So what the real problem we have here is that the rules that govern the game were about 2-3 decades behind the infractions being committed. Rather than penalize after-the-fact by applying rules or tests that didn’t exist, let it go.

Not penalizing “dirty” players isn’t fair to “clean” players is it? No, it’s not, but not everything is fair. In the same vain, trying to penalize “suspected” players is equally pointless. It comes close to the “two wrongs don’t make a right” scenario really.

The solution to the problem only gets fixed going forward, with new tests and subsequent penalties that come with failing the tests. How is it that the Steve Howes, Dwight Goodens and Lawrence Taylors of the world could sniff the white stuff repeatedly, yet they still got 2nd, 3rd or more chances. Yet Mark McGwire openly took andro, totally legal, and gets slammed about it (this was before other information came out later).

A player was either great or he wasn’t. Trying to measure players against invisible standards is just too difficult for HOF voters to do. Voters can and are allowed a great deal of latitude to determine whom they think is Hall-worthy. I just don’t happen to think the standards many are using make much sense. Like I said, a player was either great or he wasn’t.

It’s a museum. One that was created to honor the very best players in professional baseball We respect the players in it for their baseball skills, they are honored to be selected, we talk about the Hall as if it is special and hallowed and sacred, and a lot of players play everyday hoping to get into the Hall someday.

It is beyond hypocritical, and beyond silly to say that now, somehow, it would tarnish all that the Hall stands for if we voted for a player who in every respect meets the generally understood baseball criteria, but who was rumored to be connected in some un-described way to steroids. Because, yes, we revere the Hall. But yes, we have revered the Hall for decades, despite the fact that steroid users and speed users and spitballers and sign-stealers and rascists and wife-beaters and drunk drivers and cocaine-users are in the Hall. We cannot now, without explicitly changing the rules, say that these (possibly connected but we don’t have any proof and also baseball was letting them do steroids) players are barred when we have chosen, repeatedly, to allow in others who are similarly situated. Because those players were voted in on the basis of their performance, without any real regard to the rest of it. (If anything, GOOD character might have been considered to give a borderline guy a bump in.) And you cannot pretend otherwise when you realize how “alarming” and widespread the use of PEDs has always, always been, and that the voters have always known this.

All that anyone is asking for is a little intellectual honesty. And a little less sanctimony. And perhaps, the recognition that the Hall was created to honor the very best players in professional baseball. Period.

(And let’s not even go into the fact that its main function is always has been as a PR/profit-making enterprise. You know, in order to make us all feel more connected to the game so we keep going to games and maybe make a trip to Cooperstown and spend money there… and so we could build a whole industry on arguing about whether someone gets in.)