Skip to content

It gets better: For one voter, PED use was akin to murder in 2010; now busted down to burglary

Dec 17, 2012, 1:30 PM EDT

cooperstown

Two years ago Lowell Cohn of the Santa Rosa Press Democrat wrote this when talking about Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro for the Hall of Fame:

I compare PED users to murderers — of course, it’s not the same thing. But please follow my reasoning.

He’s toned it down in the past two years. This is the PED-user analogy from his latest Hall of Fame column:

It’s like saying some people who commit burglary get away with it, so we can’t arrest and convict this burglar right here we caught red-handed.

So maybe Ann Killion was right and time does make things better!  In a few more years these guys will have gone from capital crimes to misdemeanors!

Not that Cohn is softening.  He may not consider these guys murderers anymore, but his latest Hall of Fame column tries to make up for the blunted rhetoric with sheer volume.

I am looking at three names on baseball’s Hall of Fame ballot … those three names fill me with varying degrees of disgust. I will not vote for any of them.

I don’t know what Alan Trammell, Julio Franco and Reggie Sanders did to poor Lowell, but I hope it was worth it.

There are moral criteria for players to enter the Hall. Don’t tell me Ty Cobb wasn’t a nice man. You know what I’m talking about.

What?

Cooperstown is not a statistics Hall of Fame. It is a Hall of Fame with certain standards of behavior.

If Ty Cobb makes your cut, no, it doesn’t have standards of behavior.

Clemens was mentioned 82 times in the Mitchell Report. Excuse me, but that’s a lot of times.

That’s the kind of analysis that should make the BBWAA happy that they let anyone who has ever held a credential continue to vote for the Hall of Fame for the rest of their life.

  1. braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 1:34 PM

    And yet again someone fails to add Piazza to the list of players with ties to PED abuse. If you aren’t going to vote for Bonds, Clemens and Sosa, why the hell are you voting for Piazza when he implicated himself and his teammates implicated him as well.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM

      why the hell are you voting for Piazza when he implicated himself and his teammates implicated him as well.

      [Citation Needed]

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:12 PM

        Ask Reggie Jefferson. It’s amusing to see all the Piazza homers downvoting my comment because the media never shoved down their throats, like the others, that Piazza was a steroid abuser.

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:15 PM

        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mike+piazza+steroid+allegations

      • albertmn - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:31 PM

        Ask Reggie Jefferson? So, because one guy says something, he is automatically right and others are wrong? Did he offer any proof, other than to just say he used, and everyone knows it?

        When did Piazza implicate himself? I saw something said he admitted using andro, but that wasn’t even classified as a steroid until 2004 or 2005, even though there is scant evidence that androstenedione itself is anabolic in nature. How else did he implicate himself? Please provide some facts, rather than just ranting and posting links to take you to a google search.

        I am not saying Piazza is clean. But, he is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:33 PM

        Also not hard, actually reading about andro to find out that 1) when Piazza used it, it was considered a supplement and was not classified as a steroid, 2) that it is not behave as an anabolic steroid, regardless of how WADA classifies it, and 3) that every study of andro has failed to detect any effect on strength or muscle mass on it own or in conjunction with other supplements when the subject engages in weight training.

        In other words, Piazza used something that was legal at the time, not against baseball’s rules and that does not enhance athletic performance.

        According to WebMD:

        Likely Ineffective for:

        Improving athletic performance, when combined with weight lifting. Taking androstenedione orally in doses of 100-300 mg per day does not significantly increase muscle strength, muscle size, or lean body mass when used for 2-3 months in connection with weight training.

        Insufficient Evidence for:

        Enhancing athletic performance.
        Increasing energy.
        Red blood cell health.
        Increasing sexual desire and function.
        Other conditions.

        http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-780-ANDROSTENEDIONE.aspx?activeIngredientId=780&activeIngredientName=ANDROSTENEDIONE

      • anxovies - Dec 17, 2012 at 7:58 PM

        My ex-wife implicated me in an adulterous affair with a stripper but I still got the big TV in the den. It was all a big misunderstanding anyway.

    • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM

      He fucking ADMITTED you morons.

      • albertmn - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:32 PM

        Where? When? Find that and post it. And, see if you can use big boy words without resorting to swearing.

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM

        He admitted to taking andro, which doesn’t enhance athletic performance ….you sanctimonious asshole.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:37 PM

        [Citation Needed]

        some quotes from you link:

        Piazza has said he briefly used androstenedione early in his career, stopping when he did not see a drastic change in his muscle mass. He said he had never used steroids because ”I hit the ball as far in high school as I do now.”

        http://www.metstoday.com/6054/10-11-offseason/mike-piazza-and-the-steroid-issue/

        (Piazza has denied using performance-enhancing drugs, but there has always been speculation.)

        http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/2009/03/mike-piazza-steroids-allegations.html

        So where did Piazza admit it? And using third hand accounts saying he did isn’t proof. So again, [Citation Needed]

        What about Reggie Jefferson, who gave us this quote:

        A lot of us came up playing against Mike, so we knew what he looked like back in the day. Frankly, he sucked on the field. Just sucked. After his body changed, he was entirely different. ‘Power from nowhere,’ we called it.”

        Piazza, at age 24, slugged .561 on his way to winning RoY with 35 home runs. His average over 16 years, 36 HR and .545 SLG. So you think he was on ‘roids every single year of his career?

        At age 22 in the minors, he SLG .540 and the following year he SLG .587. The “power from no where” started in ’91 when Jefferson was playing full time in the bigs at Cincinnati. How would he know?

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM

        You all have COMPLETELY failed at understanding the point I’m making. Piazza has the same ties to PEDs as Sosa and Clemens. THAT is the point. I asked why would anyone who isn’t voting for Bonds, Clemens and Sosa vote for Piazza when the evidence against him is on the same level. Is everyone taking stupid pills today.

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM

        Yes, Sosa, Bonds and Clemens have NEVER admitted to taking anything… but the guy who did admit to taking something and who’s teammates basically called him out as a PED abuser isn’t like them. No. Not at all. He’s a HOFer and they aren’t. lol

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:03 PM

        He fucking ADMITTED you morons.

        How is that saying he has the same ties as Sosa/Clemens? And we’re the morons? You may be making the point that there’s the same evidence out there, but you’ve done a shit job explaining it.

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM

        Loud noises loud noises!

        Brad, have you bothered to research amphetamines yet….in which you would find out that they likely have much greater effects on baseball performance than anabolic steroids?

        Or have you looked into the fact that the new “age of the pitcher” started not when steroid testing started, but when amphetamine testing started?

        aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh STEROIDS! You know….they generally are not that dangerous….or….you know…helpful to the act of playing good baseball.

      • b453841l - Dec 17, 2012 at 8:04 PM

        He was in television advertisements for Pert Plus. That’s the kind of product that enhances performance both on and off the field. It has conditioner in the shampoo. Apply once daily and wash out “boom!!!” Instant confidence, which is highly correlated with success.

    • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:37 PM

      Again, my point is not an accusation of Piazza using steroids, it’s that he has been implicated just like Clemens, Sosa and others. Therefore, anyone not voting for Clemens, Sosa and others should not be voting for Piazza. That’s it. THAT’S my point. I’m done here.

      • Old Gator - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:01 PM

        Glad to hear it – though I think some of us would still like a reference for your claim that he “admitted” using. It’s convenient of you to trim your point count down to one when you can’t back the other ones up, isn’t it?

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:05 PM

        He admitted to using andro. That’s a fact. I’m not arguing that andro is equal to anabolic steroids, but it is certainly a PED and he did admit usage. There is more evidence at-hand that Piazza used PEDS than Sosa. So why does Piazza get a pass.

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:06 PM

        Oh, and that is funny about “trimming down” my point… considering it was the only point I made. Nice try.

      • Old Gator - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:49 PM

        Another point was that you were “done” – blessedly. No such luck.

        Well, the others have adequately refuted your attempt both to include and not include andro, which was legal in both baseball and over the local health food or vitamin store counter when Piazza took it in your assertion about Piaqzza’s “admission.” So that was one “point.” The other was that Piazza was somehow equivalent to Bonds or Clemens, who allegedly used substances that were not legal at the time they used them. That was the other “point.” This is not complicated for anyone who passed symbolic logic in grade school. Sorry you’re still having trouble with the distinction.

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:53 PM

        If you didn’t want me to respond, why did you ask me a question. You STILL fail to understand my point. So let me ask YOU a question. Why does Piazza get a pass when there is more “evidence” against him than say, Sammy Sosa? Why is that?

      • Old Gator - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:33 PM

        I asked you to respond because I’m a masochist at times. It comes from getting my head stuck between the bars of my crib when I was trying to get a better look at my father’s open Playboy centerfold of Marilyn Monroe on his nighttable as an infant – and, given the angle I had, finding the entire experience rather pleasant. What that should extend to carrying on a pointless dialogue with a stubborn fool, I can’t really explain. I shall need to meditate on this at level seven.

        meanwhile, who’s giving Piazza a pass? We wouldn’t even be having this discussion if not for your love of the purely hypothetical. He’s catching all kinds of shit from the PED harpies just like the rest of the incriminated. Second of all, Sosa is a cheater as well as an abuser – can’t recall Piazza ever having his cork plug exposed. It all militates against folks feeling like he’s been honest with them.

        But third and most important, you keep on insisting that there’s “proof” – of what? Using a completely legal substance that has no verifiable impact on strength or muscle mass? Is that what folks accuse Bonds or Sosa or Clemens of, too? Nope, it’s not. You’re insisting on a phony equivalence, and your argument has foundered on it from the beginning of this interminable round-robin of an argument.

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM

        I’m fairly certain that you are out of your mind and lack the ability to read something and use logic to understand it. My entire point, meaning the very reason I responded to this article, was in direct opposition to the guy the article is about who said he wouldn’t vote for Bonds, Clemens or Sosa because they used PEDs, BUT he would vote for Piazza. Piazza is as much a cheater as Sosa in that there is more “evidence” implicating him than there is against Sosa. I’m not saying that there is literal evidence against Piazza beyond admitting that he used PEDs, but I’m saying that, in a court of law, he would be just as or more guilty than Sammy Sosa, because as far as I know, Sosa has never had teammates and other players officially claim that he abused PEDs and he never admitted himself that he used PEDs, like Piazza did. I hope this helps, because your responses are becoming tiresome in that you aren’t even responding to my actual point.

    • zzalapski - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:38 PM

      Hey, look, it’s Murray Chass!

      • cur68 - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:53 PM

        That’s “The Blogger Murray Chass”.

  2. willclarkgameface - Dec 17, 2012 at 1:37 PM

    At this point can we just close the museum and maybe start over? This is ridiculous. These fucking highfalutin writers have ZERO power until it comes to the finger-wagging process of voting who will be in the Hall of Fame.

    It’s just silly. I don’t care anymore. Writers are trying to make stories so people will read their bull shit. I’m not buying your papers. I’m not reading your stories.

    I’m going back to the interwebs now.

  3. cur68 - Dec 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM

    Jeez. Clearly there isn’t any standard for voting AT ALL if that’s the reasoning these guys are allowed to get away with.

    Lemme see if I follow this guy’s reasoning: being a criminal, racist, handicapped & woman assaulting asshole is OK for the HOF, right? Being a performance enhancer like dozens of guys already in the HOF IS NOT OK for the HOF, right? This guy’s logic is STAGGERING in its self deception. Either that or he knows NOTHING of Ty Cobb’s history or that of those already enshrined in The HOF.

  4. ireportyoudecide - Dec 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM

    Don’t worry about it Craig, with Bonds and Clemons being elibible and not being in, the Hall of Fame isn’t really that relevant anymore.

    • ireportyoudecide - Dec 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM

      You should compare it to one of those bleacher report slide shows. Just mildly amusing but not really factual or important.

  5. dcfan4life - Dec 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM

    Ok, Ty Cobb and Cy Young both cheated. Using anything in unethical ways to gain even the tiniest advantage over their opponants. Drugs were prevelant in the 60s for that era of players. But this era of players changed their body, changing the game, and posting insane stats. Its more than just stealing signs and keeping yourself awake and attentive with drugs. This collumnist just doesnt know how to say that. But its clear to me thats what he means.

    • manifunk - Dec 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM

      You just admitted that “drugs were prevelant [sic] in the 60s” and then say that only modern day players altered their bodies? Players back in the 60s and 70 took greenies and other amphetamines because they believed it altered their bodies and gave them more energy! It’s the exact same rationale that players in the steroid era had. To enshrine Aaron and others of his era when greenies were used a lot and then shut out steroid players, simply because the drugs available in the 90s and early 00’s were better at augmenting a player’s body, is logically untenable and also just flat out stupid.

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:08 PM

        I’ll pop a greenie and you start an anobolic steroid cycle and we’ll see if there is a difference. Deal?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM

        You pop a greenie and I’ll start injecting steroids, but do nothing else beyond it (aka not work out). Let’s see who gets a greater effect.

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM

        …and guess who gets the more dangerous side effects? Yeah…not the steroid user.

        Of course, the likelihood and severity of the side effects from either are generally exaggerated.

    • cur68 - Dec 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM

      Steroids were prevalent in sports in the ’50s. Check out the 1956 Olympics. And yet you and a lot of sports journalists believe that no baseball player ever took a steroid for decades. Not till the ’80’s, ’90’s, & 00’s. Its amazing how ethical ball players were right up and till 1980.

      • clydeserra - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM

        for instance, Tom House. the person who caught Aarons HR #715

        http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-05-03-steroids-house_x.htm

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM

        Indeed.

        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082543/index.htm

        Please note publication date. Yep, June 23, 1969.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:07 PM

        Even earlier, Alvin Roy introduces steroids to the 1963 San Diego Chargers

        http://thinksteroids.com/articles/history-anabolic-steroids-sports/

      • Old Gator - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:35 PM

        …and who had a pretty good year or two throwing a “slurve” after he caught it, as I recall.

        Can you get the performance-enhancing equivalent of a contact high from catching a baseball hit by a batter on greenies?

    • albertmn - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:39 PM

      How is one form of cheating bad, while other forms of cheating (greenies, scuffing the baseball, corking bats, spit balls, etc.) are not only overlooked, but often laughed at and lauded? Gaylord Perry is in the HOF and is an admitted spit baller, revels in the fact, and everybody loves him for it.

      This smacks of a generational thing. Old, retired ball player, “The kind of cheating we did in our day was fine, but your new fangled cheating is not okay (maybe because I am jealous of what it did for you in both stats and paycheck)”.

    • dcfan4life - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM

      Ok fellas, i guess i didnt make it clear. In no way do I agree with the statements made in my above post. I was trying to summarize what Lowell Cohn was saying in his article in a more coherent but still idiotic rant. Hence why it makes no sense. My last sentence was suppose to clarify that when I said “This collumnist just doesnt know how to say that. But its clear to me thats what he means”, but i guess i should have been more clear.

  6. jikkle49 - Dec 17, 2012 at 1:51 PM

    Cohn is just a hack that gets page views and readership by being overly negative and saying controversial or divisive things.

    It’s so bad most 49ers message boards label it a “Cohn” article if they post a link to anything he’s written warning people beforehand.

  7. illcomm - Dec 17, 2012 at 1:57 PM

    it would be nice to see some of your old posts grilled like this. or the mean your momma joke you made about my deceased mother a little over a year ago. yeah I still remember that comment Craig and your place in the world one level down from the dog crap that I stepped on this past weekend.

    • Gobias Industries - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:40 PM

      Did you really step in dog crap this past weekend? For whatever reason, I feel like I must know the answer to this question. I’ll check back periodically for your answer.

      • indaburg - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:08 PM

        I’m impressed you derived any kind of meaning from illcomm’s comment.

    • cur68 - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:05 PM

      I remember that, ‘comm. As I recall…you started it. And then, when Craig made the crack about your poor mom, you got all bent and went off on a pretty spiteful rant. Wives were mentioned, I believe. I believe he then apologized for insulting the memory of your mother and pointed out how when people don’t know what they’re talking about (as you frequently don’t) they should cool it.

      I have a thought: if you don’t like the content/blogger go somewhere else. You can get a refund as you leave.

  8. dizoakiusmaximus - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM

    He must be talking about Bizarro Ty Cobb. You know, the one who adopted orphaned minority children, volunteered at a hospice for the mentally handicapped, and never ever used profanity.

  9. braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:24 PM

    HOF debates and PED discussions always bring out the smartest and most rational of people, but the combination of both is simply magnificent entertainment!

  10. seeinred87 - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:43 PM

    The Hall of Fame is also mentioned 3 times in the Mitchell Report. It must be a horrible place

  11. Tick - Dec 17, 2012 at 2:48 PM

    Can someone can explain to me how Adam Piatt and Jim Parque’s performances (among many, many more) were helped by PEDs? Just vote Bonds and Clemens in and knock it off.

    • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:02 PM

      So you don’t believe that PEDs are useful? You should right a book explaining that to everyone whpo uses them so they stop wasting their time.

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:22 PM

        This has data, analyses, and information-based opinion, so you probably aren’t interested, but the work is already done.

        http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:38 PM

        All these idiots needlessly using steroids. Someone should have told them that they are not needed and don’t do anything.

      • Gobias Industries - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:42 PM

        Did you read that entire website already? Damn, you’re good. I’m only on the fourth paragraph.

        Oh, you’re being sarcastic.

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:57 PM

        The website makes the claim that steroids only make players hit the ball farther. Then the website fails to mention that the top 21 seasons of homeruns-hit in MLB history were ALL during and after anabolic steroids supposedly came into the mainstream. I guess they forgot to mention that. Maybe it is just a coincidence.

      • cur68 - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:27 PM

        Brad:

        “ALL during and after anabolic steroids supposedly came into the mainstream”

        Anabolic steroids have been around for nearly 90 years now. Used widely in sports since the ’50’s. What you wrote is patently untrue.

      • paperlions - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:32 PM

        Then read the research until you understand WHY those seasons happened.

        Here’s a hint for you: HR rates jumped when a new ball was introduced in mid-1993. So….either everyone started taking steroids at the exact same time….or it was changes to the ball that accounted for the huge jump in HRs.

        The story is more nuanced than that….but, of course, you don’t care….you just want to blather on in wilfull ignorance about steroids.

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM

        It’s settled then. Steroids make players hit the ball further, but that has nothing to do with players hitting the ball further. Steroids are nothing but a placebo and the use of them is unneeded. Case closed. Call every unified sport and get the ball rolling on getting steroids off the banned substance lists.

      • cur68 - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:08 PM

        facepalm

        If “Hitting the ball further” was all that mattered why isn’t Wily Mo Pena in MLB? Let me answer since you have trouble with using the google and looking stuff up, and pardon my shouting but I find you frustrating:

        IT’S BECAUSE HE CAN’T HIT THE BALL ENOUGH!!!!!! …well that and a certain lack of defensive ability, but I digress . . . He’s big and strong and hits it a mile… when he hits it. Which is not that often. ‘Roids can’t help with that. That’s the point: what ‘roids might be good for doesn’t really help with what baseball requires. HOWEVER if you are blessed with talent, an eye for a pitch and the reflexes to catch the pitch just right…we have another argument but its an argument of fine distinction and it STILL depends on many other factors that have nothing to do with steroids. It simply is not a black and white debate which is what you seem to be hell bent on having.

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:11 PM

        But I never said that steroids do anything other than help a player hit the ball farther. So what exactly are you arguing with me about? You and I agree that steroids can help a player hit a ball farther, no?

      • cur68 - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:18 PM

        Show me your evidence which you claim as fact, then. The trouble with you steroids = strong people is that you don’t understand how a scientific hypothesis works nor do you take the trouble to inform yourselves enough so that you aren’t wallowing in ignorance and spouting nonsense. My point was “we have an argument” NOT “I think what you think”.

      • braddavery - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:23 PM

        I don’t even know what the hell it is you are talking about anymore. You are carrying a conversation with yourself. You admitted that steroids help players hit a ball farther, then when I ask you to say it again, you start aimlessly blathering about nonsense. You don’t even know me and you have no idea what my stance is on steroids, yet here you are, telling me what I think. Bravo.

  12. makeham98 - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:43 PM

    I’ve always found more credible information in the Post’s Page Six than in the Mitchell Report. Their coverage of ARod and Jeter, for example, are much better researched.

    For that matter, I find Page 3 of the Sun more informative.

  13. hisgirlgotburrelled - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:48 PM

    “There are moral criteria for players to enter the Hall.”
    Craig, you did a pretty good job last week of explaining the character thing and why it was put in.

    “Don’t tell me Ty Cobb wasn’t a nice man.”
    ‘Because that example ruins my argument’

    “You know what I’m talking about.”
    Yeah, we know. You’re interpreting rules your own way and choosing when and when not to use them.

  14. bravojawja - Dec 17, 2012 at 3:53 PM

    I can only assume that writers like Cohn who use the character clause as an excuse to not vote for Bonds and his ilk will be voting for Dale Murphy. If character is so important and all.

  15. Old Gator - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:08 PM

    Frankly, at this point I’d like to ditch the entire PED discussion. It’s going nowhere. Let’s just focus on who isn’t getting in because of what jerks they were.

    Then we can really get down to comparing Bonds and Clemens with Ty Cobb on a level playing field.

    I would not vote for Bonds on this basis; however, I would still vote for Clemens. Any relative of Mark Twain gets my benefit of the doubt.

    • cur68 - Dec 17, 2012 at 4:30 PM

      Clearly the asshole-bar is Cobb. Bonds is a bit above that, IMO. I don’t think he ever assaulted anyone. He might have WANTED to assault Kent, but that doesn’t separate him from much of anyone (even Kent’s mom). I say if the maximum amount of an asshole you can be is Cobb-Level…Bonds is in.

      • Old Gator - Dec 17, 2012 at 5:00 PM

        We need to have a bar, but does merely reaching the bar determine eligibility? I suspect, spawrts riters being clever and variable as they are, there are literally hundreds of levels of proximity to the bar that they are using as standards. If, for example, a candidate remains flexible enough to limbo under the bar – in other words, if the years of PEDS haven’t pitted, filigreed and atrophied their vertebral discs (or worse…caused acne to form on their backs) – then he’s just not a big enough asshole and we can vote him in. But if he falls on his ass, forget it – he can go apply to the Pete Rose Museum committee down the street.

  16. nobody78 - Dec 17, 2012 at 7:00 PM

    Drawing a comparison between murder and steroid use isn’t crazy if you have something in there that explicitly says “it’s not the same thing.” Acting as though this guy said steroid users are morally equivalent to murderers makes the debate stupider, not smarter.

    One other point: I am OK with it if the moral standards for inclusion in the Hall of Fame keep going UP, so I don’t buy the Cobb argument. If he were up for election today, I think there’d be a very good case AGAINST his election – and it wouldn’t surprise me if Craig Calcaterra were making it. Lots of the early elections were almost arbitrary. That shouldn’t keep us from trying to do better now.

    And yes, for the record, I think if we had known a lot more about use of “greenies,” there would have been a pretty good case against including the guys who used them, too. Again, I’m not very inclined to kick those sleeping dogs at this point, but if we had to hold the vote again today, I sure would.

  17. charlutes - Dec 17, 2012 at 7:12 PM

    You are turning hall of fame voting into this ridiculous issue, to the point where I’m just sick of hearing about the hall of fame. Get a vote and vote for who u want or shut up about it already.

    • Alex K - Dec 17, 2012 at 7:20 PM

      How mean of everyone to make you read about it, then.

  18. denny65 - Dec 18, 2012 at 2:00 AM

    Get back to me please when Pete Rose is voted into the HoF. ‘Til such time these discussions are pffft.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Final take away from World Series
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Pence (2212)
  2. M. Morse (2186)
  3. Y. Cespedes (2094)
  4. J. Panik (2091)
  5. M. Moustakas (2031)