Skip to content

One very shallow Hall of Fame thought

Jan 7, 2013, 4:01 PM EDT

Image (1) hgh.jpg for post 4145

Nothing else is going on, so here’s a really shallow Hall of Fame thought:

I think it’s almost certain — like, 99.9% certain — that there is already a member of the Hall of Fame who used performance enhancing drugs. Not just greenies, but 1980s-90s-2000s-style steroids, HGH and all of that stuff that causes everyone so much consternation.  I even have a couple of ideas of players who may have — guys who aren’t normally mentioned in these conversations — though I won’t say their names for risk that someone take my baseless speculation as some sort of actual information, which it is not.

But if I had a genie who granted me three wishes, I’d use one of the wishes to wish for a million more wishes. Then, with one of those million more wishes, I’d wish that one of those Hall of Fame players announce today that, yes, he was juiced to the gills. No apologies, no explanations, just a “yeah, I was totally ‘roided up,” after which he drops the mic and goes back to hunting, fishing, signing autographs and whatever else he does in his retirement.

Wouldn’t it just make everyone’s head explode?

And while it is a shallow thought, it’s not just some hypothetical thing. Because one day we’re going to learn about a Hall of Famer who used PEDs, at which point one of the leading arguments against voting in the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens of the world is going to make even less sense than it already does.

  1. anotheryx - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM

    I think it’s possible that someone do it AFTER one of the noted steroid user gets in. Don’t see it happen now though.

    • seitz26 - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:10 PM

      In seriousness, this sounds right to me. If someone came out today and announced they had been roided up, it was be used an excuse to remove that person from the Hall AND keep the other guys out. You would either need a handful of guys to admit to it, or you would need to wait until a handful of guys who are already suspected have made it in.

      • DJ MC - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:28 PM

        They can’t remove someone from the Hall of Fame. So that part of it is moot.

      • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:32 PM

        Why can’t they?

      • youknowwhatsgoodforshoulderpain - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:07 PM

        Why can’t they?

        Because then they’d lose all credibility…this is assuming that the private enterprise known as the National Baseball Hall of Fame had any to begin with.

  2. seitz26 - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:07 PM

    The, with one of those million more wishes

    Make sure you use one of those wishes on getting rid of all of your typos. ;)

  3. cktai - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM

    Honestly, I don’t think that one of the current Hall-of-famers coming out and admitting PED-use will make any sodding difference in the voting process. Some of them have come already come out and admitted non-steroid PED-use. The change that caused was non-existent.

    You can compare the situation with cycling. Eddy Merckx was tested positive three times. In modern times that would have lead to a life-time suspension. Instead he is heralded as the greatest of all time. Lance Armstrong on the other hand, will have to hand in all of his Tour de France victories for essentially the same transgressions.

    The only difference between the PED-users of old and twenty-first century PED-users is that the current generation of writes feels actively cheated by the latter while they can distance themselves from the PED-abuse of the former. 40 years from now, a new generation of baseball writers will write at great lengths about the injustice done to Barry Bonds when he was not inducted the first time round.

  4. sophiethegreatdane - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM

    Look at all the PEDs used by members of the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame. Why should they have all the fun?!

    (Except Keef, of course. No waaaay he was using. That was a tainted B12 shot from Loggins. Maybe Messina.)

    • El Bravo - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:56 PM

      Awesome. Let’s make a list of users/non-users.

  5. edsox - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM

    “Wouldn’t it just make everyone’s head explode?”

    No, not everyone’s. Some people don’t give a damn about the Hall of Fame.

  6. lanflfan - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:35 PM

    For me, I can’t understand how any sane baseball fan would let cheaters into the Hall of Fame.

    For better or worse, athletes are role models for children. What kind of message do we send when we allow cheaters to be recognized among baseball’s all-time greats? I understand Ty Cobb was a bastard, and Babe Ruth was a drunk and womanizer. Don’t hide those facts, acknowledge them. But being an asshat, drinking too much, and sleeping around does not make you a better ballplayer. And, they are long dead, and they played for a nation far different from the current one. Science will continue to push new frontiers, and sadly some of those frontiers include cheating.

    The current crop of cheaters is from the last era of major uncertainty regarding PED use. Even though I have no illusions that the current testing catches (and properly punishes) everyone, MLB has made progress. Undermining that progress by allowing cheaters into the Hall is illogical.

    We can not fix the past, but you can fix the present and ensure a better future.

    • saints97 - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:40 PM

      Babe Ruth was a known bat-corker. From your soap box, should he be removed from the Hall of Fame?

      And the idea that being an alcoholic and an asshole is okay, while being a cheat is not, when it comes to being a role model for children seems pretty stupid from my low perch. But that’s just me.

      • lanflfan - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:02 PM

        I did say you can’t fix the past, and I never advocated try to fix the past. Acknowledge the decisions that were made by player and HOF, and perhaps show some guidance for the future.

      • saints97 - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM

        So then you really didn’t mean your FIRST argument – “Please, think about the the poor children!”?

      • jwbiii - Jan 7, 2013 at 7:42 PM

        Don’t sell Babe Ruth short on this one.
        http://www.baltimoreorless.com/2011/01/babe-ruth-injected-sheeps-testicles/

      • lanflfan - Jan 8, 2013 at 4:27 PM

        saints
        I stated “you can’t fix the past”. To expand on that, I do not advocate or believe you can not reach into the HoF and remove anyone/everyone who no longer fits “our” vision using current values (whenever that is, now or in the future). But why does that mean we should continue to elect players of questionable integrity simply because they had great stats without examining HOW they played the game? If that is the case, change the name to the Hall of Awesome Stats, and all you need is a baseline stat adjusted for era.

    • cur68 - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM

      If the HOF had some mandate that spells out what you are talking about thane I’d be along side what you have here. It does not. Its purportedly about the best ballplayers of their time. It has some language about conduct and so forth, but the HoF is ultimately there to celebrate the best baseball players, not be a moral compass for Our Nation’s Youth. If they wanted to do something like that then they’d have to first acknowledge a lot of bad behaviour by a lot of already inducted people. Then they’d have to explain how they justify keeping them in there when the things they’ve done are way worse than what the guys who’re up for election have done. Bottom line: they aren’t anyone’s Spirit Guide. They are a museum of history. Bonds, Clemens et al are a significant part of that history.

      • lanflfan - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:14 PM

        In celebrating the “best” of MLB are we not acknowledging how they got there? Are their career accomplishments not the reason why they were elected to the HoF? Cheaters did so by gaining an unfair advantage over other players. I agree that Bonds and Clemens are a significant part of MLB history, but for all the wrong reasons. It sounds hypocritical to elect players to the HoF, yet also suspend a current player for the same behavior simply because baseball lagged behind the science of how to cheat.

        Why is Pete Rose not in the HoF? He broke the rules of baseball. Personally, I believe he should be in the HoF (but not given a ceremony), with a big ass asterisk and sign explaining exactly why he is banned from baseball.

        And as I said above, you can’t fix the past. Acknowledge what happened, why certain players are viewed less favorably now. Unless you learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.

      • saints97 - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:21 PM

        Pete Rose is not in the Hall of Fame because he signed a contract that he would be banned from the sport. In return for that ban, MLB did not investigate further into his gambling.

      • lanflfan - Jan 8, 2013 at 4:12 PM

        We have a “Cause and Effect relationship here.

        Cause: Pete Rose was caught betting on baseball, which is against the rules. To save face, he cut a deal.

        Effect: He is banned from baseball.

        Can’t have one without the other, ergo betting caused the ban.

    • Ben - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM

      • lanflfan - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM

        Even I had that running through my head as I was posting (and I gave you a thumb up).

    • joegolfer - Jan 9, 2013 at 2:13 AM

      Hey lanflfan, sorry to see you get so many thumbs down.
      You actually took the time to write a well thought out comment. You can’t cover every possible aspect, as that would take pages and pages.
      Too bad Saints97 just doesn’t get it, as your whole point was about not allowing folks who did things to enhance their skill levels artificially (And let’s not hear from the “they took greenies in the 70′s and 80′s bunch”). We can’t change the past. We can change the future, and if that means that steroid users get punished, so be it.
      Yes, there are plenty of bad role models for kids in the HOF, Saints97. The man’s point wasn’t about that. It was about not honoring present and future cheaters, as we don’t have a time machine to go into the past and address those prior players and their issues.

  7. sdelmonte - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:35 PM

    And yet it would be less earth-shaking if and when a Hall of Famer came out of the closet. Which would be a far more important moment anyway.

  8. RickyB - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:36 PM

    If you learned anything from X-Files, you would remember that wishing for more wishes is against the rules.

    • 18thstreet - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

      I think you’re thinking of the cartoon movie, Aladin.

  9. DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM

    “Because one day we’re going to learn about a Hall of Famer who used PEDs, at which point one of the leading arguments against voting in the Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens of the world is going to make even less sense than it already does.”

    I have a question. And since nothign is goign on today, I expect (hope for) and answer.

    If a HOF’er come forward and admits he gambled on Baseball, does that mean Pete Rose gets in? Or Dutch Leonard’s accustion that Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker fixed the last, meaningless game of the season is proven true, does that help Shoeless Joe? Heck, they (alledgedly) threw AND gambled on that game.

    • stex52 - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM

      Well put. I happen to be pretty agnostic about what to do on the question of PED’s. But you are dead right. The fact that there is someone in there has no bearing on what we do in the future. False equivalence.

  10. Marty McKee - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

    Greenies are not performance-enhancing drugs. Certainly not in the sense in letting you hit the ball harder and farther. To give greenies and steroids equal weight is ludicrous.

    • stex52 - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:50 PM

      Amphetamines don’t enhance alertness or speed up responses? You are limiting your scope of drug action too much to make a good argument.

    • paperlions - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:50 PM

      You are right. Amphetamines likely had a bigger effect on hitting a baseball than steroids. You could take amphetamines and within 30 minutes have more energy and greater focus. If you take steroids, in 30 minutes you are the exact same guy. Even with rigorous daily workouts for the strength benefits of steroids to manifest, there is no basis for the assumption that an artificially enhanced stronger player will see his performance improved more than an artificially enhanced more energetic and focused player.

      Even the available data suggest that amphetamine use had a bigger effect on offensive production, as the recent decline in offense coincided with amphetamine testing, not steroid testing.

      • tigerprez - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:33 PM

        This is the kind of naive garbage that turns up on baseball message boards from people that have no idea what amphetamines do to the body (and I say that as a drug and alcohol counselor who has worked with amphetamine addicts). It would be a very rare person that would be able to hit a baseball better because of taking amphetamines. If anything, they would make you more jittery and impair your fine motor skills. (For a simple example, think of drinking a pot of coffee and then building a birdhouse by driving nails with a hammer. Would you be more accurate? Hitting a baseball is far harder than driving a nail.) Physiologically, the effect isn’t all that different from cocaine, and no one would claim that the coked up guys from the 80s were using PEDs. Their performances certainly were not enhanced.

        When people draw the equivalancy between steroids and amphetamines, they have no idea what they’re talking about. Amphetamines are a performance enabler; they will get you on the field but will not enhance your play. Steroids are a performance enhancer. If used correctly, they will allow you to hit the ball a little further and throw the ball a little harder than you could before. No doubt, amphetamines would help you stay on the field for 162 games or throw 200 innings (though to use them to the extent that they would have that effect, you’d also have to be physiologically addicted to them, something that takes such a toll on the body that it probably counteracts any benefit you get from them). They will not make you Barry Bonds hitting 73 homeruns when most guys his age were sitting in a recliner.

      • paperlions - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:44 PM

        Thanks for your inaccurate comment and the useless appeal to authority. Great, you are a counselor. Awesome. Doesn’t change the fact that USE of amphetamines does enhance focus….indeed, many amphetamines are prescribed just for that purpose. Use and abuse are not the same thing.

        There is no difference between performance enabling and performance enhancing. If something changes your status from can’t play to can play, by definition, your performance has been enhanced. Indeed, that would be the greater enhancement.

        Hitting a baseball is not about strength, especially upper body strength. Power comes from hip rotation, timing, and the lower 1/2 of the body.

        Most guys are in a recliner when they are 37?

      • cur68 - Jan 7, 2013 at 7:05 PM

        tigerprez: Adderall is a mix of amphetamine salts. Ritalin is a close, but more complex, cousin to amphetamine. Both are used by athletes and both are touted as much more effective in generating performance enhancement right away. Anabolic steroids require months of hard work to see the muscle mass gain and do nothing to focus concentration and improve bat/ball contact. Both Ritalin and Adderall are known for their ability to help the user focus and to improve reflexes. Of the two class of drugs (Anabolic Steroid vs Amphetamine and amphetaine-like drugs) which do you think would have the more immediate and noticeable effect on baseball performance?

        I would suggest Mr. prez that you don’t confuse abuse with use, nor that you automatically assume that all amphetamines are crystal methamphetamines.

      • paperlions - Jan 7, 2013 at 8:19 PM

        Dang, you are so polite…it’s like…you are Canadian or something (e.g. Minnesotan).

      • cur68 - Jan 7, 2013 at 8:37 PM

        Yeah, sorry ’bout that.

      • paperlions - Jan 7, 2013 at 9:05 PM

        I see what you did there.

      • joegolfer - Jan 9, 2013 at 2:40 AM

        Paperlions, I’ve seen your same comment before about how steroids affect the upper body, and that hitting a baseball is using the lower body.
        You actually stated once before on a different article (by some unknown calculations that only you know of) that a baseball would travel only about three feet further than normal for steroid users.
        I guess that’s why Bonds suddenly started jacking over 70 homers, many of them not into the first row of seats but into the bay.
        I guess it’s why so many of Sosa’s homers went not into the basket at the top of the ivy but clear over the fence beyond the bleachers, out into the street where the ballhawks were waiting.
        Infamous Olympic sprinting cheat, Ben Johnson, must not have gotten your memo that steroids mainly affect only the upper body, as he ran for a world record time back in his day, though later stripped of his medal.

      • paperlions - Jan 9, 2013 at 7:32 AM

        Porcello doesn’t miss any bats. The GB rate is great, but GB become hits more often than FB regardless of defense….that just means he shouldn’t allow many HRs…but even his HR/FB rate is below average….so when guys do hit it in the air they hit it hard. He’s just not an upgrade over what the Orioles already have….and neither is Peralta or Boesh. There is just nothing in there that helps the Orioles. Increasing Machado’s value isn’t the same as making the overall team better. Hardy is a very good defender at SS.

        There is just nothing in such a deal that should interest the Orioles….that looks like something a TIger fan would suggest that wants to dump roster dead weight.

    • joegolfer - Jan 9, 2013 at 2:26 AM

      Darryl Strawberry stated that he took amphetamines, and he stated something to the effect that “the baseball liked like a great big old basketball when it was approaching the plate”.
      In other words, it made him a much better hitter than he normally would have been.
      That said, we can’t go into the past and punish every suspected ‘greenie’ user.
      But we shouldn’t reward current cheaters either. Current PED’s users get suspended a minimum of 50 games the very first time. Bonds used PED’s for years, jacking 73 homers because of it, having a much higher avg because it allowed him to get to balls he normally wouldn’t have caught up to.

  11. schlom - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM

    In the espn 30 for 30 documentary on Ben Johnson’s doping positive during 1988 Olympics they showed that almost every track sprinter in that time was on steroids. And we know that the reported usage of steroids in football goes back into the seventies. But for some reason baseball writers think that steroids in baseball started in 1998 (outside of Jose Canseco)?

  12. braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 4:52 PM

    Since when does an admission of cheating make cheating acceptable? I’m confused.

    • 18thstreet - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

      Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame.

      • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM

        And? I hope that you understand that “cheating” like using spitballs and scuffing the ball isn’t the type of cheating I am referring to. Clearly the voters didn’t think it was that big of a deal and he made the HOF, so it’s moot. I think that you know I meant PEDs.

      • cur68 - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:23 PM

        <blockquote<I hope that you understand that “cheating” like using spitballs and scuffing the ball isn’t the type of cheating I am referring to.

        You do know that altering the ball is IMMEDIATELY and almost ALWAYS effective as opposed to ‘roids which are demonstrably VERY hit and miss? Which in your mind is the more effective form of cheating? I’d way rather see My Boys face a team of ‘roid jockeys that a rotation of ball doctors.

      • cur68 - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM

        sigh Blockquote fail. The highlight I was going for was:

        I hope that you understand that “cheating” like using spitballs and scuffing the ball isn’t the type of cheating I am referring to.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:26 PM

        I think that you know I meant PEDs.

        How is one better/worse than the other? And Mantle/Mays/Aaron all admitted they took PEDs.

      • paperlions - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM

        When he says PEDs, he means steroids and HGH, nothing else, just those.

      • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:43 PM

        Can we please have the “spitting on and/or scuffing a baseball is the same as injecting yourself with chemicals because they are both a form of cheating” discussion again? Can we? Oh please! It’s such a wonderful debate and not at all ludicrous, ridiculous and absurd.

      • cur68 - Jan 7, 2013 at 7:19 PM

        Looks like we’re going to because you can’t seem to grasp the notion that altering the ball is a way more effective, therefore WORSE, form of baseball cheating than ‘roids. If you wanted to have legal debate, then go to a post dedicated to the legality of ‘roids in sports. This one here isn’t discussing the legal or moral issues of steroid injection. Its discussing the presence of likely HoF steroid users, the effectiveness of steroids, the presence of many kinds of baseball cheaters already in the HoF etc. We’re pointing out AGAIN that changing the ball is WAY worse cheating. Steroids require taking months of hard effin work to change your self and. even with steroids, and DOES NOT GUARANTEE any more a successful career. This in the face of ball alteration which has an immediate impact and is therefore WORSE cheating that steroid injection. Once again, this is not a legal argument. Its a baseball one.

        The HoF is a baseball museum (it demonstrably is) and not the keeper of laws or a moral compass. These guys might have as well have injected themselves with water illegally for all the good it did their bat/ball contact and concentration. The HoF clearly is not interested in who broke what laws and really isn’t interested in who broke what baseball rules, either. If its keepers were, there are way more worthy cheaters to chase out before they need worry about Bonds & Clemens getting in.

      • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 7:41 PM

        I won’t even read what you wrote because you don’t understand that the level of punishment is in direct correlation with the offense. Because you won’t understand what that means, I’ll break it down for you. Spitting on and/or scuffing a baseball and even corking bats are, in Major League Baseball’s eyes, minor offenses, therefore entailing minor punishments. See, what that means is that the 50-game suspension for a first PED offense, a 100-game suspension for a 2nd PED offense and then a lifetime ban for a 3rd PED offense is the ultimate proof that MLB cares very little for scuffing, spitting and corking. Know what that means? It means that you comparing the offenses as if they are equal is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t make sense to compare the two. Gaylord Perry is in the HOF and Barry Bonds won’t be and you will always be looking in wondering why because you don’t understand logic and reason.

      • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 7:45 PM

        I’ll even break it down further for you. MLB barely cares about scuffing/spitting/corking, so the HOF voters don’t either. That is why no reasonable human being gives a shit that Gaylord Perry is in the HOF and guys like Barry Bonds most likely won’t be. Use some common sense.

      • cur68 - Jan 7, 2013 at 7:48 PM

        Still missing the point, eh Brad? Shit, but you’re dense. I give up.

      • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 8:01 PM

        Yes, it’s me who is the dense one. At least I know the difference between misdemeanor and felony. To you it’s all just crime and the punishments should all be the same. lol

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 7, 2013 at 8:21 PM

        Know what that means? It means that you comparing the offenses as if they are equal is a logical fallacy.

        The difference in punishment couldn’t have anything to do with a Congress headed steroid witchhunt, could it? No, that’s not it. No league has ever overreacted in the face of outside pressure.

      • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 8:33 PM

        That is not at ALL what we are talking about here. This isn’t a discussion about steroids, dude. This is a discussion about the differences in scuffing/spitting/corking and PEDs. A difference recognized by MLB and HOF voters. We are talking why using Gaylord Perry as an example as to why Barry Bonds should be elected is not logical. They DIDN’T commit the same offense IN THE EYES OF THE LEAGUE THEY PLAYED FOR.

      • cur68 - Jan 7, 2013 at 8:45 PM

        One last time: if someone makes an ignorant, ill-informed decision based on prejudice, which hunting and superstition then I as a researcher, health care worker, and thinking person feel absolutely NO URGE to buy in to what they are selling. Why you choose to buy in to it is your problem, Bradley. Bottom line: altering baseballs improves pitching performance FAR MORE than ‘roiding it improves hitting. I don’t give a tiny mouse turd if you and the rest of the MLB Committee on Sanctimony and Bullshit feel otherwise. Your opinions do not fit the facts and the stance taken is out of proportion to the effect of past cheating.

      • stex52 - Jan 7, 2013 at 8:56 PM

        In the eyes of the league?

        The league actively condoned it until Congress got on their cases. It’s either cheating or it isn’t. Felony/misdemeanor? We already said this wasn’t a legal argument.

        Why, in your eyes, is some cheating okay and others not?

      • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 8:59 PM

        I have no idea what it is you are blathering on and on about. Gaylord Perry is in the HOF because no one on the planet cares about spitballs and scuffing as much as you do. Thank god your take on the subject isn’t widely accepted.

      • stex52 - Jan 7, 2013 at 9:09 PM

        As soon as you come up for a reason as to why cheating isn’t cheating.

      • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 9:16 PM

        It is cheating. And there is a punishment for it for those who get caught. Just like there is a MUCH more severe punishment for PEDs. They are different forms of cheating with different levels of punishment. It’s not rocket science.

      • stex52 - Jan 7, 2013 at 9:49 PM

        I’ll go back to the first thing you said on this thread. No cheating is acceptable. An artificial distinction in punishments doesn’t change that. There is no particular reason to treat one more severely than the other. It is certainly not based on any data they gathered or studies they did. Just a reaction in fear to public opinion.

        And a “blind eye” is a pretty benevolent interpretation of what actually went on.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 7, 2013 at 10:48 PM

        It is cheating. And there is a punishment for it for those who get caught. Just like there is a MUCH more severe punishment for PEDs. They are different forms of cheating with different levels of punishment. It’s not rocket science.

        I wasn’t sure if you previous comment was directed towards me, but now I know it was. Are you really this thick? Do you think the reason MLB started suspending people 50/100 games was due to the best interests of the game or that they were concerned with cleaning up PEDs? PEDs got baseball back on to the national stage. People may say they are pissed at the amount of drugs that are in MLB, but they aren’t showing it with record numbers of attendance and revenue.

        The reason for the punishments is Congress got involved, and tried to make it a national story when it wasn’t needed. If you think it honestly was in the best interests of the game, why did it take so long to get testing? You seem to be strong on opinions, but lack any facts to back them up.

      • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 11:24 PM

        Maybe you guys should be lobbying congress and MLB to “get tough” on scuffing/spitting/corking if it bothers you so much. Players have been doing it since baseball started. Or are you just acting like you care to make some uneven points bout PEDs. Yeah, that’s probably it.

      • ctony1216 - Jan 9, 2013 at 8:41 AM

        No throwing a spitball is not the same as injecting yourself with harmful, illegal drugs. One can kill you (see link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroids#Adverse_effects) The other can’t.

    • stex52 - Jan 7, 2013 at 9:27 PM

      You say PED’s are more serious in the eyes of the league. Why is that?

      Nothing to do with the fact that the league used to encourage use sub rosa until it was clear it was unpopular? Now it’s a felony?

      • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 9:35 PM

        That about nails it. Scuffing/spitting/corking have never been huge offenses in the eyes of MLB. Now that PEDs have been exposed as rampant in the league, they finally did something about it after years of turning a blind eye. So what is your point. Yes, they are different offense with different levels of punishment. If you have an issue with the severity of punishment for scuffing/spitting/corking, then just come out and say it instead of skirting around the subject and talking about PEDs instead.

      • stex52 - Jan 7, 2013 at 9:51 PM

        My last reply came out about two space up above. We’ve probably worn this out. Have a nice evening. (Seriously).

  13. philliesblow - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:01 PM

    You mean like a guy with a history of injuries that has career highs in games played and hits at age 39? Or another guy who at age 33 hit 9 HR, age 34 hit 5 HR, didn’t play at age 35 but came back at age 36 to hit 25 HR?

  14. mashoaf - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:15 PM

    I am truly surprised that Cal Ripken Jr.’s name never gets brought up. Seeing how he revolutionized the power hitting SS movement.

    • philliesblow - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:20 PM

      Or didn’t miss a game for 28 straight years or whatever.

    • Baseball Beer Burritos In That Order - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:14 PM

      Some guys know how to smile and shake hands and schmooze and do reporters favors. Ripken is definitely a good old boy.

      (I know this is a shallow comment, but this is a place for shallow thoughts, no?)

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:28 PM

        Some guys know how to smile and shake hands and schmooze and do reporters favors. Ripken is definitely a good old boy.

        We should call this the Ray Lewis Corollary. Nothing like praising a man who was complicit in hindering the investigation of a murder…

  15. braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM

    Ripken Jr, Henderson, Ryan, Molitor. All these names could be suspect. But without any evidence, it’s just speculation and speculation is just that, speculation.

  16. butchhuskey - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM

    The problem with writers using innuendo and rumors to accuse players of steroid use is that it’s far too easy to spread inaccurate information. In fact, you can take nearly any player and accuse them of PED violations based on suspicion and “circumstantial evidence”. I’ll give a few examples using players that most people don’t associate with steroid usage :

    Craig Biggio – Huge veiny forearms, played during steroid era, was teammates with Ken Caminiti, had 15 home run spike in 1993, played into 40s so must have had chemical help

    Frank Thomas- absolutely massive human being with super strength (must have been unnatural), hit lots of home runs in the 1990s, broke down with injuries in late 40s which may have been a result of PED usage, leaped at opportunity to speak to Senator George Mitchell – dost he protest too much?

    Derek Jeter – teammates with suspected users like Roger Clemens and confirmed user Alex Rodriguez, steady production into late 30s with little decline, came up as a skinny kid before getting more muscular in prime of his career

    Seriously – you can take any player, whether it be Griffey, Ripken, or whoever, and make a case based on “gut instinct” or scuttlebutt.

    • butchhuskey - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:39 PM

      Oops, for Frank Thomas, I meant “late 30s,” not 40s

  17. DJ MC - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:41 PM

    I’ve been thinking about all of the talk about Biggio being possibly the only player elected this year.

    He and Bagwell will always be connected due to the parallel nature of their careers. That leads to the assumption that they are close, although as an outsider to the history of the Astros I don’t know the nature of their relationship at all. So for this thought I’m making that assumption.

    Say Biggio gets up on the stage at Cooperstown and goes through the normal process of thanking family and friends and voters and telling stories and bad jokes. Then he ends by thanking Bagwell for his career, wishing that he was up there too, and absolutely excoriates the writers for their suspicions and failures.

    It is often said that Ted Williams getting up at his induction and pointing out the lack of Negro League representation in the Hall was a turning point in getting many of those players deserving recognition. Might such a speech break the logical logjam of the writers and get some of them to change their views?

  18. b453841l - Jan 7, 2013 at 5:55 PM

    Based on the title of this article, I thought it was going to be a review of the movie “Shallow Hal” starring Jack Black and Gwyneth Paltrow.

  19. genericcommenter - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM

    Considering there are prominent Americans in other sports/”sports”, entertainment/”sports” entertainment, business, and politics, who are well-known users of steroids long before the “steroid era” of MLB, I don’t know why anyone would be surprised if someone from as far back as the 60s was using steroids in baseball, and certainly prior to the 1980s Canseco Liberation Movement.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 7, 2013 at 6:31 PM

      As mentioned in other threads, the 1960s San Diego Chargers brought in a strength coach who learned from 50s Russian/East German teams about steroids, and had an open discussion with the team about using them.

      People (not saying you necessarily) need to go beyond their 7th grade gym education on steroids.

    • jwbiii - Jan 7, 2013 at 8:29 PM

      generic, Pud Galvin, 1889.
      http://www.history.com/news/baseballs-first-fountain-of-youth

  20. fantasymoney - Jan 7, 2013 at 11:17 PM

    Hmmmmmm….I have always thought that Rickey Henderson could have been a steroids user. Rickey was an outstanding baseball player, for many years, who happened to be in prime physical condition throughout his career. He’s never been linked to PEDs and there’s no real reason to believe that he was a user. However, I will never forget something that the Godfather of Steroids, Mr. Canseco, said in and interview directly after the HOF induction ceremony in late July 2009. Only a few days after Rickey and Jim Rice received their plaques, Jose stated that baseball would have a “big problem” on their hands when they find out that there is a HOF member who has used PEDs. Of course, Jose wrote two books published in 2005 and 2008 and has been interviewed countless times on the subject of steroids. This was the first time that I had remembered him ever bringing up the subject of a PED user already being in the HOF. You would have thought that he would have used that subject matter in one of his prior books to sell more copies. Jose took a step back and never named anyone specifically….but I always felt like the timing of his statement was telling nonetheless.

    • braddavery - Jan 7, 2013 at 11:27 PM

      He was probably paid-off by said player to keep his mouth shut. And yes I am serious.

      • jwbiii - Jan 8, 2013 at 2:42 PM

        Canseco allegedly tried to extort Magglio Ordonez to keep him out of volume 2, so that is not out of the question.

  21. joegolfer - Jan 9, 2013 at 1:56 AM

    Craig’s final statement that one of the leading arguments against voting in Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens and other PED’s users would make less sense than it already does simply doesn’t hold to logical reasoning, even if it suits Craig’s opinions on the topic.
    Just because someone slipped thru the net already and got into the HOF while using PED’s doesn’t somehow justify letting other PED users in.
    Craig, if we found out that a current HOF’er admitted to betting against his own team because he liked to make money on the side, would it mean that it makes less sense to keep some future person out of the HOF for also betting against his own team?
    It’s the exact same logic, simply with a different crime against the game.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. S. Kazmir (4935)
  2. K. Uehara (4149)
  3. T. Wood (3634)
  4. G. Springer (3353)
  5. J. Kubel (3268)
  1. M. Machado (3032)
  2. T. Walker (2951)
  3. H. Rondon (2918)
  4. D. Pedroia (2916)
  5. I. Nova (2858)