2013 MLB Hall of Fame Screechfest

I've already explained it to you, but you do exactly that which I have a reputation for. You argue just for its own sake. The difference being I'm just stubborn when I'm right. You just seem to enjoy keeping it going for no good reason.

 

Every era has its moral failures and its cheats, and many of them are in even though the voters knew for sure about their failings. It's not nearly as unique as you think.

 

The whole amphetamine thing has just been kicked to the curb even though it's well-known that players in the '60s and '70s (and maybe before?) took them. By every definition we're trying to work with, those are PEDs; like steroids, they are banned now but weren't then.

I have a hard time ascribing an extra dose of morality to Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle because they didn't use something that wasn't available to be used. Everything we know about them suggests they would have been jacked up just like the players of the 1990s and 2000s.

 

If I wrote that same sentence, you'd need a pacifier.

 

This is where my concerns about the ethics and mores of the era comes in, I think.

We laugh of greenies, relatively speaking, because, essentially, "everyone was doing it." Truly, that seems to be why. It was just so commonplace. Like going 60 in a 55.

Was that the case with modern-day PED's? Even if so, is there something that alters the calculus nonetheless, i.e. society at large's stigmatization of steroids as compared to speed?

Lots of questions I need more time to think about.

 

I start by saying anyone who hasn't:
1) been charged criminally relating to PED use (Bonds and Clemens);
2) hasn't admitted it;
3) wasn't hauled before Congress to testify about PED use;
4) wasn't in the Mitchell report; or
5) hasn't tested positive

is treated as clean and judged solely on their records.

Those that fell into one or more category are subject to a test like this:

was his record HOF worthy, and, if it was, am I convinced he would have been HOF worthy without the PEDs? I have no doubt Bonds and Clemens would have had HOF careers without the pharmaceuticals, so they're in. I have strong doubts Kevin Brown or Rafael Palmiero would have had such a career, so they're out.

 

Don't flatter yourself. Your foolishness isn't enough to get me angry.

 

Society's opinion isn't what matters. It's the voters, or in the case of this thread, those of us posting. Make up your own mind instead of waiting for others to tell you what to think later.

 

Unless you believe Pearlman quoting anonymous sources, Piazza doesn't fit into any of those five categories. Bagwell does not fit into any of those five categories, yet the suspicions about him are clearly being held against him.

 

I don't necessarily need others to tell me what to think. But I do value the thoughtful commentary of intelligent and articulate people. I see no shame in that. People change their minds. Supreme Court justices have changed their mind about the death penalty over time, for example. Again: No shame in it.

 

True. You're cool as a cucumber around here.

 

Interesting thoughts here. I've said from the beginning that 20 years down the road, testing will still be done but to determine what levels of various substances players are using. Many of these substances, taken at low or moderate dosage, could very well be safe and beneficial to athletes who work a physically demanding job, travel extensively, face a high rate of injury and get just 13 days off over a seven-month period.

I predict we will laugh one day at the over-the-top righteous indignation that embodied the early coverage of The Steroids Era.