1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot Released

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Della9250, Nov 27, 2006.

  1. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    Labor laws aren't the same as drug laws, right?
     
  2. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Nope. But you asked what makes baseball so special -- well, they've been exempt from U.S. labor laws for almost a century; what makes them think they shouldn't be able to flaunt U.S. drugs laws, too? Congress hasn't stopped 'em yet ...
     
  3. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    Fucking suckling apologism.

    It's against the LAW. Individual players are most certainly NOT protected by the anti-trust exemption.

    But you, and hundreds like you, cozy up with this brainless "It wasn't against the rules" drone line.

    Some moron called the local drive-time radio show yesterday and said...."Maybe they will outlaw throwing pitches more than 95 miles per hour next year... then, no pitchers enter the Hall of Fame who threw 95 miles per hour?"

    The (well-paid) host's response? "I'm with ya."

    The intellectual dishonesty on the issue is sickening, and your anti-trust non-sequitur is an example of that. You fucking know that's not what the guy was asking.
     
  4. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Sure, it's a non-sequitur. And I'm not using the "it wasn't against the rules" line. And I'm not making excuses for the players. It's illegal, and they know it.

    But you know what? Baseball has been above the law since before anyone in baseball today was ever born.

    It's been above the law on antitrust. It's been above the law on labor. Why would anyone in baseball ever have reason to believe that baseball is not above the law on performance enhancers, too?

    Ballplayers didn't create this culture -- they exploited it, but don't scapegoat them for a system that's been above the law their entire lives. Blame the lawmakers and blame management for turning a blind eye -- they're exploiting the system, too.

    But don't act like the players are the ones who should get punished the most -- they're only doing what they're allowed to do ... because baseball's always been above the law. Always.
     
  5. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    The very essence of apologism. I never fully grasped the meaning of the text beneath your avatar as it pertains to you ... not until just now.

    Please enlighten the board... what crime WOULD a baseball player be responsible for in your eyes?

    I just put the Jiffy Pop on.
     
  6. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member


    I disagree. While baseball has certainly been treated differently as a result of a long-ago court decision (the anti-trust exemption) that is pretty universally considered flawed, it's a pretty long stretch to suggest that that created a climate in which baseball players felt they were "above" the law. We see professional athletes, including baseball players, arrested fairly regularly, afterall. My opinion is that a collosal failure of law enforcement on a local and federal level gave rise to illegal drugs becoming pervasive in the sport. When people notice a law is not being enforced, they react accordingly. The reaction of the federal government and Congress was to blame the sport for not creating its own laws rather than ask why existing laws hadn't been enforced. One or two highly publicized sting operations at the turn of the millenium would've worked wonders.
     
  7. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    I blogged about this yesterday, but here's the short version. I won't be Selig's hatchetman. As a voter, I play the hand MLB deals. Pete Rose is off the ballot, so I don't vote for him. Until MLB kicks McGwire off the ballot, I feel I must consider his statistics without prejudice, whatever my personal opinion. I don't see a Hall vote as an excuse to play God.
     
  8. jagtrader

    jagtrader Active Member

    I think that's a cop-out. It's the same reason Bonds won a billion MVPs when any reasonable person could surmise he was getting some help. There is reasonable doubt with McGwire and you have to keep him out until it's cleared up. Once he's in, he's in forever.
     
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    The "it wasn't against the rules," arguments are ridiculous and completely miss the point. Ask yourself this: Did Mark McGwire REALLY think using steroids was a fair and accepted practice? If so, why wasn't he just using them out in the open? Why didn't he admit it?

    What would fan and media reaction had been if he had been an unapologetic steroid user, out in the open?

    You know the answer is that he would have been a pariah. And he knew that at the time. The bottom line is that it was thought of as cheating--by him, by fans, by everyone. Guys weren't innocently using, thinking there was nothing wrong with it. And the typical fan, rightly believed then and now that a guy who inflates his performance artificially, and puts up numbers on par with guys who did it on talent alone, is a fraud.

    These guys knew it was cheating. You didn't need something in the collective bargaining agreement or the official rules of baseball spelling it out. If not, they wouldn't have had to hide and lie about their using.

    McGwire is a great first test, because he was the biggest fraud. You can argue that Barry Bonds had Hall of Fame talent without drugs. McGwire without the drugs was Dave Kingman. He's a guy who played full season--likely before he started to cheat--and batted .201. He was probably on his way out of baseball in his late 20s. The only thing that makes him noteworthy are the home runs. And the home runs are a product of the drugs. In his 30s, he suddenly became a guy having 70 home run seasons. Most of the voters realize this, which is why he's going to get only 30 percent of the votes.
     
  10. shotglass

    shotglass Guest

    You're missing the part where if you keep some of them out without concrete evidence, you'd better keep the rest of them out. You're thinking that the "any reasonable person" test is good enough. It is not.
     
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Why isn't the "any reasonable person" test good enough? This is the Hall of Fame, not a court of law. Logic and reason seem like great standards.
     
  12. Playing God is a bit over the top. What you are trying to avoid is playing the steroids police. I've seen others take this tact of "that ain't my job" yet these same writers will complain about everything else MLB does.

    MLB sets the schedules and like clockwork the "not enough World Series day games for the children" articles come out like clockwork. Well guess what - that's not your job either. Stop complaining because by your rationale - you aren't the schedule police either.

    New ballpark - no complaints from you. You aren't an architect and you aren't the style and dimensions police.

    New rule - no complaining there either. You aren't the rules police. Not your job mang.

    Just give up on complaining about everything if you are going to cop out with the "not my job" bullshit. If this job has just come down to considering "his statistics without prejudice" then screw the BWAA and just hand the job over to a fucking computer. At least the computer won't try to sneak in a vote for Dante Bichette.

    Strap on a pair of balls and vote like a man. Like a man who has eyes to see and a brain that can handle common sense.

    [Anger not directed at Michael Gee but at the attitude that steroids aren't my problem to deal with crapola]
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page