Ortiz, ManRam tested positive in 2003?

If his name is not on the list (and I don't think it's likely), are Mike Mussina's numbers more impressive and more worthy for HOF consideration?

 

Then, BBWAA will have to be eliminated as voters.

And, Rose HAS to be in now.

 

If Pete Rose had plowed into a family of four driving 100 mph and not bet on his own team to win games, he would be in the Hall of Fame today

 

Damn good point.

 

Amen. Release the list so we can deal with it and move on.

 

Technically, isn't it "illegal" to release the list?

 

Well, yes, but why let little things like legal responsibility to your clients get in the way of expediency?

 

- What a glorious day. On Ortiz, I knew it, and I love how he was so vocal about it.

- This now clearly taints both of their titles, while '96 & 98 are both clean. In my fanboi world, I would argue that the other 2 are also untainted, as Clemens was not a necessary ingredient to either team, and only hitched a ride for the ring (yes, I hated him even when he was a Yankee).

- Not everyone was doing it, 103 people were. I would put those who were clearly great enough in (Manny, Arod, Bonds, Clemens, probably Pudge & Piazza too). Those whose career made it seem like the juice is what made them who they were (McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, maybe Pudge & Piazza), I'm not sure of. Pettite & Ortiz weren't making it anyway.

- The only name left I want to see is Schilling.

 

Can we please stop with this ridiculous argument.

It is illegal. The players were promised they would not be released as a condition for taking the test. The law means something here. So does the word given to the players, even though some of them were doing something wrong.

And we won't just deal with it and move on. You really think releasing the names will clear everybody else? it won't. Releasing the names won't make it go away. We're stuck with this stupid story and it is going to keep coming up for a long time.

 

Well, you got the fanboy part right. Sorry Guy. There were cheats all over the place. You can try to convince yourself otherwise, but with so many players cheating, the idea that any championships during the steroid era are more tainted than others is ridiculous. It was ridiculous when people made that accusation against the Yankees and now it is just as ridiculous when you toss it at the Red Sox.

 

I placed my fanboi disclaimer strategically. I consider 96 & 98 clean unless I am shown otherwise. Who on those teams do you think was dirty?

Also, I find it shocking that Mitchell couldn't figure this out. Any theories?

 

Oh, I'm with you on the Mitchell thing. At the very least, putting him in that role created the perception of bias.

I stand by my statement. Declaring any championship in the steroid era to be either clean or tainted is naive at best.