OT: Can we all agree to just be cool with PEDs?

[Moontan]

And that's why they shouldn't exclude these guys. Put an asterisk on them if you need to, but the fact is they are a HUGE part of baseball history and need to be in the Hall.

Some guys will lose out. I believe that Bonds (and probably Clemens) will eventually get in. I still believe that Hank Aaron should be atop the all time HR list. Deduct Bonds' HRs from the time the Balco stuff started, or his head exploded in size. It's fine to list his total under the explanation of his asterisk.

Sosa & McGwire are trickier... they will likely be left out. I don't know how well they did before they "exploded" as I was out of the continent for most of the 90s.

Are there guys that used and weren't detected? Yup.
Are there guys who may be suspected of using who did not? Possibly.

At some point there will be a generational change in the voters and there'll be a catch-up phase for the PED-era players that will allow them to get in. I don't mind if those players have to sweat it out an extra 5-10 years.

 

[timkay99]

I don't think anyone's pretending that things didn't take place.

People are still trying to put things into perspective and then figure out how to deal with them (records, HoF, etc.). There's no need to rush things. It's hard to remove people from a HoF. Methinks MLB HoF voters are being careful and don't want to make a mistake. 25-33% of the voters are in the "I don't give a " category and a similar number are in the "Hell no, they don't deserve to be inducted" category. The other 33-50% are unsure and are being careful. Time will allow things to settle... maybe.

In a similar fashion to Pete Rose, those that explicitly denied/lied about PED usage may not get in until they either admit the error of their ways or they die.

If 33 % of the voters are in the hell no category, then they will never get inducted... You need 75 % to be inducted in the baseball HOF.

 

[Moontan]

If 33 % of the voters are in the hell no category, then they will never get inducted... You need 75 % to be inducted in the baseball HOF.

For now... writers will retire and be replaced by younger, more forgiving, writers. Once they're a majority and contend that an injustice has been done, there'll be a cheat-era catch-up phase where several known users will get a shot at induction.

 

[timkay99]

For now... writers will retire and be replaced by younger, more forgiving, writers. Once they're a majority and contend that an injustice has been done, there'll be a cheat-era catch-up phase where several known users will get a shot at induction.

Do you understand how writers get the right to vote? They need to have covered baseball for 10 years as part of the BBWAA.

Writers don't retire, most keep the privilege until the day they die. So, even if young writers get in (and you assume that these new voters believe injustice has been done), it will take longer then 15 years for the numbers to balance out (the length of time a candidate appears on the ballot).

I can guarantee Barry Bonds will never be a Hall of Famer. The PED hurts, but most writers will not vote for him because he was an a$$hole.

 

[billsin01]

Bernie Williams is not a H of player, by any stretch, unless its in he dead ball era. Very good, not great.

Oh, I agree. But if you're not willing to vote for anyone who's even whispered about in terms of PEDs, then a guy who (supposedly) was totally clean was putting up those numbers against a bunch of dudes who (supposedly) gained a HUGE edge from all those PEDs you hate so much. That has to be worth something, particularly if it's combined with a .381 OBP, .858 OPS, excellent defense, four world championships and an .850 OPS in postseason. I mean, at the very least he should still be on the ballot for those guys taking a stand against PEDs, right? But if you don't like him, then edgar martinez or fred mcgriff make the point.

 

[Moontan]

Do you understand how writers get the right to vote? They need to have covered baseball for 10 years as part of the BBWAA.

Writers don't retire, most keep the privilege until the day they die. So, even if young writers get in (and you assume that these new voters believe injustice has been done), it will take longer then 15 years for the numbers to balance out (the length of time a candidate appears on the ballot).

I can guarantee Barry Bonds will never be a Hall of Famer. The PED hurts, but most writers will not vote for him because he was an a$$hole.

I understand all of this. I've already twice mentioned the case where if the writers feel that an injustice was done to the steroid-era players that they could have a process to give special consideration to the players affected. There have been several special committees over the years to take certain groups of individuals into consideration, the most recent of which was the Committee on African-American Baseball (2005-06). The 15 year rule goes out the window in such situations.

"Never" is a long time. Both Barry Bonds and Charlie Hustle will make it to Cooperstown at some point, possibly posthumously.

 

[dollarbill44]

Do you understand how writers get the right to vote? They need to have covered baseball for 10 years as part of the BBWAA.

Writers don't retire, most keep the privilege until the day they die. So, even if young writers get in (and you assume that these new voters believe injustice has been done), it will take longer then 15 years for the numbers to balance out (the length of time a candidate appears on the ballot).

I can guarantee Barry Bonds will never be a Hall of Famer. The PED hurts, but most writers will not vote for him because he was an a$$hole.

There are plenty of "a$$holes" in the HOF, so, I don't think that will be the reason he doesn't make it.

 

[baggerbob]

My question is how do you know that people already in the HOF didn't cheat, they played in that era? You still have to have the ability to play the game, throwing the ball, running , catching, being able to see and hit the ball. Anyone who played in that era, has to be considered as having used some type of substance to keep playing, or get through injuries.

 

[timkay99]

I understand all of this. I've already twice mentioned the case where if the writers feel that an injustice was done to the steroid-era players that they could have a process to give special consideration to the players affected. There have been several special committees over the years to take certain groups of individuals into consideration, the most recent of which was the Committee on African-American Baseball (2005-06). The 15 year rule goes out the window in such situations.

"Never" is a long time. Both Barry Bonds and Charlie Hustle will make it to Cooperstown at some point, possibly posthumously.

15 year rule stays in play. What you are referring to is the Veterans Committee. Veterans Committee takes up the voting process from the writers after 15 years. They are separated into 3 distinct eras (Pre-Integration, Golden, Expansion) and evaluate from there. Includes members from media, executives and current Hall of Famers as part of their vote. The Committee of African-American Baseball relayed what they thought was appropriate as the Veterans Committee dealt with that era.

Do you feel as confidently about Alex Rodriguez? I just don't share your optimism.

The most intriguing HOF vote (in regards to an individual) will be when Ken Griffey Jr. is eligible.

And, honestly, if a potential candidate dies after the age of 75, I would rather see their name taken off the ballot. Hall of Fame doesn't mean anything to these guys when they are dead.

My last comment on the matter is that we are about to see a logjam of candidates, meaning some very deserving players will be left out of the voting process by failing to get 5 % of the vote. Next year will be very interesting with how many potential Hall of Famers are there (Maddux, Glavine, Mussina, Luis Gonzalez, Frank Thomas) that if no one gets elected again next year, there is a HUGE problem entering 2015 (Nomar, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Gary Sheffield).

There are plenty of "a$$holes" in the HOF, so, I don't think that will be the reason he doesn't make it.

The combination of the 2 is the reason. While he tested positive for PED's, many feel he tainted the record books. The fact he is an a$$hole, as opposed to a guy like Andy Pettitte in the eyes of the media, leaves many people not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think Alex Rodriguez is going to have the same problem when he is eligible.

 

[sufandu]

Is that the argument?

Because there are numerous things that are both legal and illegal in this country that cause damage to the human body.

But, this country wants to focus on what the top 1 % body/health wise are doing and then vilify them for doing something that can increase their income from 400,000 a year to 9 million a year (as it relates to baseball)?

I have no problem with leagues having rules against them and testing for them.

But, you are aware that amphetamines are legal in the real world, but are considered PED's in the baseball world? If you are, just remember that your baseball HOF voter doesn't judging by how prevalent "greenies" were in the 80's and 90's and the double standard they have employed.

The argument is that many controlled substances that are considered PED's do undesirable things to the human body. I mentioned the liver as one thing that can be affected. Adding a substance to your body that is already at peak levels is not good. That's why HGH prescription is limited to the elderly and those with diseases that are causing them to waste away.

Not all amphetamines are legal, and the ones that are must be prescribed by a physician. Do you know for sure the use of amphetamines in MLB was done legally? There are many drugs that are legal under specific circumstances including anabolic steroids, HGH, amphetamines, etc. That doesn't mean healthy individuals should be using them.

 

[sufandu]

I beg to differ. Steve Bechler died from an over-the-counter dietary supplement -- it doesn't really get worse for you than death (if you don't understand that I don't know what to say). And ephedra was, of course, not illegal at the time. Link

And did you ever see the 60 Minutes piece about how little regulation their is of supplements -- they could literally contain anything? You can thank Orrin Hatch for that, as this link shows. I can't find the video but IIRC they literally had a guy make up a supplement and he had it packaged and selling in like 3 months. It was unreal.

I never mentioned ephedra. I mentioned protein shakes. So are you asserting that since someone died from an over the counter supplement (many think he took triple the recommended dose BTW) we should open the door to the rest of them? That's like saying we should legalize drinking and driving since people are going to do it anyway.

 

[sufandu]

Who's to say there aren't coaches saying that now?

Their probably are. Does that mean we should give them even more incentive to?

 

[sufandu]

There's something else that will remedy that boss situation - find a new job.

So rather than limit the abuse a boss has on someone, the person that is doing his job to the best of his abilities should have to make the change? That's a backwards assertion if I've ever heard it. Why can't we try and have ethics and hold people accountable, instead of letting a bully have his way?

 

[sufandu]

First, many PEDs are natural substances, certain anabolic steroids included
As for the ED drugs and PEDs - yes, I am comparing the two. Both are for enhancing recreational activities. And it's quite easy to find an MD to prescribe ED drugs for you with very little screening. You can also obtain them illegally if you can't get a doctor to write you a scrip. There are also other alternatives to the drugs, such as improving your health and circulation naturally, the same way they degraded in the first place. And contrary to your assertion, a lot of college and professional athletes are indeed getting their drugs from MDs either by prescription or otherwise and after full physical screens.

Like I said, it's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

If someone is obtaining anything legally from a physician and using it as the law allows, I have no problem with it. I'm pretty sure that's not what we've been talking about here. Any physician prescribing anabolic steroids to athletes, is doing so outside the law and is risking losing his license.

 

[texascpa]

So rather than limit the abuse a boss has on someone, the person that is doing his job to the best of his abilities should have to make the change? That's a backwards assertion if I've ever heard it. Why can't we try and have ethics and hold people accountable, instead of letting a bully have his way?

It's obvious you believe a business is there to serve labor; I believe labor is there to serve a business.

Look, if I own a business, and risk my time and capital, I should be able to run it the way I see fit. If you don't like my attitude, then you are free to leave. If my bad attitude starts sinking my business, then it's up to me to change or risk losing everything. there's nothing backwards about that.

 

[Knicks411]

Hank Aaron was taking greenies. But no one seems to care.

Count me as someone who just doesn't give a crap about this stuff.

 

[sufandu]

It's obvious you believe a business is there to serve labor; I believe labor is there to serve a business.

Look, if I own a business, and risk my time and capital, I should be able to run it the way I see fit. If you don't like my attitude, then you are free to leave. If my bad attitude starts sinking my business, then it's up to me to change or risk losing everything. there's nothing backwards about that.

I believe that labor is there to serve the business, but not in an unsafe manner. At one time people that thought labor should serve business with no restrictions found no problem with child labor.

 

[Knicks411]

To me the issue is I don't think things are black and white here. It seems like, to the general public, all of the banned substances are going to make your balls shrink and turn a 10 HR hitter into a guy who hits 35 HR a year, and everything that is allowed is pure as snow. I'm not a doctor or anything, but I really doubt it's that simple.

 

[billsin01]

I never mentioned ephedra. I mentioned protein shakes. So are you asserting that since someone died from an over the counter supplement (many think he took triple the recommended dose BTW) we should open the door to the rest of them? That's like saying we should legalize drinking and driving since people are going to do it anyway.

The point of the ephedra issue is not that you mentioned it, but that it was a legal, over-the-counter supplement the dude was taking and he died as a result of it. So my point is that people draw this hard and fast line between HGH and legal supplements. But since there are is so little regulation of the supplement issue (see Hatch, Orrin), few (none?) have any long-term testing (important even if you're claiming to be "all natural"), few provide accurate listings of ingredients and few offer accurate lists of claims/precautions. So while we all go nuts about HGH and the like, we have no problem with over-the-counter GNC type supplements -- yes, protein shakes included -- that in many cases are today's version of "snake oil."

And who cares about triple the dosage? You're OK with a product that may be OK if used properly but can kill you if you accidentally take too much? You want your kids taking that diet product Bechler was taking?

 

[billsin01]

Their probably are. Does that mean we should give them even more incentive to?

That's completely subjective since I think there are already crazed sports parents and coaches that encourage their kids/players to do all sorts of absurd stuff thinking, wrongly in almost all cases, that their kids will get a scholarship and/or earn a living playing sports. If your argument is that people take sports too seriously and risk their lives for no good reason, I'm in agreement. My only point is that if you want to take those risks, I really don't care about random stuff like record books, or halls of fame, or absurd notions of the "integrity of the game." And as for the kids -- if they want it, they'll find it. I'm not for pumping 12-year-olds full of HGH, but I'm just not convinced that pumping them full of legal supplements is that much better.

 

[sufandu]

The point of the ephedra issue is not that you mentioned it, but that it was a legal, over-the-counter supplement the dude was taking and he died as a result of it. So my point is that people draw this hard and fast line between HGH and legal supplements. But since there are is so little regulation of the supplement issue (see Hatch, Orrin), few (none?) have any long-term testing (important even if you're claiming to be "all natural"), few provide accurate listings of ingredients and few offer accurate lists of claims/precautions. So while we all go nuts about HGH and the like, we have no problem with over-the-counter GNC type supplements -- yes, protein shakes included -- that in many cases are today's version of "snake oil."

And who cares about triple the dosage? You're OK with a product that may be OK if used properly but can kill you if you accidentally take too much? You want your kids taking that diet product Bechler was taking?

I care about dosage because overdosing on even over the counter NSAIDS can kill you, and they HAVE been tested and approved by the FDA. You can't disregard dosage. You can't blame a substance for damage if it's used improperly. BTW, there's no way you triple the dose accidentally. As far as HGH etc. the government has determined it isn't safe or necessary for people in the demographic that makes up professional athletes, so why would I want them to take it?

I wouldn't recommend kids take ephedra. I don't know why you try and twist anything I've said to suggest anything of the sort. If fact, I don't even know how kids have suddenly entered into a debate about professional athletes.

It seems that you are suggesting, since athletes can take something that's legal to enhance their performance, they should also be allowed to take everything that's illegal too, safety be damned. If anything, shouldn't it be the opposite? If things that are currently legal over the counter are found to be dangerous, shouldn't they be controlled too?

 

[sufandu]

That's completely subjective since I think there are already crazed sports parents and coaches that encourage their kids/players to do all sorts of absurd stuff thinking, wrongly in almost all cases, that their kids will get a scholarship and/or earn a living playing sports. If your argument is that people take sports too seriously and risk their lives for no good reason, I'm in agreement. My only point is that if you want to take those risks, I really don't care about random stuff like record books, or halls of fame, or absurd notions of the "integrity of the game." And as for the kids -- if they want it, they'll find it. I'm not for pumping 12-year-olds full of HGH, but I'm just not convinced that pumping them full of legal supplements is that much better.

As I said in my other post, how have kids suddenly entered into this conversation? My comment was in regards to a professional coach potentially forcing illegal PED's on an athlete that wants no part in it. How are you reading more into that?

 

[billsin01]

I care about dosage because overdosing on even over the counter NSAIDS can kill you, and they HAVE been tested and approved by the FDA. You can't disregard dosage. You can't blame a substance for damage if it's used improperly. BTW, there's no way you triple the dose accidentally. As far as HGH etc. the government has determined it isn't safe or necessary for people in the demographic that makes up professional athletes, so why would I want them to take it?

I wouldn't recommend kids take ephedra. I don't know why you try and twist anything I've said to suggest anything of the sort. If fact, I don't even know how kids have suddenly entered into a debate about professional athletes.

It seems that you are suggesting, since athletes can take something that's legal to enhance their performance, they should also be allowed to take everything that's illegal too, safety be damned. If anything, shouldn't it be the opposite? If things that are currently legal over the counter are found to be dangerous, shouldn't they be controlled too?

Not at all. I'm saying the legal supplements aren't "safe" by any standard. That's the whole point of the ephedra discussion -- it was legal when Bechler died from it. So all those supplements that you defended in a previous post as being essentially completely different than HGH aren't proven to be safe by any stretch of the imagination.

But I guess all this is moot b/c I won't convince you and vice versa. But to me, if you tell a 25-year-old that a few cycles of HGH may take him from AAA to being a major league regular (plus all the perks that come with that) -- he's got to at least think about it. I mean how many people can truly say they'd look $10M in the face and spit at it?

 

[billsin01]

As I said in my other post, how have kids suddenly entered into this conversation? My comment was in regards to a professional coach potentially forcing illegal PED's on an athlete that wants no part in it. How are you reading more into that?

I must have misread.

 

[sufandu]

Not at all. I'm saying the legal supplements aren't "safe" by any standard. That's the whole point of the ephedra discussion -- it was legal when Bechler died from it. So all those supplements that you defended in a previous post as being essentially completely different than HGH aren't proven to be safe by any stretch of the imagination.

But I guess all this is moot b/c I won't convince you and vice versa. But to me, if you tell a 25-year-old that a few cycles of HGH may take him from AAA to being a major league regular (plus all the perks that come with that) -- he's got to at least think about it. I mean how many people can truly say they'd look $10M in the face and spit at it?

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree, but can I ask one thing? What were "all those supplements" that I defended earlier. I mentioned protein shakes and multivitamins. That was it. You brought up GNC and ephedra. I never mentioned ephedra or anything remotely related to it or in a similar category until you brought it up. Look back at our posts if you like. You'll see those are the only two legal things I specifically referenced that I wasn't against. I've never once heard anyone anywhere question the safety of protein shakes and multivitamins.