Should McGwire be elected to the HOF next year?

[UK1679666180]

The whole thing was a joke, I think it did lead to tougher testing and punishment, though. It won't be complete until they test for HGH and blood testing and they wanted to create an audience in congress.

 

No one would watch some minor leaguer that looks like he was cooked up in a lab.

 

I'm against the spectacle as well, but I don't they were treated unfairly in the process.

[K-Town]

How is he being treated unfairly? By being accused of taking steroids? By going in front of Congess?

 

I fail to see why he is being treated unfairly?

 

Has Bonds and Sosa been treated unfairly? What about Brady Anderson or Bret Boone?

 

Sosa was treated unfairly. So was Palmeiro.

 

 

The entire Congressional hearing was a farce. It was political propoganda. Why do you pick and choose players to question? Was it because of Canseco's book? Yeah, there's a credible source, with no agenda. Yeah right.

 

Well everyone attacked Canseco's credibility (myself included), it seems with Palmeiro, not only was he right, but he even named the right steroid in his book.

 

While there are many reasons to question Canseco's motives, it looks as if, at least in Palmerio's case, that he wasn't just blowing smoke.

 

I don't completely disagree with you. I think Canseco got a worse rap than he should have. But you don't call a random group of baseball players before Congress and berate them and embarrass them, based on nothing more than a book written by a guy with a clear agenda. They picked and chose who they wanted to question. It was a blatant case of political propoganda, and I don't blame McGwire for not playing their silly game.

[K-Town]

The whole thing was a joke, I think it did lead to tougher testing and punishment, though. It won't be complete until they test for HGH and blood testing and they wanted to create an audience in congress.

 

No one would watch some minor leaguer that looks like he was cooked up in a lab.

 

I'm against the spectacle as well, but I don't they were treated unfairly in the process.

 

It was unfair that they were drug into the process to begin with. I don't blame McGwire for being contrary about the whole thing. Congress' agenda was pretty clear (it was a publicity stunt), and Mac didn't give them the pleasure of twisting his words to mean what they wanted them to mean.

[The Voice of Reason]

The whole thing was a joke, I think it did lead to tougher testing and punishment, though. It won't be complete until they test for HGH and blood testing and they wanted to create an audience in congress.

 

No one would watch some minor leaguer that looks like he was cooked up in a lab.

 

I'm against the spectacle as well, but I don't they were treated unfairly in the process.

 

It was unfair that they were drug into the process to begin with. I don't blame McGwire for being contrary about the whole thing. Congress' agenda was pretty clear (it was a publicity stunt), and Mac didn't give them the pleasure of twisting his words to mean what they wanted them to mean.

 

It's very common to hold hearings before passing legislation. Bottom line - without intervention form Congress, Baseball would have done nothing about steroids. Congress deserve a lot of credit and all that "witchhunt" crap was a bunch of BS.

 

Big Mac (and eveyone else) knows that if he had denied using steroids (under oath), no one would be questioning his credibility today. It's obvious (at least to me), that his objective wasn't to teach Congress a lesson but to avoid a perjury investigation (ala Palmeiro).

[K-Town]

The whole thing was a joke, I think it did lead to tougher testing and punishment, though. It won't be complete until they test for HGH and blood testing and they wanted to create an audience in congress.

 

No one would watch some minor leaguer that looks like he was cooked up in a lab.

 

I'm against the spectacle as well, but I don't they were treated unfairly in the process.

 

It was unfair that they were drug into the process to begin with. I don't blame McGwire for being contrary about the whole thing. Congress' agenda was pretty clear (it was a publicity stunt), and Mac didn't give them the pleasure of twisting his words to mean what they wanted them to mean.

 

It's very common to hold hearings before passing legislation. Bottom line - without intervention form Congress, Baseball would have done nothing about steroids. Congress deserve a lot of credit and all that "witchhunt" crap was a bunch of BS.

 

Big Mac (and eveyone else) knows that if he had denied using steroids (under oath), no one would be questioning his credibility today. It's obvious (at least to me), that his objective wasn't to teach Congress a lesson but to avoid a perjury investigation (ala Palmeiro).

 

You can't possibly be serious. You think that since Sammy Sosa denied using steroids under oath, that nobody questions his credibility??

 

I don't have a major problem with Congress intervening. They didn't need to drag players through the mud on a public forum in order to help. And if they're going to question players, then why only question a handful of hand-picked players?

 

It was a joke.

[The Voice of Reason]

The whole thing was a joke, I think it did lead to tougher testing and punishment, though. It won't be complete until they test for HGH and blood testing and they wanted to create an audience in congress.

 

No one would watch some minor leaguer that looks like he was cooked up in a lab.

 

I'm against the spectacle as well, but I don't they were treated unfairly in the process.

 

It was unfair that they were drug into the process to begin with. I don't blame McGwire for being contrary about the whole thing. Congress' agenda was pretty clear (it was a publicity stunt), and Mac didn't give them the pleasure of twisting his words to mean what they wanted them to mean.

 

It's very common to hold hearings before passing legislation. Bottom line - without intervention form Congress, Baseball would have done nothing about steroids. Congress deserve a lot of credit and all that "witchhunt" crap was a bunch of BS.

 

Big Mac (and eveyone else) knows that if he had denied using steroids (under oath), no one would be questioning his credibility today. It's obvious (at least to me), that his objective wasn't to teach Congress a lesson but to avoid a perjury investigation (ala Palmeiro).

 

You can't possibly be serious. You think that since Sammy Sosa denied using steroids under oath, that nobody questions his credibility??

 

I don't have a major problem with Congress intervening. They didn't need to drag players through the mud on a public forum in order to help. And if they're going to question players, then why only question a handful of hand-picked players?

 

It was a joke.

 

 

Sammy's statement was craftily written by his lawyer to "appear' to be a denial but at the same time protect him from perjury charges - go back and read it.

 

If they brought in 100 players, then guys like you would comply about what a waste of $ two weeks of hearings were. They had to pick high profile guys who BTW were for the most part treated with kid gloves.

 

Seeing Selig and Fehr squirm when they had to "try to" answer tough questions for once was highly entertaining and worthwhile. Sure there was grandstanding, there always is - check out the Alito hearings.

[K-Town]

 

Sammy's statement was craftily written by his lawyer to "appear' to be a denial but at the same time protect him from perjury charges - go back and read it.

 

If they brought in 100 players, then guys like you would comply about what a waste of $ two weeks of hearings were. They had to pick high profile guys who BTW were for the most part treated with kid gloves.

 

Seeing Selig and Fehr squirm when they had to "try to" answer tough questions for once was highly entertaining and worthwhile. Sure there was grandstanding, there always is - check out the Alito hearings.

 

McGwire's statement was basically an advisory from HIS attorney, also.

 

Why is what Sosa did any better or worse than what McGwire did?

 

Why wasn't Bonds required to be there? Why wasn't Clemens required to be there?

 

The players were hand-picked for nothing more than propoganda purposes, and that's not fair. I'm glad McGwire chose not to be a freak in their little circus. People don't like it, but sometimes you have to go against the grain. Frankly, I don't think McGwire gives a rat's nose what people think, including Congress. And if the HOF voters are going to judge him on that mockery of a hearing, then I'll bet he doesn't care what THEY think, either.

[The Voice of Reason]

K-Town wrote

 

 

Sammy's statement was craftily written by his lawyer to "appear' to be a denial but at the same time protect him from perjury charges - go back and read it.

 

If they brought in 100 players, then guys like you would comply about what a waste of $ two weeks of hearings were. They had to pick high profile guys who BTW were for the most part treated with kid gloves.

 

Seeing Selig and Fehr squirm when they had to "try to" answer tough questions for once was highly entertaining and worthwhile. Sure there was grandstanding, there always is - check out the Alito hearings.

 

 

Why is what Sosa did any better or worse than what McGwire did?

 

In my opinion, he didn't and there was a lot of justified criticism of Sosa's "performance" in print, sports talk radio, etc. as well.

 

Did McGwire ever follow up on his promises to have his foundation contribute to steroid research?

 

Do you honestly think McGwire never did steroids despite all the (admittedly) circumstantial evidence saying otherwise? If you do, I have some swamp land in Florida I'd like you to look at.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Tim Kurkijan was on Charlie Steiner's "The Beat" on XM 175 today. During the discussion, the McGwire/HOF issue was bandied about. Kurkijan said that unless more information comes out, he would vote for McGwire, but based on his discussions with other writers, he guesses McGwire will not be elected on the first ballot, if ever.

[gus_dog]

There are lies of comission, and lies of omission. McGwire's lack of forthright could be (and is) considered by many as a lie of omission. i.e. If I don't say anything substantive, is it really a lie? To that question I answer yes.

 

Too much cloudiness there for him to be a first ballot guy, but I would probably vote for him.

 

 

 

By that reasoning, every player who has never answer the "steroid question" before a Congressional committee is a liar. That's faulty logic.

 

When every other player in baseball is scrutinized the way Mac was and is, then you can criticize him. Until then, he's being treated unfairly.

 

If you dance around a subject such as he did, people will assume you have something to hide. It's part of human nature.

 

Not that I disagree with you, but people, in general, can and will be very unfair.

[CubinNY]

 

Sammy's statement was craftily written by his lawyer to "appear' to be a denial but at the same time protect him from perjury charges - go back and read it.

 

If they brought in 100 players, then guys like you would comply about what a waste of $ two weeks of hearings were. They had to pick high profile guys who BTW were for the most part treated with kid gloves.

 

Seeing Selig and Fehr squirm when they had to "try to" answer tough questions for once was highly entertaining and worthwhile. Sure there was grandstanding, there always is - check out the Alito hearings.

 

McGwire's statement was basically an advisory from HIS attorney, also.

 

Why is what Sosa did any better or worse than what McGwire did?

 

Why wasn't Bonds required to be there? Why wasn't Clemens required to be there?

 

The players were hand-picked for nothing more than propoganda purposes, and that's not fair. I'm glad McGwire chose not to be a freak in their little circus. People don't like it, but sometimes you have to go against the grain. Frankly, I don't think McGwire gives a rat's nose what people think, including Congress. And if the HOF voters are going to judge him on that mockery of a hearing, then I'll bet he doesn't care what THEY think, either.

 

This thread is not about what Sosa or anyone else did or did not say. When Sammy and the othes come up for induction we can have this conversation.

[Abe Frohman]

I can't stomach hearing the excuses for Mark McGwire. Sometimes, you just have to realize that the absolute truth will NEVER be evident.

 

If Mark McGwire is a Hall of Famer, the HOF is crap.

 

Don't call me biased, because Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, and several others - in my opinion, are no better. All of the great records of this game have been comprimised, and I don't believe that this is a "innocent until proven guilty" situation.

 

This "steroid era" in unrepairable. You can only stop it with ZERO tolerance and try to rebuild the game. That is not happening. The Commisioner, owners, the Player's Union, and anyone in the know ALLOWED this to happen.

 

It has come to a head. Some people don't think it is that big of a deal. I do. To see Mark McGwire elected to the Hall of Fame would be a disgrace to Major League Baseball (which isn't saying much). It will be bad for the sport, and I don't think it should happen.

 

Not now.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I can't stomach hearing the excuses for Mark McGwire. Sometimes, you just have to realize that the absolute truth will NEVER be evident.

 

If Mark McGwire is a Hall of Famer, the HOF is crap.

 

Don't call me biased, because Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, and several others - in my opinion, are no better. All of the great records of this game have been comprimised, and I don't believe that this is a "innocent until proven guilty" situation.

 

This "steroid era" in unrepairable. You can only stop it with ZERO tolerance and try to rebuild the game. That is not happening. The Commisioner, owners, the Player's Union, and anyone in the know ALLOWED this to happen.

 

It has come to a head. Some people don't think it is that big of a deal. I do. To see Mark McGwire elected to the Hall of Fame would be a disgrace to Major League Baseball (which isn't saying much). It will be bad for the sport, and I don't think it should happen.

 

Not now.

 

If she floats, then she's a witch.....

[bhogg]

Anyone know what the lowest hit total for a HOFer is?

 

If McGwire gets in, he's bound to be close. He has something like 1646 hits.

 

That is amazing. That and the fact that almost 1 of every 3 hits went over the fence.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Bill Madden, in today's New York Daily News doesn't think Mac stand much of a chance next year.

 

Judging from several informal conversations among voting members of the Baseball Writers Association, the steroids issue poses a real dilemma - and will continue to do so for years to come - simply because, in the absence of any confessions, there is no concrete proof as to who was cheating his way to Hall of Fame numbers other than Rafael Palmeiro. In McGwire's case, his refusal to answer questions from Congress last summer about his alleged steroid use was tantamount to an admission of guilt and, I suspect, will be reflected in his vote total in next year's election. Prediction: He'll be lucky to get more than 40%. So much for 583 homers

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Even Bernie Miklasz doubts McGwire belongs.

 

McGwire had two choices:

 

1) Dig in, take a strong stand and back up his previous denials by insisting, once and for all, that he hit 583 homers without getting an illegal boost from steroids. Fight back against the whispers, the accusations, the innuendo and the stories told in Jose Canseco's book. And remind everyone that there's no hard evidence that he did use steroids.

 

2) Come clean and confess that he used steroids. Appeal to the court of public opinion, and begin the process of rehabilitating his image.

 

McGwire did neither as Miklasz points out.

 

And since McGwire is the Hall of Fame's first steroids test case, my belief is voters will want to reserve that day in Cooperstown for Gwynn and Ripken. The voters will want to keep the unpleasant, ugly steroids cloud away from the stage when Ripken and Gwynn stand to give their acceptance speeches.

 

Good points. I think not only will McGwire be hurt by the fact voters won't want to give a first ballot entry to someone who may be tainted, but they also won't want those allegations to take away from the enshrinement of Ripken and Gwynn.

 

McGwire wasn't ready to talk about his past, so he's transferred the power of the dialogue to others who gladly will talk about his past for him.

 

For the next 11 months, voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America will discuss McGwire's history, his possible use of steroids, and that disgraceful appearance before Congress.

 

And understand that this is no court of law. The rules of evidence don't apply. There are no lawyers, prosecutors, judges or a jury. When the 2007 ballots are sent out, no legal briefs will be attached arguing McGwire's case for him.

 

This is the only rule: The ballots arrive in the mail, and each of the 500 plus voters can vote as they wish, based on what they believe.

 

I'm a voter, and this is the first question I will ask when I deliberate my selections: If McGwire went before Congress under oath and refused to defend his career and stand up for his reputation, then why would I defend and validate his career by voting for him?

 

If a reporter in the heart of Cardinal Country feels this way, imagine how voters across the country will view it as well.

[K-Town]

Even Bernie Miklasz doubts McGwire belongs.

 

McGwire had two choices:

 

1) Dig in, take a strong stand and back up his previous denials by insisting, once and for all, that he hit 583 homers without getting an illegal boost from steroids. Fight back against the whispers, the accusations, the innuendo and the stories told in Jose Canseco's book. And remind everyone that there's no hard evidence that he did use steroids.

 

2) Come clean and confess that he used steroids. Appeal to the court of public opinion, and begin the process of rehabilitating his image.

 

McGwire did neither as Miklasz points out.

 

And since McGwire is the Hall of Fame's first steroids test case, my belief is voters will want to reserve that day in Cooperstown for Gwynn and Ripken. The voters will want to keep the unpleasant, ugly steroids cloud away from the stage when Ripken and Gwynn stand to give their acceptance speeches.

 

Good points. I think not only will McGwire be hurt by the fact voters won't want to give a first ballot entry to someone who may be tainted, but they also won't want those allegations to take away from the enshrinement of Ripken and Gwynn.

 

McGwire wasn't ready to talk about his past, so he's transferred the power of the dialogue to others who gladly will talk about his past for him.

 

For the next 11 months, voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America will discuss McGwire's history, his possible use of steroids, and that disgraceful appearance before Congress.

 

And understand that this is no court of law. The rules of evidence don't apply. There are no lawyers, prosecutors, judges or a jury. When the 2007 ballots are sent out, no legal briefs will be attached arguing McGwire's case for him.

 

This is the only rule: The ballots arrive in the mail, and each of the 500 plus voters can vote as they wish, based on what they believe.

 

I'm a voter, and this is the first question I will ask when I deliberate my selections: If McGwire went before Congress under oath and refused to defend his career and stand up for his reputation, then why would I defend and validate his career by voting for him?

 

If a reporter in the heart of Cardinal Country feels this way, imagine how voters across the country will view it as well.

 

Virtually every Cardinal fan in St. Louis (other than "The Faction) believes that Bernie is a stone-cold idiot. If the Cards won six World Series in a row, Bernie would whine because they didn't win seven.

 

How do we know that Gwynn and Ripken weren't using steroids? And why weren't they called before Congress? You can't just pick and choose whom you want to point the finger at. If it's the "steroid era", then look at EVERYONE.......... and if you're going to assume that SOME are guilty, then assume that they're all guilty.

 

Not to mention, what about the amphetamine era? What about the cocaine era? Why didn't we make assumptions during THOSE eras, to keep players out of the Hall?

[Derwood]

As long as people like Joe Morgan constitute the voting base, i doubt more than a handful of players outside of the 70's/80's get in in the next 10 years

[gus_dog]

Virtually every Cardinal fan in St. Louis (other than "The Faction) believes that Bernie is a stone-cold idiot. If the Cards won six World Series in a row, Bernie would whine because they didn't win seven.

 

How do we know that Gwynn and Ripken weren't using steroids? And why weren't they called before Congress? You can't just pick and choose whom you want to point the finger at. If it's the "steroid era", then look at EVERYONE.......... and if you're going to assume that SOME are guilty, then assume that they're all guilty.

 

Not to mention, what about the amphetamine era? What about the cocaine era? Why didn't we make assumptions during THOSE eras, to keep players out of the Hall?

 

K-Town, one day you may fall off that soapbox and hurt yourself.

 

Again, in a perfect world, you might be right, or just, or whatever. However, human nature being what it is, I believe that it will go down pretty much as vance articulated in his posts.

 

McGwire could have stood up and made statements similar to what Raffy said. Of course, since he is out of baseball, it could never be proven otherwise like Raffy.

 

This is essentially a public opinion (BBWA) poll, and in the court of public opinion, McGwire is guilty until proven innocent.

 

Is it just? No.

 

It is what it is.

[DesMoinesCub]

You honestly think Ripken and Gwynn MAY have taken steroids? Gwynn looks like he may have taken on a couple of things, but steroids? Ripken, the man who didn't sit out a game and steroids which may cause muscle tears, pulls, etc.

 

Neither Ripken or Gwynn suddenly turned into a freak of nature like McGwire or Caminitti. Throw Sosa, Palmeiro, Pudge in this category as well. It doesn't matter to me if they play for the Cubs or Cards, they are still accused juicers.

 

Was it right that they only called certain members of MLB to testify? Probably not, but if you are investigating a murder in a city, do you question everyone in the city, or people who were "close" to the crime. Congress went after the people they believed to be "close" to the crime.

 

McGwire had his chance to tell them what happened, and he didn't do it for whatever reason. If you think Mac was playing the game with Congress and didn't want to answer their questions out of spite, then shame on him. He did nothing to help baseball with the problems they (Congress) were trying to get rid of. If not for Congress, baseball would be exactly where it was before the hearings.

 

Call me a tradionalist, call me old fashioned, call me an idiot, but anyone who "cheats" the game should not be allowed in the Hall. Pete Rose isn't in, but he never "admitted" to betting on the Reds. Shoeless Joe isn't in, and by looking at his numbers the only thing he was guilty of doing in the Series is taking money, but not "blowing" the game.

 

Mac had his opportunity to come out and say he didn't do steroids, and he didn't do it. He could have cleared his name from it, but chose not to. It is not just Mac either, the same could be said when Bonds or Sosa are up for the Hall. However, that won't be for at least 5 more years.

 

Mac set the bar it terms of power hitters when he played and I think he'll set the bar in terms of alleged steroid users and the Hall of Fame as well.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

Virtually every Cardinal fan in St. Louis (other than "The Faction) believes that Bernie is a stone-cold idiot. If the Cards won six World Series in a row, Bernie would whine because they didn't win seven.

 

How do we know that Gwynn and Ripken weren't using steroids? And why weren't they called before Congress? You can't just pick and choose whom you want to point the finger at. If it's the "steroid era", then look at EVERYONE.......... and if you're going to assume that SOME are guilty, then assume that they're all guilty.

 

Not to mention, what about the amphetamine era? What about the cocaine era? Why didn't we make assumptions during THOSE eras, to keep players out of the Hall?

 

You may be right, but unfortunately that isn't how most sports writers feel. And they are the vote that will count.

 

If you read my first post in this thread, I stated I'd reluctantly cast a vote for McGwire unless something else comes out between now and then.

 

On the other hand, the feelings of Bernie are being felt from sportswriters across the country. Informal polls are showing that roughly 40-50 % will not vote Mac in next season.

 

As to Gwynn and Ripken using steroids...you could be right, but there's nothing to cast them under suspicion. With McGwire, there's a handful of circumstantial evidence that does. And when he was given an opportunity under oath to deny, it didn't. To a lot of people, that speaks volumes. Maybe you have another reasoning for it, but to many that reasoning doesn't hold.

 

Finally, I think one thing that I find incredibly ironic. In the congressional hearings, McGwire said he didn't want to talk about the past. Ok, let's forget the past. Then without the past, what has he done since the then to become a HOF? Nothing. We can't look at his 583 HRs or his playing record, because that too would be talking about the past. McGwire implored us to leave him alone and not discuss the past. Shouldn't we do just that? Therefore, to elect him to the HOF would be opening up the past, something McGwire himself has said we shouldn't do.

[baseball7897]

If Mark McGwire is elected to the Hall instead of a Bat next to his name there should be a needle.

[USSoccer]

minor point here, but wasn't androstiene legal in 1998 when he got "caught" with it?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

minor point here, but wasn't androstiene legal in 1998 when he got "caught" with it?

 

Yes, it was very much legal and he openly admitted using.

[USSoccer]

minor point here, but wasn't androstiene legal in 1998 when he got "caught" with it?

 

Yes, it was very much legal and he openly admitted using.

 

so people are basing their non-vote for McGwire on Canseco's book and the general increase in HR's during the 90's, coupled with his congressional statement, and through no basis of fact?