Should McGwire be elected to the HOF next year?

[CubinNY]

McGuire and Bonds should not get in the HOF, although a case could be made that Bonds could get in on his Pittsburgh career alone.

 

If they do get in, I hope the opening line on their plaque reads, "played during the steriod era".

[The Voice of Reason]

You are right, it was nothing more then propoganda. However, I don't believe baseball would have changed anything if not pressured by Congress. It was a chance for some big named politician to make a bigger name for themselves, but it helped clean up the game.

 

I also understand that Andro was legal during this time. Mac openly admitted to using it. Then why wouldn't he come out and say that he didn't take steroids and that the muscle was gained from Andro.

 

 

Baseball didn't need to embarrass ex-baseball players in order to help. They could have helped without hand-picking big-name players, and dragging them through the mud. If they needed names, then why wasn't Clemens there? Why wasn't Bonds? Why wasn't Bagwell? Why wasn't Pujols?

 

They had an easy target for their mud-slinging mission. McGwire fit into their agenda, so they used him. It was a farce.

 

As for Andro........ he wasn't asked about it. And, he wasn't there to play Congress' little games. And he didn't.

 

 

K-Town - You are wasting way too much time with your McGwire conspiracy/persecution theory. Shouldn't you be out trying to help OJ find the "real" killer?

[treebird]

if you have premium and make good use of the ignore list, this thread is hilarious because you can't figure out why it's still going because everyone is really making a lot of sense and appears to agree.

[K-Town]

You are right, it was nothing more then propoganda. However, I don't believe baseball would have changed anything if not pressured by Congress. It was a chance for some big named politician to make a bigger name for themselves, but it helped clean up the game.

 

I also understand that Andro was legal during this time. Mac openly admitted to using it. Then why wouldn't he come out and say that he didn't take steroids and that the muscle was gained from Andro.

 

 

Baseball didn't need to embarrass ex-baseball players in order to help. They could have helped without hand-picking big-name players, and dragging them through the mud. If they needed names, then why wasn't Clemens there? Why wasn't Bonds? Why wasn't Bagwell? Why wasn't Pujols?

 

They had an easy target for their mud-slinging mission. McGwire fit into their agenda, so they used him. It was a farce.

 

As for Andro........ he wasn't asked about it. And, he wasn't there to play Congress' little games. And he didn't.

 

 

K-Town - You are wasting way too much time with your McGwire conspiracy/persecution theory. Shouldn't you be out trying to help OJ find the "real" killer?

 

 

 

:?: :?: :?:

 

I don't get it.

[The Voice of Reason]

You are right, it was nothing more then propoganda. However, I don't believe baseball would have changed anything if not pressured by Congress. It was a chance for some big named politician to make a bigger name for themselves, but it helped clean up the game.

 

I also understand that Andro was legal during this time. Mac openly admitted to using it. Then why wouldn't he come out and say that he didn't take steroids and that the muscle was gained from Andro.

 

 

Baseball didn't need to embarrass ex-baseball players in order to help. They could have helped without hand-picking big-name players, and dragging them through the mud. If they needed names, then why wasn't Clemens there? Why wasn't Bonds? Why wasn't Bagwell? Why wasn't Pujols?

 

They had an easy target for their mud-slinging mission. McGwire fit into their agenda, so they used him. It was a farce.

 

As for Andro........ he wasn't asked about it. And, he wasn't there to play Congress' little games. And he didn't.

 

 

K-Town - You are wasting way too much time with your McGwire conspiracy/persecution theory. Shouldn't you be out trying to help OJ find the "real" killer?

 

 

 

:?: :?: :?:

 

I don't get it.

 

You have as much of a chance of proving your wacky congressional conspiracy theory against McGwire as OJ has in finding the"real" killer, ie., none.

 

Give Congress credit for forcing baseball (against it's will) to adopt a reasonable steroid policy and quit trying to make a martyr of out of McGwire. He made his own bed now he can deal with the consequences.

[K-Town]

You have as much of a chance of proving your wacky congressional conspiracy theory against McGwire as OJ has in finding the"real" killer, ie., none.

 

Give Congress credit for forcing baseball (against it's will) to adopt a reasonable steroid policy and quit trying to make a martyr of out of McGwire. He made his own bed now he can deal with the consequences.

 

 

So now we're going to compare a double-murder case to a game of baseball? Interesting, but OK.

 

I never said it was a "Congrssional conspiracy". I said it was a propoganda stunt. If you don't believe it was, then you're in the minority.

 

McGwire retired in 2001. What does he have to do with cleaning up the game TODAY?

 

It would be like the moderators of this message board saying "I'm going to clean up this message board, and I'm going to start by asking TheVoiceOfReason if he made any inappropriate posts back in 2001". Frankly, there's no connection, and nothing to gain from it.

[The Voice of Reason]

K-town wrote:

 

It would be like the moderators of this message board saying "I'm going to clean up this message board, and I'm going to start by asking TheVoiceOfReason if he made any inappropriate posts back in 2001". Frankly, there's no connection, and nothing to gain from it.

 

Sorry K-town - "I'm not here to talk about the past" - because like McGwire, I have a lot to hide. :wink:

[K-Town]

K-town wrote:

 

It would be like the moderators of this message board saying "I'm going to clean up this message board, and I'm going to start by asking TheVoiceOfReason if he made any inappropriate posts back in 2001". Frankly, there's no connection, and nothing to gain from it.

 

Sorry K-town - "I'm not here to talk about the past" - because like McGwire, I have a lot to hide. :wink:

 

 

I wasn't referring to McGwire's response. Basically, I was saying that it doesn't make any sense to question him about solving the steroid problem in 2005. He retired 4 years ago. He was there for a Congressional pony show, and I don't blame him for being offended by it.

[The Voice of Reason]

](*,)

[K-Town]

](*,)

 

:roll:

[The Voice of Reason]

As usual, Wojo is right on the money.

 

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2298560

 

Summary

 

I wouldn't let McGwire within a solar system of my No. 2 pencil, not until he quits hiding behind the law firm of, I'm Not Here To Talk About The Past & Associates.

 

That's what he said last March during his testimony -- if you can call it that -- before the House Government Reform Committee. When asked repeatedly if he had used steroids, McGwire answered, "I'm not here to talk about the past." It was as if the phrase were pine-tarred to his vocal cords.

 

Other McGwire reliables included: "My lawyer has advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family and myself." And: "Like I've said earlier, I'm not going to go in the past and talk about my past. I'm here to make a positive influence on this."

 

But entry into the Hall of Fame is determined exactly by what McGwire fears the most: the past. The past is where his 583 career home runs reside. The past is where he broke Roger Maris' single-season home run record. The past is where he took the then-legal Androstenedione, and who knows what else. Whatever he took, McGwire was so terrified to talk about those substances last March that he humiliated himself in front of a congressman from St. Louis, and did so on national television.

[Andy]

Wojo is one of ESPN.com's two or three best writers.

[K-Town]

As usual, Wojo is right on the money.

 

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2298560

 

Summary

 

I wouldn't let McGwire within a solar system of my No. 2 pencil, not until he quits hiding behind the law firm of, I'm Not Here To Talk About The Past & Associates.

 

That's what he said last March during his testimony -- if you can call it that -- before the House Government Reform Committee. When asked repeatedly if he had used steroids, McGwire answered, "I'm not here to talk about the past." It was as if the phrase were pine-tarred to his vocal cords.

 

Other McGwire reliables included: "My lawyer has advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family and myself." And: "Like I've said earlier, I'm not going to go in the past and talk about my past. I'm here to make a positive influence on this."

 

But entry into the Hall of Fame is determined exactly by what McGwire fears the most: the past. The past is where his 583 career home runs reside. The past is where he broke Roger Maris' single-season home run record. The past is where he took the then-legal Androstenedione, and who knows what else. Whatever he took, McGwire was so terrified to talk about those substances last March that he humiliated himself in front of a congressman from St. Louis, and did so on national television.

 

This writer is obviously angry that Mac didn't give him a juicy story to write last March.

 

He also doesn't understand his own logic. Mac didn't say "I refuse to talk about the past". He said I'm not here to talk about the past, meaning that he wasn't going to play the little Congressional propoganda game.

 

When every other HOF candidate is scrutinized the same way, then Wojciechowski can make this argument. Until then, it's flawed logic....... and the only people who can follow it are the ones that are desperate to take a shot a Mac, regardless of how silly it sounds.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

This writer is obviously angry that Mac didn't give him a juicy story to write last March.

 

He also doesn't understand his own logic. Mac didn't say "I refuse to talk about the past". He said I'm not here to talk about the past, meaning that he wasn't going to play the little Congressional propoganda game.

 

When every other HOF candidate is scrutinized the same way, then Wojciechowski can make this argument. Until then, it's flawed logic....... and the only people who can follow it are the ones that are desperate to take a shot a Mac, regardless of how silly it sounds.

 

I think that every player who was a bulked up slugger from the steroid era will be held to such scrutiny. I think we will see that for many players (Bonds, Sosa, etc) where suspicion exists. Now will some players skip out on the scrutiny? Certainly. There are a number of players where the cloud has never hung over. Does that mean they were not users? No....but by nature of not having ever been suspected, they will avoid scrutiny. On the other hand, the eye of suspicion will be cast on a number of the players from this generation.

 

What is unique in McGwire's case is that he had a chance to speak his mind. He had a chance to give information and chose not to. Was he worried about prosecution? Was he worried he'd have to rat out team mates? We'll never know.

 

So, he didn't want to testify under oath. Why not hold a press conference and come clean now? Why not explain his testimony? Yes, K-Town, I know you'll say he doesn't have to. I know you'll say that to hold him to this level isn't fair. I know you'll say he doesn't want to be bothered.

 

All that may be true, but these voters want answers.

 

My guess is they'll want them from players who come after McGwire too. Surely, not all. But if you don't think this same debate will rage on five years after Sosa retires or Bonds or Sheffield or any other player with HOF stats that the cloud of suspicion has covered, you're wrong. I'm pretty certain it will. Will the voters believe those players denials? I don't know. But at least they will have those denials.

 

Will players like Gwynn, Ripken, Alomar, Biggio, Clemens, Frank Thomas, Griffey and others have to endure the same scrutiny? No. Simply because they have never been suspected or connected to the cloud of doubt in any substantial form.

[The Voice of Reason]

K-town wrote:

 

When every other HOF candidate is scrutinized the same way, then Wojciechowski can make this argument. Until then, it's flawed logic....... and the only people who can follow it are the ones that are desperate to take a shot a Mac, regardless of how silly it sounds.

 

The Voice wrote:

 

Doesn't seem to me that Wojo is picking only on poor Mac (see below). I guess if you can't defend (McGwire's) the message, you (K-Town) have to attack the messenger.

 

Wojo wrote:

 

I wouldn't vote for McGwire. I wouldn't vote for Sammy Sosa when he became eligible, not just because he suddenly forgot how to speak English at those congressional hearings, but because time has created more questions than answers about his career numbers (a 36-homer/34-stolen base guy in 1995, a 66/18 guy in '98, 64/0 in '01, a 14/1 guy in '05?). And I wouldn't vote for Barry Bonds, who uses the Ignorance Defense when it comes to steroid use. In short, he says he didn't know the "flaxseed oil" given to him by his trainer was really steroid cream.

[imb]

you've got to figure this quote thing out

[K-Town]

K-town wrote:

 

When every other HOF candidate is scrutinized the same way, then Wojciechowski can make this argument. Until then, it's flawed logic....... and the only people who can follow it are the ones that are desperate to take a shot a Mac, regardless of how silly it sounds.

 

The Voice wrote:

 

Doesn't seem to me that Wojo is picking only on poor Mac (see below). I guess if you can't defend (McGwire's) the message, you (K-Town) have to attack the messenger.

 

Wojo wrote:

 

I wouldn't vote for McGwire. I wouldn't vote for Sammy Sosa when he became eligible, not just because he suddenly forgot how to speak English at those congressional hearings, but because time has created more questions than answers about his career numbers (a 36-homer/34-stolen base guy in 1995, a 66/18 guy in '98, 64/0 in '01, a 14/1 guy in '05?). And I wouldn't vote for Barry Bonds, who uses the Ignorance Defense when it comes to steroid use. In short, he says he didn't know the "flaxseed oil" given to him by his trainer was really steroid cream.

 

I never said it's just about Mac. I think that he's treating Bonds & Sosa unfairly, also. (although Sosa got CAUGHT cheating, so his integrity is pretty much toast).

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Will players like Gwynn, Ripken, Alomar, Biggio, Clemens, Frank Thomas, Griffey and others have to endure the same scrutiny? No. Simply because they have never been suspected or connected to the cloud of doubt in any substantial form.

 

 

I haven't read the whole thread however does anyone on NSBB agree with this? I think it's pretty unfair and crazy, this whole thing is a witch hunt.

 

edit - Vance, I'm not saying you agree with this.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Will players like Gwynn, Ripken, Alomar, Biggio, Clemens, Frank Thomas, Griffey and others have to endure the same scrutiny? No. Simply because they have never been suspected or connected to the cloud of doubt in any substantial form.

 

 

I haven't read the whole thread however does anyone here agree with this? I think it's pretty unfair and crazy. I think it's fair to call this whole thing a witch hunt.

 

Fair or not, that's the reality. And it isn't just here, that's just the way life is.

 

There are reasons that certain players are suspected. Many writers believe, rightly or wrongly, that players who supplemented their careers with performance enhancing drugs, whether legal or not, do not belong in the HOF. So, when they encounter a player who they believe or suspect has done this, they are going to want answers before allowing that player admission.

 

It may not be fair, but it is reality. And yes, because some players were never suspected, they will get by with much less scrutiny.

[treebird]

K-town wrote:

 

When every other HOF candidate is scrutinized the same way, then Wojciechowski can make this argument. Until then, it's flawed logic....... and the only people who can follow it are the ones that are desperate to take a shot a Mac, regardless of how silly it sounds.

 

The Voice wrote:

 

Doesn't seem to me that Wojo is picking only on poor Mac (see below). I guess if you can't defend (McGwire's) the message, you (K-Town) have to attack the messenger.

 

Wojo wrote:

 

I wouldn't vote for McGwire. I wouldn't vote for Sammy Sosa when he became eligible, not just because he suddenly forgot how to speak English at those congressional hearings, but because time has created more questions than answers about his career numbers (a 36-homer/34-stolen base guy in 1995, a 66/18 guy in '98, 64/0 in '01, a 14/1 guy in '05?). And I wouldn't vote for Barry Bonds, who uses the Ignorance Defense when it comes to steroid use. In short, he says he didn't know the "flaxseed oil" given to him by his trainer was really steroid cream.

 

I never said it's just about Mac. I think that he's treating Bonds & Sosa unfairly, also. (although Sosa got CAUGHT cheating, so his integrity is pretty much toast).

 

i think part of the idea of this thread was that mcgwire's integrity was toast (because of his performance at the congressional hearing), so if all we have to do is say someone has been dishonest in the past in order to declare that they took steroids, i guess mcgwire is dead to rights.

 

seems like an awfully low standard of proof to me, though.

[K-Town]

Will players like Gwynn, Ripken, Alomar, Biggio, Clemens, Frank Thomas, Griffey and others have to endure the same scrutiny? No. Simply because they have never been suspected or connected to the cloud of doubt in any substantial form.

 

 

I haven't read the whole thread however does anyone on NSBB agree with this? I think it's pretty unfair and crazy, this whole thing is a witch hunt.

 

edit - Vance, I'm not saying you agree with this.

 

It's because guys like Mac and Sosa are easy targets. God forbid a guy like Wojo would have to go against the grain a little, or dig a little deeper. Just go with what the media has already convinced the public, rather than looking for NEW information

[K-Town]

Will players like Gwynn, Ripken, Alomar, Biggio, Clemens, Frank Thomas, Griffey and others have to endure the same scrutiny? No. Simply because they have never been suspected or connected to the cloud of doubt in any substantial form.

 

 

I haven't read the whole thread however does anyone here agree with this? I think it's pretty unfair and crazy. I think it's fair to call this whole thing a witch hunt.

 

Fair or not, that's the reality. And it isn't just here, that's just the way life is.

 

There are reasons that certain players are suspected. Many writers believe, rightly or wrongly, that players who supplemented their careers with performance enhancing drugs, whether legal or not, do not belong in the HOF. So, when they encounter a player who they believe or suspect has done this, they are going to want answers before allowing that player admission.

 

It may not be fair, but it is reality. And yes, because some players were never suspected, they will get by with much less scrutiny.

 

 

I have alot of trouble basing a guy's HOF eligibility on terms like "believe" and "suspect".

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Will players like Gwynn, Ripken, Alomar, Biggio, Clemens, Frank Thomas, Griffey and others have to endure the same scrutiny? No. Simply because they have never been suspected or connected to the cloud of doubt in any substantial form.

 

 

I haven't read the whole thread however does anyone on NSBB agree with this? I think it's pretty unfair and crazy, this whole thing is a witch hunt.

 

edit - Vance, I'm not saying you agree with this.

 

Well, as I said in my initial post in this thread, I'd reluctantly cast the vote for McGwire. I'd prefer the HOF isn't tainted with steroids, but with the information I have I can say conclusively (even though I do believe he did) that McGwire took performance enhancing drugs, just as I can't say it conclusively about Sosa or Juan Gonzalez or others. So, while I'd be reluctant to let those possibly "juiced" up players in, without more information, I'd go on numbers alone.

 

But as I just said earlier, fair or not...sometimes we have to deal with reality. Reality says if those that have suspicions surrounding them want any chance at the HOF, the best course is to provide as much info as possible.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Will players like Gwynn, Ripken, Alomar, Biggio, Clemens, Frank Thomas, Griffey and others have to endure the same scrutiny? No. Simply because they have never been suspected or connected to the cloud of doubt in any substantial form.

 

 

I haven't read the whole thread however does anyone here agree with this? I think it's pretty unfair and crazy. I think it's fair to call this whole thing a witch hunt.

 

Fair or not, that's the reality. And it isn't just here, that's just the way life is.

 

There are reasons that certain players are suspected. Many writers believe, rightly or wrongly, that players who supplemented their careers with performance enhancing drugs, whether legal or not, do not belong in the HOF. So, when they encounter a player who they believe or suspect has done this, they are going to want answers before allowing that player admission.

 

It may not be fair, but it is reality. And yes, because some players were never suspected, they will get by with much less scrutiny.

 

 

I have alot of trouble basing a guy's HOF eligibility on terms like "believe" and "suspect".

 

As do I...see my first post where I said I'd reluctantly cast the vote for McGwire.

 

But to some voters, that's all they need. In their minds, McGwire's testimony was an admission of guilt. Obviously, you see that differently as do many others. But to some, he had a chance under oath to at least state his own defense and didn't. Different people will take that to mean different things, but if more than 25% of the voters believe it to be a way of dodging the question, he'll miss enshrinement.

[CuseCubFan69]

I vote no. I don't like McGuires coward way out and if he was such a great hitter before the Roids why did he ever need them?