Should McGwire be elected to the HOF next year?

[Monco]

No, not a first ballot.Power stats in the 90's are inflated.500 hr's cannot be the bar for players from that era.

[The Voice of Reason]

Dylan Pery of Fox wanted this added to our discussing reagrding Mr. McGwire. Excerpts from article primarily on Bonds.

 

K-town - Your thoughts?

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5511388

 

 

Of course, this issue isn't confined to the Giants' slugger. Any such discussion must involve McGwire, whose cowardly performance before Congress should not be forgotten. If the issue of steroids and the Hall of Fame gets conflated over time with Bonds and only Bonds, then it's an objectively racist turn of events.

 

McGwire may not have had a muckraking (and lest those in power tell you otherwise, "muckraking" is not a pejorative) book written about him; but, over the years, his body changes and performance spikes are only modestly less striking than Bonds' by some. If McGwire escapes comparable ridicule and punitive measures, it's a disservice to the game. That's why it's vital for MLB's already dubious steroids probe to stretch deeply into the past.

 

Vote no for Bonds. Vote no for McGwire. Vote no for any player who similarly ran afoul of what sensible fans regard as fair play.

[gus_dog]

Do you think his Congressional Hearing made his chances even slimmer to be a first ballot HOF'er or do you think he was "doomed" before that.

 

If he had simply answered the questions while under oath instead of dodging them, we wouldn't even be having this discussion as he would be a first round lock.

 

Even if he told the truth (admitted steroid use)?

[rjchapma]

No. But if he gets in first ballot that means Sosa and Bonds are into first ballot.

[K-Town]

Dylan Pery of Fox wanted this added to our discussing reagrding Mr. McGwire. Excerpts from article primarily on Bonds.

 

K-town - Your thoughts?

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5511388

 

 

Of course, this issue isn't confined to the Giants' slugger. Any such discussion must involve McGwire, whose cowardly performance before Congress should not be forgotten. If the issue of steroids and the Hall of Fame gets conflated over time with Bonds and only Bonds, then it's an objectively racist turn of events.

 

McGwire may not have had a muckraking (and lest those in power tell you otherwise, "muckraking" is not a pejorative) book written about him; but, over the years, his body changes and performance spikes are only modestly less striking than Bonds' by some. If McGwire escapes comparable ridicule and punitive measures, it's a disservice to the game. That's why it's vital for MLB's already dubious steroids probe to stretch deeply into the past.

 

Vote no for Bonds. Vote no for McGwire. Vote no for any player who similarly ran afoul of what sensible fans regard as fair play.

 

 

Clearly a lazy reporter. If you want to find the juice on McGwire, then go look for it and show it to us (as San Fran reporters have done with Bonds), instead of just assuming that it's there.

 

If this reporter has something on McGwire, then I'll be happy to listen. Otherwise, McGwire is no more guilty than Tony Gwynn, Mark Grace, Cal Ripken, Roger Clemens, etc.

 

Mac is an easy target. That's what lazy reporters do....... they look for easy targets, and type what people want to hear. Bo-ring.

[Andy]

Dylan Pery of Fox wanted this added to our discussing reagrding Mr. McGwire. Excerpts from article primarily on Bonds.

 

K-town - Your thoughts?

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5511388

 

 

Of course, this issue isn't confined to the Giants' slugger. Any such discussion must involve McGwire, whose cowardly performance before Congress should not be forgotten. If the issue of steroids and the Hall of Fame gets conflated over time with Bonds and only Bonds, then it's an objectively racist turn of events.

 

McGwire may not have had a muckraking (and lest those in power tell you otherwise, "muckraking" is not a pejorative) book written about him; but, over the years, his body changes and performance spikes are only modestly less striking than Bonds' by some. If McGwire escapes comparable ridicule and punitive measures, it's a disservice to the game. That's why it's vital for MLB's already dubious steroids probe to stretch deeply into the past.

 

Vote no for Bonds. Vote no for McGwire. Vote no for any player who similarly ran afoul of what sensible fans regard as fair play.

 

 

Clearly a lazy reporter. If you want to find the juice on McGwire, then go look for it and show it to us (as San Fran reporters have done with Bonds), instead of just assuming that it's there.

 

If this reporter has something on McGwire, then I'll be happy to listen. Otherwise, McGwire is no more guilty than Tony Gwynn, Mark Grace, Cal Ripken, Roger Clemens, etc.

 

Mac is an easy target. That's what lazy reporters do....... they look for easy targets, and type what people want to hear. Bo-ring.

Yeah, Mac's way too easy a target. You know what a sportswriter should do? Write an article accusing Augie Ojeda of steroid use and say they'll never vote for him in the HOF. THEN I'll listen. But Mac's just way too easy a target.

[K-Town]

Dylan Pery of Fox wanted this added to our discussing reagrding Mr. McGwire. Excerpts from article primarily on Bonds.

 

K-town - Your thoughts?

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5511388

 

 

Of course, this issue isn't confined to the Giants' slugger. Any such discussion must involve McGwire, whose cowardly performance before Congress should not be forgotten. If the issue of steroids and the Hall of Fame gets conflated over time with Bonds and only Bonds, then it's an objectively racist turn of events.

 

McGwire may not have had a muckraking (and lest those in power tell you otherwise, "muckraking" is not a pejorative) book written about him; but, over the years, his body changes and performance spikes are only modestly less striking than Bonds' by some. If McGwire escapes comparable ridicule and punitive measures, it's a disservice to the game. That's why it's vital for MLB's already dubious steroids probe to stretch deeply into the past.

 

Vote no for Bonds. Vote no for McGwire. Vote no for any player who similarly ran afoul of what sensible fans regard as fair play.

 

 

Clearly a lazy reporter. If you want to find the juice on McGwire, then go look for it and show it to us (as San Fran reporters have done with Bonds), instead of just assuming that it's there.

 

If this reporter has something on McGwire, then I'll be happy to listen. Otherwise, McGwire is no more guilty than Tony Gwynn, Mark Grace, Cal Ripken, Roger Clemens, etc.

 

Mac is an easy target. That's what lazy reporters do....... they look for easy targets, and type what people want to hear. Bo-ring.

Yeah, Mac's way too easy a target. You know what a sportswriter should do? Write an article accusing Augie Ojeda of steroid use and say they'll never vote for him in the HOF. THEN I'll listen. But Mac's just way too easy a target.

 

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

All this reporter did was write the same thing that's been written a gazillion times, and put his name on it. Big deal. If you want to give him the "Bonds treatment", then do the work and go find something juicy on McGwire, like reporters in San Francisco did with Bonds. If there's something to be found, then go find it. Otherwise, shut up about it. That's the way I feel.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

MCGWIRE BELONGS IN THE HALL OF FAME

 

He was putting up ridiculous numbers well before he went to STL.

[mjohnson71]

No. But if he gets in first ballot that means Sosa and Bonds are into first ballot.

 

And the opposite is true. If McGwire doesn't get in on the first ballot, then Sammy and Barry should be the same way.

[elconq05]

It's difficult to say someone shouldn't get into the hall of fame because of a substance that was readily available over-the-counter to anyone, and also wasn't banned by MLB.

 

Andro was a perfectly legal substance which, McGwire said, was used to help strengthen his bad back. Truth? I dunno.

 

If he used steroids, then no...no Hall of Fame for McGwire.

He may very well have used them, but nobody has ever proved he did.

 

I lost a lot of respect for him for what he did in front of Congress...but he didn't do anything wrong...he just looked bad. And that was after his playing days, so it shouldn't really factor in too much.

 

There are a lot of guys in the HOF (especially old-timers) that I don't have respect for...womanizers, drunks, cheaters, etc. But they are in the Hall, and sportswriters knew what they did back then...but their vote was based on their on the field performance.

[mjohnson71]

MCGWIRE BELONGS IN THE HALL OF FAME

 

He was putting up ridiculous numbers well before he went to STL.

 

I wonder how different this thread would be if McGwire had stayed in Oakland and done the same numbers? What uniform a person wore shouldn't matter in consideration of the HOF.

[K-Town]

No. But if he gets in first ballot that means Sosa and Bonds are into first ballot.

 

And the opposite is true. If McGwire doesn't get in on the first ballot, then Sammy and Barry should be the same way.

 

 

Sammy, McGwire, and Bonds are different players. Mac did things that Sosa didn't do. Bonds did things that Mac did do. Personally, I think that all 3 of them should go, but it should be based on the credentials........ not somebody's assumptions about what they did or didn't do. Although Sosa did get caught cheating, and Bonds is close to being busted, so that should be taken into account.

[SouthSideRyan]

Although Sosa did get caught cheating, and Bonds is close to being busted, so that should be taken into account.

 

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that.

 

For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al.

[K-Town]

Although Sosa did get caught cheating, and Bonds is close to being busted, so that should be taken into account.

 

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that.

 

For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al.

 

 

Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters?

 

If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying.

[SouthSideRyan]

Although Sosa did get caught cheating, and Bonds is close to being busted, so that should be taken into account.

 

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that.

 

For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al.

 

 

Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters?

 

If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying.

 

McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony)

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Didn't Canseco offer first hand testimony in his book that he witnessed McGwire using steroids?

 

Now, one can question the reliability of that testimony, but there is an "eye-witness" who claims to have seen mcGwire juicing.

[K-Town]

Didn't Canseco offer first hand testimony in his book that he witnessed McGwire using steroids?

 

Now, one can question the reliability of that testimony, but there is an "eye-witness" who claims to have seen mcGwire juicing.

 

Sure. I don't have a problem with a reporter saying "Canseco said........". If you readers want to believe Canseco, that's entirely their choice.

[K-Town]

Although Sosa did get caught cheating, and Bonds is close to being busted, so that should be taken into account.

 

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that.

 

For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al.

 

 

Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters?

 

If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying.

 

McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony)

 

 

The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Although Sosa did get caught cheating, and Bonds is close to being busted, so that should be taken into account.

 

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that.

 

For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al.

 

 

Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters?

 

If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying.

 

McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony)

 

 

The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless.

 

I'd say an eye-witness is pretty damning evidence.

[K-Town]

Although Sosa did get caught cheating, and Bonds is close to being busted, so that should be taken into account.

 

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that.

 

For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al.

 

 

Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters?

 

If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying.

 

McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony)

 

 

The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless.

 

I'd say an eye-witness is pretty damning evidence.

 

Some are, and some aren't. Witness credibility should be taken into account. I could say that I snorted cocaine with Roger Clemens, but that doesn't make it true.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Although Sosa did get caught cheating, and Bonds is close to being busted, so that should be taken into account.

 

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that.

 

For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al.

 

 

Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters?

 

If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying.

 

McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony)

 

 

The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless.

 

I'd say an eye-witness is pretty damning evidence.

 

Some are, and some aren't. Witness credibility should be taken into account. I could say that I snorted cocaine with Roger Clemens, but that doesn't make it true.

 

True. But what makes Canseco not credible. He hit the nail on the head with Palmeiro, even down to getting the exact substance correct.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I think Canseco's book had more truth in it than most people are willing to concede. He seemed to be the foremost expert on using during his playing days, why wouldn't he know most of what he wrote? There is no doubt in my mind that McGwire was a user (even without what Canseco has said). Absolutely none.

 

And to give equal time, I am also convinced Sammy used as well.

[K-Town]

Although Sosa did get caught cheating, and Bonds is close to being busted, so that should be taken into account.

 

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that.

 

For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al.

 

 

Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters?

 

If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying.

 

McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony)

 

 

The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless.

 

I'd say an eye-witness is pretty damning evidence.

 

Some are, and some aren't. Witness credibility should be taken into account. I could say that I snorted cocaine with Roger Clemens, but that doesn't make it true.

 

True. But what makes Canseco not credible. He hit the nail on the head with Palmeiro, even down to getting the exact substance correct.

 

 

Maybe he's credible. I don't know. It's not really for me to decide. You obviously choose to believe him. The reporter obviously believes him. That's fine. I know that there were SEVERAL inconsistencies documented from his book. On a witness stand (which this isn't), that would probably be reason for a jury to question what he says. Like I said, believe what you want to.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Although Sosa did get caught cheating, and Bonds is close to being busted, so that should be taken into account.

 

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that.

 

For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al.

 

 

Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters?

 

If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying.

 

McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony)

 

 

The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless.

 

I'd say an eye-witness is pretty damning evidence.

 

Some are, and some aren't. Witness credibility should be taken into account. I could say that I snorted cocaine with Roger Clemens, but that doesn't make it true.

 

True. But what makes Canseco not credible. He hit the nail on the head with Palmeiro, even down to getting the exact substance correct.

 

 

Maybe he's credible. I don't know. It's not really for me to decide. You obviously choose to believe him. The reporter obviously believes him. That's fine. I know that there were SEVERAL inconsistencies documented from his book. On a witness stand (which this isn't), that would probably be reason for a jury to question what he says. Like I said, believe what you want to.

 

I'm glad I have your permission to believe what Iwant. Thanks.

Edited April 19, 2006 by vance_the_cubs_fan

[K-Town]

I think Canseco's book had more truth in it than most people are willing to concede. He seemed to be the foremost expert on using during his playing days, why wouldn't he know most of what he wrote? There is no doubt in my mind that McGwire was a user (even without what Canseco has said). Absolutely none.

 

 

He may have used steroids. Althoug if he were using steroids, I'm not sure why he would have needed the Andro. Heck, a large percentage of players from that era were probably users. We'll never be able to know for sure who was and who wasn't.