Re: Sosa tested positive in 2003 per NY Times

[Clem Fandango]

I guess nobody is free from suspicion now, but I think Frank Thomas was completely legit. He was a monster his entire career.

 

Jim Thome as well?

[jersey cubs fan]

I guess nobody is free from suspicion now, but I think Frank Thomas was completely legit. He was a monster his entire career.

thats true, and so was Manny Ramir...

 

wait that doesnt work

 

But Frank played college football in the SEC so we know he never had access to steroids as a young man.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If McGwire and Sosa don't get in eventually, the Hall has sealed its own irrelevance.

[SouthSideRyan]

If McGwire and Sosa don't get in eventually, the Hall has sealed its own irrelevance.

 

I'd change it to Bonds and Clemens.

[champaignchris]

Griffey

Thome

Thomas

McGriff

Delgado

Bagwell

Piazza

C. Jones

Galarraga

Guerrero

 

The steroid era guys with the most home runs yet to have been linked to steroids. All top 50 all-time HR hitters, all between HoF locks and someone who will at least get some HoF consideration. Is there any reason to believe that they weren't on roids?

 

104 guys tested positive. That's, on average, three or four on each team, and that's only the ones that got caught. Is there any reason not to believe that the actual number wasn't significantly higher.

 

Is there any way for a HoF voter to justify not voting for Sosa or McGwire and then voting for, say, Pudge Rodriguez or Jim Thome?

[SouthSideRyan]

104 guys tested positive. That's, on average, three or four on each team, and that's only the ones that got caught. Is there any reason not to believe that the actual number wasn't significantly higher.

 

Assuming you're talking about any PEDs(including those not tested for, i.e. HGH, undetectable steroids) then I see no reason to not believe it's significantly higher. That's without getting into PEDs that people don't care about(greenies, cocaine, whatever)

[Jehrico]

I guess nobody is free from suspicion now, but I think Frank Thomas was completely legit. He was a monster his entire career.

thats true, and so was Manny Ramir...

 

wait that doesnt work

 

But Frank played college football in the SEC so we know he never had access to steroids as a young man.

The guy with a desk in the same office as me grew up with Frank and went to high school with him. He was always big, even as a kid. He didn't suddenly bulk up in college or anything like that. That doesn't guarantee he didn't do it, but it should take away alot of whatever doubt there is.

[Jehrico]

A PED isn't necessarily a PED, and all of them shouldn't be counted the same. Technically, Red Bull could be considered performance enhancing. Hell, you can count coffee as performance enhancing. Knowingly taking a substance that is either a) banned by MLB or other world doping agencies, or b) illegal by federal law, for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage over others, is cheating. Not every performance enhancing substance fits into that, IMO.

[SouthSideRyan]

A PED isn't necessarily a PED, and all of them shouldn't be counted the same. Technically, Red Bull could be considered performance enhancing. Hell, you can count coffee as performance enhancing. Knowingly taking a substance that is either a) banned by MLB or other world doping agencies, or b) illegal by federal law, for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage over others, is cheating. Not every performance enhancing substance fits into that, IMO.

 

So which of red bull or coffee are banned by MLB or illegal by federal law?

 

Of course whatever Sosa tested positive for hasn't been released yet either...

[Rob]

A PED isn't necessarily a PED, and all of them shouldn't be counted the same. Technically, Red Bull could be considered performance enhancing. Hell, you can count coffee as performance enhancing. Knowingly taking a substance that is either a) banned by MLB or other world doping agencies, or b) illegal by federal law, for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage over others, is cheating. Not every performance enhancing substance fits into that, IMO.

 

So which of red bull or coffee are banned by MLB or illegal by federal law?

 

Of course whatever Sosa tested positive for hasn't been released yet either...

 

True... and I do wonder if it could simply be amphetamines. Sosa was actually linked to those in the past. Did the article say he tested positive for steroids, or a PED?

[SouthSideRyan]

A PED isn't necessarily a PED, and all of them shouldn't be counted the same. Technically, Red Bull could be considered performance enhancing. Hell, you can count coffee as performance enhancing. Knowingly taking a substance that is either a) banned by MLB or other world doping agencies, or b) illegal by federal law, for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage over others, is cheating. Not every performance enhancing substance fits into that, IMO.

 

So which of red bull or coffee are banned by MLB or illegal by federal law?

 

Of course whatever Sosa tested positive for hasn't been released yet either...

 

True... and I do wonder if it could simply be amphetamines. Sosa was actually linked to those in the past. Did the article say he tested positive for steroids, or a PED?

 

99% sure they didn't test for amphetamines in '03.

[CubbieBum]

Not surprised but I really liked being able to say that no evidence had ever come out so there is at least a chance he didn't cheat. One childhood hero gone.

[BigSlick]

LOL at the thought of 61 being the legitimate home run record, all because of steroids.

 

If you want to ignore the smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, the poor pitchers, and the possible juiced balls of the era be my guest.

 

But don't pretend that steroids were the only reason for increased home runs in the past 15 years.

[Larry Horse]

LOL at the thought of 61 being the legitimate home run record, all because of steroids.

 

If you want to ignore the smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, the poor pitchers, and the possible juiced balls of the era be my guest.

 

But don't pretend that steroids were the only reason for increased home runs in the past 15 years.

 

You're right.....it just so happened that a record that stood for 30+ years just happened to be obliterated by three players that were all on steroids. And in your mind an equal factor would be smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, poor pitchers and juiced balls?

 

If you want to ignore the obvious, be my guest.

[bcl412]

Knowing what I know about the history of baseball I just can't get outraged at guys who used steroids.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Griffey

Thome

Thomas

McGriff

Delgado

Bagwell

Piazza

C. Jones

Galarraga

Guerrero

 

The steroid era guys with the most home runs yet to have been linked to steroids. All top 50 all-time HR hitters, all between HoF locks and someone who will at least get some HoF consideration. Is there any reason to believe that they weren't on roids?

 

104 guys tested positive. That's, on average, three or four on each team, and that's only the ones that got caught. Is there any reason not to believe that the actual number wasn't significantly higher.

 

Is there any way for a HoF voter to justify not voting for Sosa or McGwire and then voting for, say, Pudge Rodriguez or Jim Thome?

 

Are we so sure Bagwell didn't use? or Chipper? or Piazza?

 

I'm not saying they did, and I certainly have no proof they did, but if anything, we should have learned that it could be anybody.

 

No one thought Arod was dirty until recently. I remember just a couple of years ago that people were saying at least when Arod passed Bonds, the HR record would be clean.

 

And with the HOF issue. If voters don't vote guys in who have been caught (Sosa, Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, etc), but vote in others that haven't been caught (Bagwell, C. Jones, Piazza), what happens if one of those who gets in is connected later? They can't vote them out. So, then would they have to go back and re-visit the ones they shut out.

 

What's clear to me is that Canseco's estimates of 75% of players using in some form may have been closer to the truth than hyperbole.

[SouthSideRyan]

LOL at the thought of 61 being the legitimate home run record, all because of steroids.

 

If you want to ignore the smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, the poor pitchers, and the possible juiced balls of the era be my guest.

 

But don't pretend that steroids were the only reason for increased home runs in the past 15 years.

 

You're right.....it just so happened that a record that stood for 30+ years just happened to be obliterated by three players that were all on steroids. And in your mind an equal factor would be smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, poor pitchers and juiced balls?

 

If you want to ignore the obvious, be my guest.

 

You want to ignore that Hank Aaron was a dirty cheater, let him ignore what he wants.

[UK1679666180]

Currently playing future HOF hitters that likely never used steroids IMO are Griffey, Thome, and possibly Pujols (Chipper Jones would likely be next on the list and maybe Ichiro if he keeps going).

 

Why?

 

I have some reservations about Pujols being clean but, if he was one of the 104 names, it would've been leaked.

 

And why?

 

Why do I think they never used steroids?

 

Their progression and body type never really changed, especially with Griffey and Thome, they both gained more mass throughout the years, but it was never muscle. Also, they never had jump in HRs after they established themselves.

 

As far as Pujols, there's still part of me that wonders how can he be so overlooked despite having played in front of all those scouts that they could misevaluate a bat that in 3 years would become the great rookie season bat of the greatest hitter since probably Ted Williams. His body isn't the same as it was JUCO as well.

[NonProfitCow]

Currently playing future HOF hitters that likely never used steroids IMO are Griffey, Thome, and possibly Pujols (Chipper Jones would likely be next on the list and maybe Ichiro if he keeps going).

 

Why?

 

I have some reservations about Pujols being clean but, if he was one of the 104 names, it would've been leaked.

 

And why?

 

Why do I think they never used steroids?

 

Their progression and body type never really changed, especially with Griffey and Thome, they both gained more mass throughout the years, but it was never muscle. Also, they never had jump in HRs after they established themselves.

 

As far as Pujols, there's still part of me that wonders how can he be so overlooked despite having played in front of all those scouts that they could misevaluate a bat that in 3 years would become the great rookie season bat of the greatest hitter since probably Ted Williams. His body isn't the same as it was JUCO as well.

I'm not going to be a homer, but Pujols was passed on because scouts thought he wasn't athletic enough and that his body was soft. Much like Strasburg between HS and college. Scouts miss all the time. His body isn't the same as when he was a JUCO player for obvious reasons. That was 11 years ago. Pujols easily could have been a juicer, nobody knows. But he's putting up numbers better than ever now, and is being tested. Now that testing is in place, it's seems pretty foolish to accuse guys who haven't tested positive as juicers.

[UMFan83]

LOL at the thought of 61 being the legitimate home run record, all because of steroids.

 

If you want to ignore the smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, the poor pitchers, and the possible juiced balls of the era be my guest.

 

But don't pretend that steroids were the only reason for increased home runs in the past 15 years.

 

Yet its strange that HR numbers went down sharply when they started to test for steroids.

[Outshined_One]

LOL at the thought of 61 being the legitimate home run record, all because of steroids.

 

If you want to ignore the smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, the poor pitchers, and the possible juiced balls of the era be my guest.

 

But don't pretend that steroids were the only reason for increased home runs in the past 15 years.

 

Yet its strange that HR numbers went down sharply when they started to test for steroids.

 

Only not. The new policy was handed down in 2005, but the differences in the home run rates pre-2005 and post-2005 are not particularly telling of anything, especially if you think of steroids as having flourished in baseball starting in the mid-90s. To say the numbers have gone down sharply is incorrect.

[UMFan83]

LOL at the thought of 61 being the legitimate home run record, all because of steroids.

 

If you want to ignore the smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, the poor pitchers, and the possible juiced balls of the era be my guest.

 

But don't pretend that steroids were the only reason for increased home runs in the past 15 years.

 

Yet its strange that HR numbers went down sharply when they started to test for steroids.

 

Only not. The new policy was handed down in 2005, but the differences in the home run rates pre-2005 and post-2005 are not particularly telling of anything, especially if you think of steroids as having flourished in baseball starting in the mid-90s. To say the numbers have gone down sharply is incorrect.

 

Yeah I couldn't find the stats before I posted that. What has gone down though is the number of HRs the top HR hitters are hitting. Hitting 40 HRs was almost a prerequesite to be called a power hitter a few years back. Now you might win a HR title with 40 HRs.

[Tracer Bullet]

Currently playing future HOF hitters that likely never used steroids IMO are Griffey, Thome, and possibly Pujols (Chipper Jones would likely be next on the list and maybe Ichiro if he keeps going).

 

Why?

 

I have some reservations about Pujols being clean but, if he was one of the 104 names, it would've been leaked.

 

And why?

 

Why do I think they never used steroids?

 

Their progression and body type never really changed, especially with Griffey and Thome, they both gained more mass throughout the years, but it was never muscle. Also, they never had jump in HRs after they established themselves.

 

As far as Pujols, there's still part of me that wonders how can he be so overlooked despite having played in front of all those scouts that they could misevaluate a bat that in 3 years would become the great rookie season bat of the greatest hitter since probably Ted Williams. His body isn't the same as it was JUCO as well.

I'm not going to be a homer, but Pujols was passed on because scouts thought he wasn't athletic enough and that his body was soft. Much like Strasburg between HS and college. Scouts miss all the time. His body isn't the same as when he was a JUCO player for obvious reasons. That was 11 years ago. Pujols easily could have been a juicer, nobody knows. But he's putting up numbers better than ever now, and is being tested. Now that testing is in place, it's seems pretty foolish to accuse guys who haven't tested positive as juicers.

 

Do you think the tests would find everything? Is it possible (or likely) that the drugs are a step ahead of the tests?

 

I have no idea whether Pujols has taken anything, but it seems a bit naive to think that the fact that he hasn't been caught is conclusive evidence that he is clean. Guys have been accused based on nothing more than what seems like unusual performance or body shapes in the past. I'm not sure why that should change now.

[fromthestretch]

LOL at the thought of 61 being the legitimate home run record, all because of steroids.

 

If you want to ignore the smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, the poor pitchers, and the possible juiced balls of the era be my guest.

 

But don't pretend that steroids were the only reason for increased home runs in the past 15 years.

 

You're right.....it just so happened that a record that stood for 30+ years just happened to be obliterated by three players that were all on steroids. And in your mind an equal factor would be smaller stadiums, smaller strike zones, poor pitchers and juiced balls?

 

If you want to ignore the obvious, be my guest.

 

The obvious, of course, being that hitters weren't the only ones on PEDs. A lot of pitchers were taking them, too, yet a lot of people continue to ignore that fact.

[kjfoster 1553]

On Mike & Mike earlier today they were talking about the baseball writers, the commish, and the HoF all getting together to come up with a set standard of how to (or not to) put these steroid era guys in the Hall. Some ideas they tossed out were using the infamous *, separate wing in the Hall for steroid era players, having a plaque at the entrance explaining the eras of baseball, etc.

 

The one issue they talked about was distinguishing between testing positive and having speculation surrounding you.

 

Tim Kuertkjen (no way that is spelled right) said he would vote everyone in. He didn't think it made sense that at the end of the day, the top two HR guys of all time (Bonds and ARod) along with 6 of the top 11 HR guys of all time weren't in the Hall. Also, who he says is arguably the greatest pitcher "any of us" have ever seen in Clemens not being in.

 

Thoughts?