Should Steroid Use Disqualify A Player From The Hall Of Fame?

[ofahn]

If the drug was used after when the rule was enforced, yes.

But why not before the rule was enforced? The Steroids' players are being persecuted regardless as to whether they used them before the CBA was changed in (I believe) 2007. If we use your standard Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, and many others would be eligible for the Hall since NONE of them played after the rule was enforced.

[osforlife]

If the drug was used after when the rule was enforced, yes.

But why not before the rule was enforced? The Steroids' players are being persecuted regardless as to whether they used them before the CBA was changed in (I believe) 2007. If we use your standard Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero, and many others would be eligible for the Hall since NONE of them played after the rule was enforced.

oh really? The rule was enforced in 2007? I was way off. My whole arugment has been a bust then. This is a very sketchy topic.

[Rising O's]

Yes. And it should have disqualified all the other cheaters.

[ofahn]

Yes. And it should have disqualified all the other cheaters.

Does that mean every player back to about 1950 should be disqualified?

[birdwatcher55]

If you look back at the 60s and 70s, you'll notice how remarkably small but yet how productive some of these players were. I can't believe a lot of them weren't on PEDs

[ofahn]

If you look back at the 60s and 70s, you'll notice how remarkably small but yet how productive some of these players were. I can't believe a lot of them weren't on PEDs

It's hard to get people to understand that the size and strength of a player during different eras is not as important as the quality of their competition. If more than half of baseball is using PEDs then the playing field is level and players should be evaluated against their peers. If more than half of baseball is using SUGAR FREE BUBBLEGUM then the playing field is level and players should be evaluated against their peers. The SUBSTANCE doesn't matter, the level of achievement against the quality of competition DOES.

[thezeroes]

If you listen to the "Advertisements" then players that use "Gatorade", "Red Bull", "Monster", Coffee, etc... should also be disqualified. One step further would be an "asterisk" placed in all players since the invention of "Gatorade".

As ofahn seems to be implying, this whole concept of "PED'S" is a slippery slope.

What is/was considered a Performance Enhancing Drug???

What qualifies as being "Enhanced"???

These two simple questions can get us fans closer to developing an honest opinion as to Who/When/Why players should be disqualified for the "Hall".

Should Cortisone be included??? How about that "Numbing Spray" to allow a player to continue when bruised??? Are these "PEDS"??? They would seem to "Enhance" an individual's performance when used. Are they just a medical enhancement???

[ofahn]

If you listen to the "Advertisements" then players that use "Gatorade", "Red Bull", "Monster", Coffee, etc... should also be disqualified. One step further would be an "asterisk" placed in all players since the invention of "Gatorade".

As ofahn seems to be implying, this whole concept of "PED'S" is a slippery slope.

What is/was considered a Performance Enhancing Drug???

What qualifies as being "Enhanced"???

These two simple questions can get us fans closer to developing an honest opinion as to Who/When/Why players should be disqualified for the "Hall".

Should Cortisone be included??? How about that "Numbing Spray" to allow a player to continue when bruised??? Are these "PEDS"??? They would seem to "Enhance" an individual's performance when used. Are they just a medical enhancement???

Well said. The point I have been trying to make is that when most players are using these performance enhancers the playing field is level and all players should be judged against their competition/peers.

[dan72]

There are so many issues to consider here.
1-steroid use was not against baseball rules until recently
2-many of the suspected and known players never tested posative (that we know of)
3-its anyone guess as to what percebtage of players were on the juice.
4-if the voters want to keep the users out we may see very few guys get in over the next few years.

I think its very curious that guys found the fountain of youth later in their careers and were able to play with great success past 40. I personally have a problem with comparing stats from the steroid players with that of the all time greats. I think the hall and its voters needs to protect some level of quality when allowing players in. Was Jim Rice a good player? yes. Hall worthy? not in my opinion. Hall of very good maybe. I feel that the Hall and its voters should only allow the best of the best into its institution. If you are going to keep steroid players out good luck. Who really know who was on the juice. I suspect most were on it.

[dan72]

Me and my buddies debate this all the time. Problem is very few players tested posative. We can all agree that Bonds and Clemens were on something, but at the time there was no MLB rule against it. Should we hold it against Clemens that he was on the juice all the while 75% of the players he pitched to were on the juice also. My 75% is just a best guess but who really knows. I say keep them all out but again how can you tell for sure who was on what? My opinion is biased in favor of Clemens as I was a huge fan throughout his career.

[ofahn]

Me and my buddies debate this all the time. Problem is very few players tested posative. We can all agree that Bonds and Clemens were on something, but at the time there was no MLB rule against it. Should we hold it against Clemens that he was on the juice all the while 75% of the players he pitched to were on the juice also. My 75% is just a best guess but who really knows. I say keep them all out but again how can you tell for sure who was on what? My opinion is biased in favor of Clemens as I was a huge fan throughout his career.

If you think about it, you just made the case for comparing them against their peers and voting the best of them in.

[Beaker]

If the player in question for the H.O.F. has been fined for steroid use than yes they should not be able to enter the Hall of Fame. Steroid use is a violation of the games rules and all who have failed a test at one point in their careers have violated the rules.

[ofahn]

This is an interesting story published today in HardBall Talk. It makes a strong argument that all players from before 2004 should be treated equally by the voters for the Hall of Fame.

Former Dodgers closer Eric Gagne has a new biography coming out. And he’s droppin’ bombs: He says that 80 percent of his Dodgers teammates were using PEDS:

In the book, Gagne does not provide any names of players he says used PEDs. Baseball began stricter testing in the spring of 2006. Players are subject to HGH testing during spring training and in the offseason, but not during the season.

“I was intimately aware of the clubhouse in which I lived. I would say that 80 percent of the Dodgers players were consuming them,” Gagne says in the book.

That’s … a lot.

Gagne played for the Dodgers from 1999-2006. His best season — 2003 — came right before the onset of PED testing. On that team was Mitchell Report veterans Paul Lo Duca and Kevin Brown. Two-time testing loser Guillermo Mota was there too. There are other interesting names who played on those early 2000s Dodgers teams too, in big and small roles. Many of whom — if they were specifically outed — would create quite an uproar.

If he’s telling the truth it certainly paints an even more stark picture of PED use in that era. But it also reveals just how unfair it is to single out certain individual players from that era and pretending that they were uniquely villainous.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/ ... s/related/

[birdwatcher55]

Put them all in and that includes Pete Rose

[ofahn]

This is an interesting segment from Nick Cafardo, a well respected Boston beat writer, in his column today.

My Hall of Fame ballot in last week’s Sunday notes triggered some angry and nasty responses since I selected Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mike Piazza, and Jeff Bagwell, who were at the very least suspected of using steroids, as well as Craig Biggio, Tim Raines, Jack Morris, and Alan Trammell.

I am among a growing number of voters who have stopped trying to sort through the players who were caught vs. those who weren’t. Those in my camp feel that many players dabbled in steroids or other PEDs during this time.

Was it wrong? Of course. Would these players have been Hall of Famers had they been 100 percent clean? I’m projecting that Bonds and Clemens, who were named in the Mitchell Report, would have been. If you don’t think they were Hall of Fame performers, that’s just crazy.

My policy used to be that steroid users didn’t get my vote, but that changed as I began to realize the playing field, in my opinion, was fair. So, do I wipe out an entire generation of players and never vote for them, or do I understand the era and what, in my opinion, was more the norm, and accept that it happened?

What I will not do is vote for anyone who tested positive after the steroid policy was put in place in 2003.

Manny Ramirez and Rafael Palmeiro won’t get my vote unless there’s a compelling reason why they were taking PEDs when the rules indicated they couldn’t and when 99 percent of the players against had negative tests.

I also get the argument that steroids were illegal, that there didn’t need to be a policy. But amphetamines were also taken illegally by players in the 1950s, ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s. As one Hall of Famer told me, “They handed them out in the clubhouse in big bowls. Take as many as you want. Don’t think some of the players could have performed without them.”

Amphetamines are now on the list of banned substances, so evidently they had some effect on performance.

Should we kick all those players out of the Hall? Should we kick out all of those massive offensive and defensive linemen who are in the Pro Football Hall of Fame who took steroids in the 1970s, ’80s, and beyond?

Tom Glavine, a 300-game winner who surely will reach Cooperstown on the first ballot in 2014, said, “It’ll be a tough call for the voters and I’m glad I’m not making that call.”

http://bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/12/2 ... story.html