Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
There are countless stories about Bagwell addressing PED suspicions. I'm not sure what it was you searched to come up with nothing.
|
Google search: PED Bagwell
Do I need more key words to find the "evidence"? Just because people speculate and asked him still is nothing. I don't find any more evidence than if I type in "PED Griffey". I didn't say there wasn't speculation, but I said there was no evidence and has never been named (outside of speculation/assumptions).
Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
Also voters are the ones to make assumptions about players, because voting someone into the HOF is an opinion. So in the court of public opinion, assumptions and speculation come into play when rendering an opinion.
|
I know the voters make assumptions, but it doesn't make it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by packs
You're not making a legal argument to get into the HOF, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
|
Why does it have to be a legal argument to know that it is morally and ethically wrong to judge someone based off assumptions? Legal standards were suppose to be based off what should be common decency. I don't have to be in a court room to be decent towards a fellow human being.
All this said I am not declaring that Bagwell was clean, but who are we to say he wasn't just because someone else made the assumption and it is the popular belief even without a shred of evidence?
He did use muscle builders, but none of them were banned at the time of use. That is what we KNOW and if someone wants to use that against him, than fine at least they are using facts.