First Hall of Famer with a PED suspension?

[BobC]

.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
To Bob's point, I think there's just a different emotional reaction to different types of "cheating," whether one can rationalize it or not. Taking banned substances or stealing signs are just flash points for most people, whereas getting away with a spitball somehow seems (to most) just part of the inherent fabric of the game.

Exactly right, and also the point is that at first, these PEDs were not banned, just like spitballs and maybe other things, like how much pine tar you can have on a bat. LOL

But to claim that the McGwire and Sosa specifically ruined baseball because people now argue that certain records they like and look up to were somehow compromised as a result of PED users, seems a little crazy. Does it make for discussions points about who people think are the best and/or should hold certain records, yes of course. But to then go further and claim that raises things to the level of actually ruining the game of baseball itself......really?!?!?

My usual mistake is expecting people to have open minds and actually think and use logic to start looking at things they say or believe, and maybe start thinking about and looking at such things from different contextual and/or historic points of view or circumstances they may not have previously considered. They usually don't like that though, and just want "yes" people to agree with everything they say. LOL

So when someone tells me something like they don't view cheating using a banned PED substance the same as using say corked bats or throwing spitballs, I just have to ask why and how they can make such a differentiation. Cheating is cheating.....period, right? So how can one form of cheating be so terrible and ruin the game, whereas the same person(s) thinks and feels another form of cheating isn't that bad at all, and don't really care about it?

What is also somewhat confounding is how it seems when one form of cheating is maybe used/practiced by only a few players, at most, they are oftentimes thought of even more highly in some cases because of their attempts at cheating. Like spit ballers and those that have used cork bats. It is like they're even more highly liked and revered specifically because of their attempts to get away with cheating, in that sort of infamous, "bad boy" image or complex if you will. What's the old saying, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying!" But then switch to a different form of perceived cheating that becomes more accepted and practiced throughout the entirety of a sport, like the upwards of half or more of all MLB players supposedly on PEDs at one point in time, and suddenly all of fandom comes to hate them all, but specifically lays the blame at the more noted, dominant players. Meanwhile, think about this, if pretty much everyone really is doing the same thing, then is it really cheating since they are pretty much all trying to get the same advantage, so it ends up that no one really does have any advantage, they're all just trying to stay equal. LOL Think about it, it's like the whole cheating concept is really bass-ackwards for many people.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The point I always get vilified for, the same guys who think steroids should be punishable by death worship Mays, Aaron, and a whole generation of players who popped greenies. Yes I know there are differences, but even so...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The point I always get vilified for, the same guys who think steroids should be punishable by death worship Mays, Aaron, and a whole generation of players who popped greenies. Yes I know there are differences, but even so...

Just like I referred to with the uppers-laced coffee that teams like the Yankees (and thus maybe Maris and Mantle) used to be known for using and providing for their players.

Funny thing is though, that when you try to question others why such a bias in favor of their favorite players, they'll typically give you no real answer, and refuse to admit to their biased and often illogical reasoning. LOL

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Just like I referred to with the uppers-laced coffee that teams like the Yankees (and thus maybe Maris and Mantle) used to be known for using and providing for their players.

Funny thing is though, that when you try to question others why such a bias in favor of their favorite players, they'll typically give you no real answer, and refuse to admit to their biased and often illogical reasoning. LOL

Not to defend steroids, but every generation tries for an edge in whatever way it can. Maybe by the 80s that edge was higher tech, and I get the difference between no official ban on greenies and an eventual ban on steroids, but it seems a bit inconsistent to worship Mays and vilify Bonds, for example. I agree there's some heavy nostalgia bias there.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not to defend steroids, but every generation tries for an edge in whatever way it can. Maybe by the 80s that edge was higher tech, and I get the difference between no official ban on greenies and an eventual ban on steroids, but it seems a bit inconsistent to worship Mays and vilify Bonds, for example. I agree there's some heavy nostalgia bias there.

Hey, like I also alluded to, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying! Typical male-dominated, uber-competitive, testosterone heavy thinking and expectations. And again, why it seems weird when just a couple or so players get caught cheating, they are often regaled and revered for doing so and trying so hard to win. But when a lot/most of the players do such cheating, the reaction and fan sentiment is more often the exact opposite. Go figure.

I always think back to the time Albert Belle got caught with a corked bat, and one of his teammates actually climbed through the false ceiling and broke into the umpire's dressing room to swap it out for a clean one. Instead of being vilified for doing all that, Belle and his teammate are almost looked upon as sort of revered folk heroes in some areas whenever that story comes up. Yet, whenever talk of Belle's HOF aspirations comes up, it isn't the cheating that is considered the reason he's not getting in. It's the injury shortened career, along with his other not so normal/acceptable actions and stunts, like chasing down trick-or-treating kids with his SUV for egging his house, among other not so great things.

[packs]

I told you how I thought it made baseball worse. The game became inauthentic and a cartoon version of itself. I don't particularly like watching people play video games and that's what you were watching. The only way Brady Anderson could hit 50 home runs was to cheat. Sammy Sosa could not hit 66 home runs in a season unless he cheated. Mark McGwire could not hit 70 home runs in a season unless he cheated. Roger Clemens's career was over until he cheated. Jason Giambi won a faux MVP while he was cheating. Bonds won 4 MVPs in a row cheating. It got to a point where you questioned nearly everything you saw because a lot of what you were seeing wasn't real.

I don't see a silver lining to any of these things and that's why I said it made the game worse.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by packs

I told you how I thought it made baseball worse. The game became inauthentic and a cartoon version of itself. I don't particularly like watching people play video games and that's what you were watching. The only way Brady Anderson could hit 50 home runs was to cheat. Sammy Sosa could not hit 66 home runs in a season unless he cheated. Mark McGwire could not hit 70 home runs in a season unless he cheated. Roger Clemens's career was over until he cheated. Jason Giambi won a faux MVP while he was cheating. Bonds won 4 MVPs in a row cheating. It got to a point where you questioned nearly everything you saw because a lot of what you were seeing wasn't real.

I don't see a silver lining to any of these things and that's why I said it made the game worse.

I am in complete agreement with you. But I think it would do more good for the HOF to enshrine the best of the cheaters, and then create a wing that incorporates the history of 1985 - Present. They should openly write about how it negatively affected fans and the game. They can even include the consequence of this offensive surge by highlighting Three Real Outcomes and the "sticky stuff" our modern pitchers have been using to get extra rotation on the ball. There is no way to talk about one without talking about the other.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The point I always get vilified for, the same guys who think steroids should be punishable by death worship Mays, Aaron, and a whole generation of players who popped greenies. Yes I know there are differences, but even so...

An admittedly small sample size, but I can state with certainty that greenies did NOT improve my hitting in any way. Even with a bit more focus, I still can't hit anything with any real speed to it.

[G1911]

Greenies were not against the rules, and did not produce video game statistics.

Steroids were against baseball rules (I don't see much case for punishing players before this was true) and did in fact produce absurd video game statistics.

Dexedrine and steroids are very, very different and were treated very differently in the rules at the times in discussion, and produced very different effects.

Deciding many decades later something was not okay to retroactively punish almost everyone of that period makes little sense to me.

I am fine with inducting the steroid guys, it should just be done 1) with a reasonable justification if one is given and 2) not only for guys the writers swoon for (Ortiz) but applied consistently.

[steve B]

I would have to do a lot of looking up that's more challenging than usual, but I think to some degree the MLB finally cracking down was essentially forced by the IOC which required strict adherence to WADA rules. (which are debatably draconian)
Baseball was in for 2008, but that planning goes back close to 4 years, and their programs which didn't exist much earlier were too weak in 04 and even with stiffer penalties not much better in 05. They didn't even ban HGH until 2011.

Without the IOC taking away an occasional bit of world stage, would they have instituted any programs at all?

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The point I always get vilified for, the same guys who think steroids should be punishable by death worship Mays, Aaron, and a whole generation of players who popped greenies. Yes I know there are differences, but even so...

….why do people believe that 50’s & 60’s players didn’t have access to steroids. Steroids have been around a long time….1930’s.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

….why do people believe that 50’s & 60’s players didn’t have access to steroids. Steroids have been around a long time….1930’s.

Is there an evidentiary basis of steroids being common in baseball in the 1930’s, 1950’s or 1960’s? What is the source for its usage during this period?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

….why do people believe that 50’s & 60’s players didn’t have access to steroids. Steroids have been around a long time….1930’s.

Of course steroids were available but how does that prove that players actually took them? We know what players who take steroids look like, what players from the 1950's and 1960's had that look of being bulked up?

[Seven]

I've been refraining from responding, because I have what is deemed to be a little more of a controversial opinion on the matter, when it comes to Performance Enhancing Users getting into the Hall of Fame. To answer the original question, I think Alex Rodriguez ends up being the first one to get in, with an official PED suspension. He's rehabilitated his image enough, and he's involved with the game still as he's apart of media coverage.

Frankly guys like McGwire, Sosa, Palmerio, Bonds, Clemens, and Rodriguez, should all be in. Steroids, HGH, etc, are not magical drugs. There have been countless players that have taken PED's and their performance did not improve. You have to have more than a modicum of skill for them to be effective. Otherwise players like David Segui, or Jason Grimsley or Jeremy Giambi would've become world beaters.

Furthermore, if you're of the opinion that one instance of PED usage automatically eliminates you from induction to the Hall of Fame, than half of the Hall would not be members. You cannot say "well Amphetamines' usage is okay, but Anabolic Steroids are not." A PED is a PED

Gossage, Mantle, Koufax, Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, and Stargell at one point, used some sort of substance whether it was a steroid, an amphetamine or straight up abusing Painkillers in the case of Koufax. Pud Galvin, and Babe Ruth used Animal Testosterone at various points in their life. Even if it was one instance, why are any of those above acceptable?

I don't think it's a case of "whataboutism" the owners certainly had no problem with Bonds roiding up and launching baseballs into the stratosphere, because it allowed them to line their pockets with more money. I certainly enjoyed watching him do it. If you want to put an asterisk next to their numbers, then by all means do so. But the Baseball Hall of Fame is a museum that recognizes the history and greatness of the game, scars included. The contributions of these men, to the game of baseball were important, they happened, and they should be recognized, and if it's with an asterisk, so be it.

It's a little ridiculous to me that the player with the most MVP's, and a slew of offensive records, along with the pitcher with the most Cy Youngs, are both not in the Hall of Fame. I'll end my rant here. Thank you for reading.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Seven

I've been refraining from responding, because I have what is deemed to be a little more of a controversial opinion on the matter, when it comes to Performance Enhancing Users getting into the Hall of Fame. To answer the original question, I think Alex Rodriguez ends up being the first one to get in, with an official PED suspension. He's rehabilitated his image enough, and he's involved with the game still as he's apart of media coverage.



Frankly guys like McGwire, Sosa, Palmerio, Bonds, Clemens, and Rodriguez, should all be in. Steroids, HGH, etc, are not magical drugs. There have been countless players that have taken PED's and their performance did not improve. You have to have more than a modicum of skill for them to be effective. Otherwise players like David Segui, or Jason Grimsley or Jeremy Giambi would've become world beaters.



Furthermore, if you're of the opinion that one instance of PED usage automatically eliminates you from induction to the Hall of Fame, than half of the Hall would not be members. You cannot say "well Amphetamines' usage is okay, but Anabolic Steroids are not." A PED is a PED



Gossage, Mantle, Koufax, Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, and Stargell at one point, used some sort of substance whether it was a steroid, an amphetamine or straight up abusing Painkillers in the case of Koufax. Pud Galvin, and Babe Ruth used Animal Testosterone at various points in their life. Even if it was one instance, why are any of those above acceptable?



I don't think it's a case of "whataboutism" the owners certainly had no problem with Bonds roiding up and launching baseballs into the stratosphere, because it allowed them to line their pockets with more money. I certainly enjoyed watching him do it. If you want to put an asterisk next to their numbers, then by all means do so. But the Baseball Hall of Fame is a museum that recognizes the history and greatness of the game, scars included. The contributions of these men, to the game of baseball were important, they happened, and they should be recognized, and if it's with an asterisk, so be it.



It's a little ridiculous to me that the player with the most MVP's, and a slew of offensive records, along with the pitcher with the most Cy Youngs, are both not in the Hall of Fame. I'll end my rant here. Thank you for reading.

I second your opinion. Well said.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Of course steroids were available but how does that prove that players actually took them? We know what players who take steroids look like, what players from the 1950's and 1960's had that look of being bulked up?

A person can take steroids without bulking up. If that was the case every asthma kid would be shredded. The combination of steroids and modern weight room training is what has created the "ripped" and bulged look. 50s and 60s players trained differently and it resulted in a different physique.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Of course steroids were available but how does that prove that players actually took them? We know what players who take steroids look like, what players from the 1950's and 1960's had that look of being bulked up?

We know what steroid users look like that use it specifically to maintain an extra 25lbs of muscle mass and little more. There are other nuances that can be identified visually to the experienced….but most would be oblivious.

If a person has an injury that kept them from the gym for 6 months a steroid cycle would allow them to get 6 months of atrophy back in a few weeks. No one would notice.

Think of steroids as a recovery tool.