Alex Rodriguez hit .250/.356/.486 this year with 33 home runs, which surprised the shit out of me. That's pretty damn good for a guy who is 40 years old. Of course, as soon as he starts hitting poorly next year the New York media will jump all over him again for the mistake of continuously getting older. Regardless of how good of a year A-Rod had at the plate, and regardless of how little controversy he stirred up, he still did many things wrong. He participated in an unfunny skit, he didn't increase YES ratings, he made his teammates like him, and most egregiously, he showed up early to Spring Training. Simply because the season is over doesn't mean that A-Rod still isn't doing things wrong. Of course. Now he was hired as an analyst for Fox during the playoffs and is ruining everything for "the kids," while poisoning their mind with the idea if they use steroids to enhance their performance then they may one day also be able to be a sports analyst. Christine Brennan has had enough of this and does a public service by finally speaking out about this travesty. In fact, Brennan says they (Fox) "swing and miss" (GET IT?????????) by hiring A-Rod as an analyst.
Of the thousands of baseball players and experts Fox Sports could have
selected to appear on its postseason shows, it picked the worst.
You mean the guy who has been banned from baseball permanently, Pete Rose?
It chose the most notorious, earnest and purposeful cheater to ever play
the game. It chose the man whose name is synonymous with
performance-enhancing drugs.
Barry Bonds? Roger Clemens? Mike Piazza's bacne?
It chose A-Rod.
Oh no, not A-Rod. His mere presence on the Yankees roster has caused steroid use among youth to be nearly tripled since April. Millions of kids are dying, with their last breath screaming, "I just wanted to be like A-Rod!" What about "the kids," doesn't Fox care about the kids at all?
Alex Rodriguez,
who admitted to using steroids from 2001-03 and then was suspended for
the entire 2014 season for his big role in the Biogenesis scandal, isn’t
just any old baseball steroids guy. He is the guy.
He's the guy unless you want to consider Mark McGwire "the guy," Barry Bonds "the guy" or Roger Clemens "the guy." It all depends on the type of article being written really. In this case, A-Rod is "the guy" but this could change if the column is about which current Hall of Fame eligible players should receive the honor of induction. When it comes to a Hall of Fame discussion, McGwire, Bonds and Clemens are the face of steroids. In fact, I would argue given all the government resources and the hysteria surrounding the breaking of Roger Maris' home run record that these three players will always be the face of the Steroid Era. I don't see A-Rod in that role.
Congratulations, Fox.
You're ruined the world's ability to prevent drug use among teens and driven thousands of young children away from the heroin they are using and into the arms of steroids by hiring A-Rod. Congrats.
What a terrible message this sends to children
WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING KIDS? DO "THE KIDS" KNOW ABOUT A-ROD BEING ON FOX? WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES IT SEND WHICH SAYS A BASEBALL PLAYER WHO CHEATED IS STILL CAPABLE OF DISCUSSING BASEBALL IN A NETWORK TELEVISION ENVIRONMENT?
if kids actually watched playoff baseball games anymore.
Oh, so it's not hurting the kids at all because they don't watch baseball? So disaster averted and we can all move on to other things. Though, if "the kids" did still watch baseball then A-Rod being on Fox would be a total disaster. Let's assume kids don't watch baseball, acknowledge nobody watches FS1 (yet...ever?), and still work under the assumption that A-Rod is singlehandedly poisoning today's youth. Sound like fun? Great, Christine Brennan will now continue.
Experts say the use of performance-enhancing drugs by kids in high school sports has reached epidemic proportions.
Experts also say kids in high school are increasingly getting addicted to heroin and other drugs such as that. I'm not going to downplay the impact of steroids, but the use of heroin among high school kids has also reached epidemic proportions. I really don't believe A-Rod being an analyst for Fox is going to drive more kids towards using steroids any more than his playing baseball for 162 games a year would drive them in that direction already.
Seeing superstars suspended or hauled before Congress can act an a deterrent to these kids.
This is the biggest crock of shit I have read in this column so far. Hauling these superstars before Congress can serve as a deterrent to these kids? I have quite a few issues with this statement.
1. How does Christine Brennan know this is true? Is there research she can cite that says seeing superstars hauled before Congress is a deterrent to drug use among kids? Is there anything she can use to show this as a true statement, outside of any anecdotal evidence or the idea this is what she WANTS to believe is true? I see nothing in this column confirming this statement isn't a lie.
2. If superstars being hauled before Congress or being suspended really served as a deterrent, then how come experts say the use of PED's by kids is reaching epidemic proportions? Using logic, which I know isn't something Christine is doing right now, wouldn't the stricter MLB drug policy after the Steroid Era where big name players (like A-Rod) have been suspended have served as a deterrent to using PED's?
3. Christine Brennan can't cite how A-Rod has been suspended twice, in an effort to expose his true villain tendencies, then explain that's why he shouldn't be working for Fox, and then claim seeing baseball players get suspended serves as a deterrent to kids. It doesn't work this way. So if seeing players get suspended did serve as a deterrent, then it wouldn't make a difference at all if A-Rod works for Fox during the postseason.
4. If seeing superstars hauled before Congress was a deterrent, then there should be a decrease in high school kids using PED's. These kids grew up seeing Palmeiro, McGwire, Sosa, and Clemens hauled in front of Congress and in court fighting accusations of PED use. Seeing this would cause a decrease in PED use among high school kids, if this statement by Brennan wasn't a crock of shit.
Seeing them propped up on pre-game shows as faux stars does not.
But A-Rod has been suspended! That's the deterrent for "the kids," right?
Perhaps next year, Fox can put together a panel featuring A-Rod, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens and Rafael Palmeiro.
Bonds has worked with Giants hitters during Spring Training and McGwire has been a hitting coach in the majors. I get how Christine Brennan is upset, but it's well-known in baseball that A-Rod is a student of the game and knows something about hitting. He's a cheat and has a huge ego, but he's also really good at hitting a baseball and analyzing the game.
Fox Sports’ baseball audience is minuscule compared with the NFL’s, but
that doesn’t make the network’s decision any less egregious. In fact,
that’s probably why Fox did it, to try to boost ratings.
Let's see...no one watches Fox, players like A-Rod who get suspended serve as a deterrent to kids and kids don't watch baseball anyway. So how are A-Rod and Fox ruining kids by having him show up on their postseason coverage again?
It’s not a coincidence that one of Rodriguez’s fellow studio analysts is Pete Rose.
It's not a coincidence. Fox wants ratings and they want guys on their postseason shows that have played in the postseason and played the game at a high level. They also want eyes on their show and Rose/A-Rod also serve that purpose. ESPN hired Tim Tebow, but is he more qualified to talk about college football because he's a good person, as compared to the qualifications of Rose/A-Rod to talk about baseball even though they haven't always been good people? I wouldn't think so.
Our senses are so dulled by the misbehavior of athletes these days that
most of us probably don’t give it a second thought when a bad guy like
Rodriguez shows up talking about the playoffs. Do we have any standards
anymore?
I bet Christine Brennan's editor asked this same question when reading this article.
Or maybe we still do. Could you imagine an Olympics telecast featuring Ben Johnson? Lance Armstrong hosting coverage of the Tour de France?
It feels different with A-Rod being on MLB's postseason coverage. Perhaps because he is still an active player and has served his suspension. I can't explain the difference honestly.
Tonya Harding on Olympic figure skating? Thankfully, I think we’re safe from all three, at least for a few more years.
If she knew enough about Olympic figure skating these days, then I would have no issue with Tonya Harding commenting on Olympic figure skating. The issue is there are more knowledgeable commentators available to discuss Olympic figure skating. A-Rod is a really knowledgeable source about baseball and knows today's players because he is still an active player himself.
For all baseball’s talk and action on the subject of PEDs, it has never
taken them as seriously as the Olympic world has, and it still does not.
But MLB takes PED's much more seriously than every other major sport. Sorry, but the NFL and the NBA have a PED problem (mostly the NFL) even if they don't know it yet. Human beings don't look like NFL players look and I don't believe some guys in the NBA get as strong as they are without some additional help. I'm not pointing a finger at any certain players, but MLB has a strong PED policy. It's not strong enough for some people, of course. It never will be.
That’s why the sport allows someone who has flaunted the rules as badly as A-Rod has to still be one of the faces of the game.
A-Rod is not one of the faces of MLB. He is not. He's never really even been the face of the Yankees either. A-Rod doing postseason work for Fox doesn't make him a face of baseball. Max Scherzer does postseason work for Fox too and I'm not sure he can be considered one of the faces of baseball (perhaps wrongly). Even on his own team, Bryce Harper, Jonathan Papelbon and Stephen Strasburg move the needle more than Scherzer tends to, even if Scherzer appears on Fox's postseason coverage.
This tells us that the game, and Fox Sports, will do anything to get attention.
"The game" had nothing to do with Fox hiring A-Rod. That was a decision by Fox. Trust me, if MLB really had an issue with Pete Rose and A-Rod being hired by Fox then neither of these individuals would be working on Fox's postseason coverage.
Anything.
What about "the kids?" What will the kids who don't watch baseball on Fox and who are already deterred from using PED's by A-Rod's suspension for PED use think about A-Rod being seen on Fox's postseason coverage? Will it drive them right back into the arms of PED's, seeing that they could also one day get a job as a studio analyst if they just use enough PED's to get there? What will happen if an entire generation of studio analysts use PED's in order to further their career and make an even playing field that much more uneven?
Showing posts with label barry bonds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barry bonds. Show all posts
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
0 comments Jay Mariotti's Hypocrisy About the American Court System Is On Display for All to See When He's Bashing Barry Bonds
Jay Mariotti is no stranger to court cases and defending his name against people who make claims against him. When Jay re-introduced himself for the first time on the Sports Talk Florida site, he wrote the following about the woman who accused him of assault and the court system that he thinks chewed him up unfairly:
While the Internet paves new avenues of media creativity, it also enables the irresponsibility of hacks. I know this too well, having come off a legal case filled with countless lies and accompanied by lazy, reckless, inaccurate, incomplete news coverage.
I’m confident we would have won at trial. But realizing the L.A. justice system is bureaucratic at best and insidious at worst, I had no interest in spending a half-million dollars on legal fees, exposing my daughters and family to what clearly was one-sided media coverage
Wrote Rieder: “Life is packed with nuances and subtleties and shades of gray. But the news media are often uncomfortable in such murky terrain. They prefer straightforward narratives, with good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. Those tales are much easier for readers and viewers to relate to.”
You can say I’m uniquely qualified now to comment on athletes in legal messes. I’ve been among those who’ve offered quick-trigger opinions about athletes in trouble, and after seeing how the system works, I’ll know in the future to investigate all angles.
Perspective, it’s called.
Jay (of all people, which is what I wrote at the time) lectures his readers about nuance, subtleties and the one-sided coverage of the news media in his original re-introduction with Sports Talk Florida. He writes about how the media jumps to conclusions without all the facts, doesn't care for shades of gray, and prefer straight narratives with good and bad guys. He has "perspective" now that he has been chewed up by the legal system. I didn't buy it at the time and for good reason.
Then in Jay's next re-introduction with the "San Francisco Examiner," after his media mogul gig at Sports Talk Florida failed, he doubled down on his disdain for the legal system. He wrote the following:
The media should be firm but fair, edgy but accurate. I realize this more than ever now, having experienced my own news-cycle storm that made me understand why people in sports — and everywhere, really — dislike and distrust the media. To recap, I was accused of domestic violence offenses I did not commit by a plaintiff who tried, without success, to win a financial reward in a civil suit. Not only did that suit fail quickly, the original case was dismissed and expunged ("Not guilty," read the court documents), which means there was no conviction. Expungements, as The New York Times recently noted, are issued rarely and with considerable diligence.
Know this: Just because someone is accused doesn't mean he is guilty, and just because one pleads no contest doesn't mean he is acknowledging guilt.
I've seen firsthand how sleazy it all is — traffic-obsessed media, sloppy and dishonest police work, headline-seeking prosecutors, predisposed judges, a rival lawyer who advised my lawyer not to represent me. I wrote about it three and a half years ago in my e-book, The System, and I've learned a mean lesson about watching my associations.
In my case, only one media outlet has bothered to try to complete the story and publish news of the expungement. And that happened only when I had the document sent to a confused San Francisco Chronicle reporter earlier this month — he said he was having trouble finding it — and demanded that he publish it, as did my attorney. That didn't stop the Chronicle's tweeting editor-in-chief, who should know better, from mischaracterizing a quote of mine from her own paper and calling me a name that does not legally apply. Since the announcement of my appointment at the Examiner, how many news outlets have written about the expungement even after the Chronicle grudgingly reported it? None that I've seen. I'd suggest media outlets require all writers and editors to take law classes.
I apologize for the wall of text, but it's important to know these are Jay's positions when going through the column he has posted about Barry Bonds. See, these really aren't Jay's positions overall, but Jay's positions regarding HIMSELF. HE was chewed up by a corrupt court system. HE was the victim of an over-zealous prosecutor. HE was a victim of the traffic-obsessed media and HE knows that just because someone is accused that doesn't mean the person is guilty. This rule only pertains to himself though. HE knows that an expunged record gets a lot less media coverage than the original accusations.
As it pertains to others who are accused, chewed up by the system and are a victim of the traffic-obsessed media? Fuck 'em. Jay doesn't care. When it's Jay's head on the chopping block the whole system is doing him wrong and the media is ravenous for a good story. When it's Jay's chance to become a part of the ravenous media who is traffic-obsessed and unable to understand any type of nuance, well, he is eager to join the media in working with the corrupt court system. Barry Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice was overturned and all that perspective Jay had has gone out the window because he smells chum in the water. Everyone in the media is out to get Jay. He's quick to cry about this, but when he has a chance to work in the media and go after someone, Jay is just another media scum who doesn't truly have the perspective he now claims to have.
I believe Barry Bonds used steroids and all of that. I'm not really looking to defend Bonds' good/bad name. I find it hilarious at what Jay writes when he laughs off one of the federal judges believing the legal system was out to get Bonds, mostly because Jay has written several times about how the legal system was out to get him personally. As always, there are different rules for Jay Mariotti and everyone else. He's always the victim, and quick to laugh at those who claim to also be a victim or may be a victim of the legal system themselves.
So now we can expect the Incredible Shrinking Barry Bonds to hit up his Instagram feed — if you need a good laugh, check it out — and take a retaliatory selfie. Maybe he thumbs his nose.
This is as opposed to Jay Mariotti trashing the court system, his alleged victim and everyone else in a column...which he has done twice.
And also, plenty of athletes shrink down some after they retire. It's not terribly unusual. Most get fat if they don't shrink down.
Maybe he signals that we should shove it where the syringe doesn’t stain. Maybe he resends his self-portrait bearing the inscription, “99 PROBLEMS BUT A PITCH AIN’T ONE.”
Just remember that Jay has perspective now...or he claims to have perspective. Remember that Jay claims to be able to differentiate between accusations and what a person may have really done. Perhaps Bonds is guilty of using steroids (which he probably is), but Jay now claims to have the ability to understand that it doesn't mean Bonds is guilty of obstruction of justice as well...or he claims to have this ability now, but doesn't seem in a hurry to use this ability.
Because today, technically, Bonds can tell the world that his record is clean, that he never has been convicted for an offense related to performance-enhancing drugs. Thanks to a hometown ruling seemingly hatched in a booth down the street at Dottie’s True Blue Cafe, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Bonds’ felony conviction for obstruction of justice,
It's a "hometown ruling"! Now the corrupt court system is ruling in favor of the wealthy when in Jay's situation the corrupt court system was trying to tear him down because he's wealthy. The courts wouldn't rule for Bonds if he wasn't just so damn well-liked. Barry Bonds is so engaging and kind to everyone that the court probably factored that in, while Jay Mariotti being surly and confrontational is why the LA courts were so biased against him.
with 10 of 11 judges concluding that his long-winded answer during a 2003 grand jury proceeding wasn’t material to the government’s probe into steroids.
Jay Mariotti in his introductory column for the "Examiner":
Since the announcement of my appointment at the Examiner, how many news outlets have written about the expungement even after the Chronicle grudgingly reported it? None that I've seen. I'd suggest media outlets require all writers and editors to take law classes.
Perhaps the law classes that Jay suggests others take based on his experiences within the legal system could help him as well. Jay could learn that 10 of 11 judges probably don't care about Barry Bonds and only concerned themselves with the rule of law before them. But I'm sure Jay thinks this ruling is another example of "the system" letting famous people off easy, except for Jay of course. "The system" persecutes Jay. He's such a victim.
Which means Bonds can launch what surely will be a loud, aggressive campaign for the Baseball Hall of Fame.
He's not getting in any time soon, so I'm not sure why this is a concern or even relevant to whether the non-legal expert Jay Mariotti is correct in questioning and being snarky about the legal opinion of 10 federal judges or not. How dare the judges validate Barry Bonds and his Hall of Fame credentials by ruling that his felony conviction would be overturned! I want to know what happened to Jay's "Accused doesn't mean guilty" line of thought? This line of thought disappears when Jay isn't the one accused but not really guilty.
Which means the Giants, who have worked cautiously in bringing Bonds back into the organization, now can make him an ambassador or a roving minor-league coach or — if their hitting problems persist — a batting instructor without having to address criticism about a felony conviction.
You mean sort of like how Sports Talk Florida or the "San Francisco Examiner" can hire Jay Mariotti as a columnist or multi-media mogul without him having to address criticism about his no-contest plea? Or is this totally different because (a) it deals with the victimized Jay Mariotti and (b) Jay has given his biased side of the story while calling the entire system corrupt?
Which means Bonds’ legions of Bay Area fans, who wore blinders about BALCO and the Steroids Era while the bloated Barry was passing the honorable Henry Aaron as the sport’s all-time home run leader, now can hoist him as the Power King without legalities usurping their joy.
No, because he still clearly used PED's. He just didn't obstruct justice. Did Jay even read the ruling? Also, it's just grand to read about Jay's new perspective on the legal system and how the media is so quick to make a rush to judgment. It's grand to read about because Jay completely ignores this perspective when discussing Barry Bonds. Jay has no idea if the ruling was correct or not, instead he's just worried this will validate Bonds in some way and indicate that Bonds didn't use steroids. I can't see how Jay is "investigating this story from all angles" as he promised to do just a few years ago after his tangle with the legal system. No time for that when there is chum in the water and Jay can become the person he has railed against.
Let him bask. In my mind, as a longtime member of the voting group known as the Baseball Writers Association of America, nothing changed Wednesday.
Doesn't Jay hate when sportswriters are "uncomfortable in murky terrain" and prefer straightforward narratives with good guys and bad guys"? I think it's hilarious that Jay is becoming guilty of the very things he supposedly was going to rail against, though it shouldn't shock me. Most of Jay's anger towards others in the news media (like ESPN, big media entities) results from his not being allowed to be a part of that news media any longer. If given the chance, Jay would gladly take a job with the huge news entities with corporate interests, but while he's not given the chance, he'll rail against them until the time comes to be a hypocrite.
Bonds still is a bum who symbolizes an era we’re trying to purge from our collective consciousness — a treacherous period of cheating and lying that irreparably damaged the public’s trust in sports — and anyone who thinks he suddenly belongs in Cooperstown is a bigger dope than the dopers themselves.
SO FUCKING NUANCED! The amount of nuance I'm reading about right now is literally choking me and pulling my hair (allegedly) until I plead "no-contest" to the nuance just taking my mind over to where all I can see is nuance. But hey, Jay understands why so many dislike the media. Thank God for nuance such as this.
“I think at the end of the day, America knows the truth and who the real home run record holder is, who did it the right way, and it’s obviously not Barry Bonds,” said Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, who told The Associated Press the decision was “almost meaningless for the real issue, which is whether he used performance-enhancing drugs to cheat the fans of baseball.”
He's right. It's meaningless, but Jay just had to show off the "new Jay Mariotti" and display the thorough knowledge of the legal system he learned about (and wrote a book about!) while defending himself against false accusations. Jay has learned the system chews him up and spits him out, but treats everyone else fairly. Jay also learned, using his knowledge of "the system," that a court ruling Bonds did not obstruct justice means the court has ruled Barry Bonds did not use PED's and should get a red carpet invitation to join the Hall of Fame. Obviously.
This isn’t a time to celebrate as much as a reason to wonder how the justice system works and how many taxpayer dollars are wasted in flip-flop cases.
If in making this statement Jay means that the taxpayer dollars were wasted in prosecuting Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice, then he is absolutely correct. If Jay means the taxpayer dollars were wasted because 10 of 11 federal judges agreed on a ruling that Jay doesn't agree with, then Jay needs go take his anger out on someone he can batter or assault. Maybe try to make it a person of the male gender this time though.
Clearly, Bonds gave a rambling, evasive answer when asked if his trainer, Greg Anderson, ever gave him steroids, human growth hormone or “anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?”
I wonder if this would qualify as "lazy, reckless, inaccurate, incomplete news coverage" if it were written about Jay Mariotti? My best guess is that it would be. Of course, Jay pled no contest to save a few dollars and because he wanted the world to know he was innocent of the charges, so there is no public court testimony for Jay to sound rambling and evasive when answering questions.
I have no idea if Jay was innocent or not, but his whole "I went with a no-contest plea to save money and to keep my good name" excuse has always sounded like bullshit to me. So you plead no-contest and basically admit you aren't going to defend yourself against the charges and this is supposed to save face for Jay? Whatever, not my deal. What is my deal is that Jay didn't get any testimony on record where he could ramble or be evasive (probably by design) and now the "new" Jay Mariotti is up to his old tricks of doing the same things he accuses the media doing to him.
Bonds: “I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but ... we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want — don’t come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we’ll be good friends. You come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean?”
Prosecutor: “And, again, I guess we’ve covered this, but did [Anderson] ever give you anything that he told you had to be taken with a needle or syringe?”
Bonds: “Greg wouldn’t do that. He knows I’m against that stuff. So, he would never come up to me — he would never jeopardize our friendship like that.”
Exactly. Everyone knows that Barry Bonds isn't injecting anything to his body. He prefers creams and other more non-invasive methods of using steroids.
Prosecutor: “OK. So, just so I’m clear, the answer is no to that, he never gave you anything like that?”
Bonds: “Right.”
Now Bonds has resorted to just naming general directions? "Right," "Left," "Straight"...at what point do these evasive answers become obstruction of justice? Jay Mariotti, Esq. knows that answers and the corrupt legal system again screwed up by not acknowledging Jay's reality as the reality that is the rule of law.
Shrewd and calculating, Bonds waited out the pitcher. He didn’t swing and took his bases on balls. Now, years later, he somehow gets a complete pass,
This is an excellent example of Jay "not pushing a straightforward narrative" to find "heroes and villains." Jay was quick to point out how an expungement is issued rarely and with considerable diligence. Apparently a federal court overturning the decision of a lower court in a 10-1 ruling happens often and with zero diligence or regard for the facts of the case. Federal courts sometimes overrule a lower court's ruling by a 10-1 margin rather than confirm or remand the case just because the Magic 8-Ball says to do so.
I still chuckle at the "perspective" that Jay claims to have now. He's the worst.
Judge Alex Kozinski writing, “Making everyone who participates in our justice system a potential criminal defendant for conduct that is nothing more than the ordinary tug and pull of litigation risks chilling zealous advocacy. It also gives prosecutors the immense and unreviewable power to reward friends and punish enemies by prosecuting the latter and giving the former a pass.”
So Kozinski is suggesting Bonds has been wronged by a corrupt prosecutor. What a world, huh?
Apparently Jay wrote this sentence with no sense of irony regarding what Jay has written before. Here is what Jay wrote prior on Sports Talk Florida:
I've seen firsthand how sleazy it all is — traffic-obsessed media, sloppy and dishonest police work, headline-seeking prosecutors, predisposed judges, a rival lawyer who advised my lawyer not to represent me.
Yeah Jay, suggesting that you were wronged by a corrupt, headline-seeking prosecutor is RIDICULOUS though isn't it? Bonds didn't even say he was wronged, but a federal court judge mentioned in his opinion he was concerned by unnamed, possibly not existing and definitely not existing in this case, prosecutors maybe having unreviewable power. Jay, using the same legal knowledge that allowed him to write a book about "the system," takes this to mean the Judge Kozinski is calling THIS prosecutor as corrupt. In reality (which is a place where Jay does not live), the only one complaining about a corrupt and power-hungry prosecutor is Jay Mariotti.
I side with the lone dissenting judge, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, who wrote: “I cry foul.”
The smell is foul, too.
Maybe you should take a shower and wash the stink of your own bullshit and hypocrisy off of you then. Nice "perspective" you have now, Jay. Jay wants to have it both ways. He wants to write about the corrupt legal system and the headline-thirsty media, all while taking part in being headline-thirsty himself. He wants to claim he's a "new" Jay Mariotti while also claiming he isn't going to change. Jay wants to claim a special knowledge of the legal system all while clearly having no idea what a legal ruling entails and means. He's a fake and a hypocrite as always.
While the Internet paves new avenues of media creativity, it also enables the irresponsibility of hacks. I know this too well, having come off a legal case filled with countless lies and accompanied by lazy, reckless, inaccurate, incomplete news coverage.
I’m confident we would have won at trial. But realizing the L.A. justice system is bureaucratic at best and insidious at worst, I had no interest in spending a half-million dollars on legal fees, exposing my daughters and family to what clearly was one-sided media coverage
Wrote Rieder: “Life is packed with nuances and subtleties and shades of gray. But the news media are often uncomfortable in such murky terrain. They prefer straightforward narratives, with good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. Those tales are much easier for readers and viewers to relate to.”
You can say I’m uniquely qualified now to comment on athletes in legal messes. I’ve been among those who’ve offered quick-trigger opinions about athletes in trouble, and after seeing how the system works, I’ll know in the future to investigate all angles.
Perspective, it’s called.
Jay (of all people, which is what I wrote at the time) lectures his readers about nuance, subtleties and the one-sided coverage of the news media in his original re-introduction with Sports Talk Florida. He writes about how the media jumps to conclusions without all the facts, doesn't care for shades of gray, and prefer straight narratives with good and bad guys. He has "perspective" now that he has been chewed up by the legal system. I didn't buy it at the time and for good reason.
Then in Jay's next re-introduction with the "San Francisco Examiner," after his media mogul gig at Sports Talk Florida failed, he doubled down on his disdain for the legal system. He wrote the following:
The media should be firm but fair, edgy but accurate. I realize this more than ever now, having experienced my own news-cycle storm that made me understand why people in sports — and everywhere, really — dislike and distrust the media. To recap, I was accused of domestic violence offenses I did not commit by a plaintiff who tried, without success, to win a financial reward in a civil suit. Not only did that suit fail quickly, the original case was dismissed and expunged ("Not guilty," read the court documents), which means there was no conviction. Expungements, as The New York Times recently noted, are issued rarely and with considerable diligence.
Know this: Just because someone is accused doesn't mean he is guilty, and just because one pleads no contest doesn't mean he is acknowledging guilt.
I've seen firsthand how sleazy it all is — traffic-obsessed media, sloppy and dishonest police work, headline-seeking prosecutors, predisposed judges, a rival lawyer who advised my lawyer not to represent me. I wrote about it three and a half years ago in my e-book, The System, and I've learned a mean lesson about watching my associations.
In my case, only one media outlet has bothered to try to complete the story and publish news of the expungement. And that happened only when I had the document sent to a confused San Francisco Chronicle reporter earlier this month — he said he was having trouble finding it — and demanded that he publish it, as did my attorney. That didn't stop the Chronicle's tweeting editor-in-chief, who should know better, from mischaracterizing a quote of mine from her own paper and calling me a name that does not legally apply. Since the announcement of my appointment at the Examiner, how many news outlets have written about the expungement even after the Chronicle grudgingly reported it? None that I've seen. I'd suggest media outlets require all writers and editors to take law classes.
I apologize for the wall of text, but it's important to know these are Jay's positions when going through the column he has posted about Barry Bonds. See, these really aren't Jay's positions overall, but Jay's positions regarding HIMSELF. HE was chewed up by a corrupt court system. HE was the victim of an over-zealous prosecutor. HE was a victim of the traffic-obsessed media and HE knows that just because someone is accused that doesn't mean the person is guilty. This rule only pertains to himself though. HE knows that an expunged record gets a lot less media coverage than the original accusations.
As it pertains to others who are accused, chewed up by the system and are a victim of the traffic-obsessed media? Fuck 'em. Jay doesn't care. When it's Jay's head on the chopping block the whole system is doing him wrong and the media is ravenous for a good story. When it's Jay's chance to become a part of the ravenous media who is traffic-obsessed and unable to understand any type of nuance, well, he is eager to join the media in working with the corrupt court system. Barry Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice was overturned and all that perspective Jay had has gone out the window because he smells chum in the water. Everyone in the media is out to get Jay. He's quick to cry about this, but when he has a chance to work in the media and go after someone, Jay is just another media scum who doesn't truly have the perspective he now claims to have.
I believe Barry Bonds used steroids and all of that. I'm not really looking to defend Bonds' good/bad name. I find it hilarious at what Jay writes when he laughs off one of the federal judges believing the legal system was out to get Bonds, mostly because Jay has written several times about how the legal system was out to get him personally. As always, there are different rules for Jay Mariotti and everyone else. He's always the victim, and quick to laugh at those who claim to also be a victim or may be a victim of the legal system themselves.
So now we can expect the Incredible Shrinking Barry Bonds to hit up his Instagram feed — if you need a good laugh, check it out — and take a retaliatory selfie. Maybe he thumbs his nose.
This is as opposed to Jay Mariotti trashing the court system, his alleged victim and everyone else in a column...which he has done twice.
And also, plenty of athletes shrink down some after they retire. It's not terribly unusual. Most get fat if they don't shrink down.
Maybe he signals that we should shove it where the syringe doesn’t stain. Maybe he resends his self-portrait bearing the inscription, “99 PROBLEMS BUT A PITCH AIN’T ONE.”
Just remember that Jay has perspective now...or he claims to have perspective. Remember that Jay claims to be able to differentiate between accusations and what a person may have really done. Perhaps Bonds is guilty of using steroids (which he probably is), but Jay now claims to have the ability to understand that it doesn't mean Bonds is guilty of obstruction of justice as well...or he claims to have this ability now, but doesn't seem in a hurry to use this ability.
Because today, technically, Bonds can tell the world that his record is clean, that he never has been convicted for an offense related to performance-enhancing drugs. Thanks to a hometown ruling seemingly hatched in a booth down the street at Dottie’s True Blue Cafe, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Bonds’ felony conviction for obstruction of justice,
It's a "hometown ruling"! Now the corrupt court system is ruling in favor of the wealthy when in Jay's situation the corrupt court system was trying to tear him down because he's wealthy. The courts wouldn't rule for Bonds if he wasn't just so damn well-liked. Barry Bonds is so engaging and kind to everyone that the court probably factored that in, while Jay Mariotti being surly and confrontational is why the LA courts were so biased against him.
with 10 of 11 judges concluding that his long-winded answer during a 2003 grand jury proceeding wasn’t material to the government’s probe into steroids.
Jay Mariotti in his introductory column for the "Examiner":
Since the announcement of my appointment at the Examiner, how many news outlets have written about the expungement even after the Chronicle grudgingly reported it? None that I've seen. I'd suggest media outlets require all writers and editors to take law classes.
Perhaps the law classes that Jay suggests others take based on his experiences within the legal system could help him as well. Jay could learn that 10 of 11 judges probably don't care about Barry Bonds and only concerned themselves with the rule of law before them. But I'm sure Jay thinks this ruling is another example of "the system" letting famous people off easy, except for Jay of course. "The system" persecutes Jay. He's such a victim.
Which means Bonds can launch what surely will be a loud, aggressive campaign for the Baseball Hall of Fame.
He's not getting in any time soon, so I'm not sure why this is a concern or even relevant to whether the non-legal expert Jay Mariotti is correct in questioning and being snarky about the legal opinion of 10 federal judges or not. How dare the judges validate Barry Bonds and his Hall of Fame credentials by ruling that his felony conviction would be overturned! I want to know what happened to Jay's "Accused doesn't mean guilty" line of thought? This line of thought disappears when Jay isn't the one accused but not really guilty.
Which means the Giants, who have worked cautiously in bringing Bonds back into the organization, now can make him an ambassador or a roving minor-league coach or — if their hitting problems persist — a batting instructor without having to address criticism about a felony conviction.
You mean sort of like how Sports Talk Florida or the "San Francisco Examiner" can hire Jay Mariotti as a columnist or multi-media mogul without him having to address criticism about his no-contest plea? Or is this totally different because (a) it deals with the victimized Jay Mariotti and (b) Jay has given his biased side of the story while calling the entire system corrupt?
Which means Bonds’ legions of Bay Area fans, who wore blinders about BALCO and the Steroids Era while the bloated Barry was passing the honorable Henry Aaron as the sport’s all-time home run leader, now can hoist him as the Power King without legalities usurping their joy.
No, because he still clearly used PED's. He just didn't obstruct justice. Did Jay even read the ruling? Also, it's just grand to read about Jay's new perspective on the legal system and how the media is so quick to make a rush to judgment. It's grand to read about because Jay completely ignores this perspective when discussing Barry Bonds. Jay has no idea if the ruling was correct or not, instead he's just worried this will validate Bonds in some way and indicate that Bonds didn't use steroids. I can't see how Jay is "investigating this story from all angles" as he promised to do just a few years ago after his tangle with the legal system. No time for that when there is chum in the water and Jay can become the person he has railed against.
Let him bask. In my mind, as a longtime member of the voting group known as the Baseball Writers Association of America, nothing changed Wednesday.
Doesn't Jay hate when sportswriters are "uncomfortable in murky terrain" and prefer straightforward narratives with good guys and bad guys"? I think it's hilarious that Jay is becoming guilty of the very things he supposedly was going to rail against, though it shouldn't shock me. Most of Jay's anger towards others in the news media (like ESPN, big media entities) results from his not being allowed to be a part of that news media any longer. If given the chance, Jay would gladly take a job with the huge news entities with corporate interests, but while he's not given the chance, he'll rail against them until the time comes to be a hypocrite.
Bonds still is a bum who symbolizes an era we’re trying to purge from our collective consciousness — a treacherous period of cheating and lying that irreparably damaged the public’s trust in sports — and anyone who thinks he suddenly belongs in Cooperstown is a bigger dope than the dopers themselves.
SO FUCKING NUANCED! The amount of nuance I'm reading about right now is literally choking me and pulling my hair (allegedly) until I plead "no-contest" to the nuance just taking my mind over to where all I can see is nuance. But hey, Jay understands why so many dislike the media. Thank God for nuance such as this.
“I think at the end of the day, America knows the truth and who the real home run record holder is, who did it the right way, and it’s obviously not Barry Bonds,” said Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, who told The Associated Press the decision was “almost meaningless for the real issue, which is whether he used performance-enhancing drugs to cheat the fans of baseball.”
He's right. It's meaningless, but Jay just had to show off the "new Jay Mariotti" and display the thorough knowledge of the legal system he learned about (and wrote a book about!) while defending himself against false accusations. Jay has learned the system chews him up and spits him out, but treats everyone else fairly. Jay also learned, using his knowledge of "the system," that a court ruling Bonds did not obstruct justice means the court has ruled Barry Bonds did not use PED's and should get a red carpet invitation to join the Hall of Fame. Obviously.
This isn’t a time to celebrate as much as a reason to wonder how the justice system works and how many taxpayer dollars are wasted in flip-flop cases.
If in making this statement Jay means that the taxpayer dollars were wasted in prosecuting Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice, then he is absolutely correct. If Jay means the taxpayer dollars were wasted because 10 of 11 federal judges agreed on a ruling that Jay doesn't agree with, then Jay needs go take his anger out on someone he can batter or assault. Maybe try to make it a person of the male gender this time though.
Clearly, Bonds gave a rambling, evasive answer when asked if his trainer, Greg Anderson, ever gave him steroids, human growth hormone or “anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?”
I wonder if this would qualify as "lazy, reckless, inaccurate, incomplete news coverage" if it were written about Jay Mariotti? My best guess is that it would be. Of course, Jay pled no contest to save a few dollars and because he wanted the world to know he was innocent of the charges, so there is no public court testimony for Jay to sound rambling and evasive when answering questions.
I have no idea if Jay was innocent or not, but his whole "I went with a no-contest plea to save money and to keep my good name" excuse has always sounded like bullshit to me. So you plead no-contest and basically admit you aren't going to defend yourself against the charges and this is supposed to save face for Jay? Whatever, not my deal. What is my deal is that Jay didn't get any testimony on record where he could ramble or be evasive (probably by design) and now the "new" Jay Mariotti is up to his old tricks of doing the same things he accuses the media doing to him.
Bonds: “I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal lives. We’re friends, but ... we don’t sit around and talk baseball, because he knows I don’t want — don’t come to my house talking baseball. If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other stuff, we’ll be good friends. You come around talking about baseball, you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean?”
Prosecutor: “And, again, I guess we’ve covered this, but did [Anderson] ever give you anything that he told you had to be taken with a needle or syringe?”
Bonds: “Greg wouldn’t do that. He knows I’m against that stuff. So, he would never come up to me — he would never jeopardize our friendship like that.”
Exactly. Everyone knows that Barry Bonds isn't injecting anything to his body. He prefers creams and other more non-invasive methods of using steroids.
Prosecutor: “OK. So, just so I’m clear, the answer is no to that, he never gave you anything like that?”
Bonds: “Right.”
Now Bonds has resorted to just naming general directions? "Right," "Left," "Straight"...at what point do these evasive answers become obstruction of justice? Jay Mariotti, Esq. knows that answers and the corrupt legal system again screwed up by not acknowledging Jay's reality as the reality that is the rule of law.
Shrewd and calculating, Bonds waited out the pitcher. He didn’t swing and took his bases on balls. Now, years later, he somehow gets a complete pass,
This is an excellent example of Jay "not pushing a straightforward narrative" to find "heroes and villains." Jay was quick to point out how an expungement is issued rarely and with considerable diligence. Apparently a federal court overturning the decision of a lower court in a 10-1 ruling happens often and with zero diligence or regard for the facts of the case. Federal courts sometimes overrule a lower court's ruling by a 10-1 margin rather than confirm or remand the case just because the Magic 8-Ball says to do so.
I still chuckle at the "perspective" that Jay claims to have now. He's the worst.
Judge Alex Kozinski writing, “Making everyone who participates in our justice system a potential criminal defendant for conduct that is nothing more than the ordinary tug and pull of litigation risks chilling zealous advocacy. It also gives prosecutors the immense and unreviewable power to reward friends and punish enemies by prosecuting the latter and giving the former a pass.”
So Kozinski is suggesting Bonds has been wronged by a corrupt prosecutor. What a world, huh?
Apparently Jay wrote this sentence with no sense of irony regarding what Jay has written before. Here is what Jay wrote prior on Sports Talk Florida:
I've seen firsthand how sleazy it all is — traffic-obsessed media, sloppy and dishonest police work, headline-seeking prosecutors, predisposed judges, a rival lawyer who advised my lawyer not to represent me.
Yeah Jay, suggesting that you were wronged by a corrupt, headline-seeking prosecutor is RIDICULOUS though isn't it? Bonds didn't even say he was wronged, but a federal court judge mentioned in his opinion he was concerned by unnamed, possibly not existing and definitely not existing in this case, prosecutors maybe having unreviewable power. Jay, using the same legal knowledge that allowed him to write a book about "the system," takes this to mean the Judge Kozinski is calling THIS prosecutor as corrupt. In reality (which is a place where Jay does not live), the only one complaining about a corrupt and power-hungry prosecutor is Jay Mariotti.
I side with the lone dissenting judge, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, who wrote: “I cry foul.”
The smell is foul, too.
Maybe you should take a shower and wash the stink of your own bullshit and hypocrisy off of you then. Nice "perspective" you have now, Jay. Jay wants to have it both ways. He wants to write about the corrupt legal system and the headline-thirsty media, all while taking part in being headline-thirsty himself. He wants to claim he's a "new" Jay Mariotti while also claiming he isn't going to change. Jay wants to claim a special knowledge of the legal system all while clearly having no idea what a legal ruling entails and means. He's a fake and a hypocrite as always.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
2 comments Sportswriter Who Doesn't Cover Baseball Regularly, Yet Has a Hall of Fame Vote, Wants to Void PED-aided Home Run Record So PED-aided Home Run Record Isn't Surpassed
Philip Hersh covers the Olympics for the "Chicago Tribune." He covered baseball quite a few years ago, so naturally he still has a Hall of Fame vote. Because that makes sense and this is one of the 50 issues currently plaguing the baseball Hall of Fame voting system. That's beside the point. Hersh is keeping his vote for the Hall of Fame to prevent the PED-users from entering the Hall of Fame. It's not really a noble cause, but whatever gets him up in the morning, I guess. Hersh thinks that MLB should void some of the home runs that A-Rod has hit so that he doesn't pass the home run record that Barry Bonds set. First off, A-Rod isn't passing Bonds. It's not happening and I would bet money on this. Second, does he recognize the logic of voiding home runs set by a PED user so he doesn't pass a record set by another PED user is all kinds of crazy? He does, but he doesn't care. The integrity of the game is what is important, even though giving a Hall of Fame vote to a guy who regularly covers the Olympics probably isn't in the best interests of the integrity of the game either.
Here is Hersh's background:
Philip Hersh, the Olympic specialist for Tribune Co., has covered 17 Olympics and reported from some 50 countries in 30 years with the Chicago Tribune. He likes to use sport as a way to write about the culture of a country or an athlete. Hersh graduated from Yale with a Bachelor of Arts in French literature. His passions include chamber music, road cycling (takes no PEDs except Advil) and Dr. Siri mysteries.
I don't think that precludes him from having a Hall of Fame vote, but since he is a self-admitted globetrotter then I wonder how he has time to pay attention to baseball enough to continue having a Hall of Fame vote? Also, is Hersh the only baseball Hall of Fame voter with a BA in French literature?
I love Hersh's picture alongside his column. It looks like he is very displeased that his picture is being taken because these newfangled cameras are going to suck just a little bit of the soul out of him. What happened to just taking a Polaroid picture and shaking it until it developed?
Alex Rodriguez reported Monday to the Yankees’ spring training camp, two days before position players were expected.
Which of course is another example of something that shows the selfishness of A-Rod in that he didn't even warn the Yankees he would be showing up early to prepare for the season. The Yankees want A-Rod to do his own thing and handle questions from reporters in his own way without involving them, but he should at least keep them updated on his every move. They want control over how A-Rod handles and interacts with the media until they don't anymore.
The repeat doping offender must have wanted to get a head start on his recently reported vow to break Barry Bonds’ career home run record.
Oh sure, Bonds' career home run record is THE OFFICIAL home run record when it comes time for Alex Rodriguez to chase it, but when it comes time to put Bonds in the Hall of Fame based on his all-time home run record, Hersh prefers to leave Bonds out of the Hall of Fame with his tainted record. It's the official home run record until it isn't convenient for it to be the official home run record.
If baseball’s leaders were fully committed to anti-doping, there would be no way Rodriguez could get close to Bonds’ 762 (***) home runs, no matter how many more years the 39-year-old A-Rod plays.
Absolutely true. If baseball's leaders were committed to anti-doping then they would void A-Rod's home runs so that the real home run king, Barry Bonds, could have his record stand. Well, then they would have to void Bonds' home runs since he is tied to PED's as well. So that leaves Hank Aaron's home run record, though given the fact he played during a time of vast greenie use there really isn't any guarantee that Aaron didn't use something that is now illegal for MLB players to use. So baseball should probably void that record too and give it back to Babe Ruth. Though, given Ruth's proclivities off the field, there is no guarantee he didn't have an STD that helped him hit the baseball further and there was simply no testing that could prove this STD contributed to his power surge. So it's probably best if MLB voids his home run record as well, just to be safe. That leaves Roger Connor as the all-time home run king. But he retired in 1897, so he didn't even play against any quality competition during an era when baseball integrated. It's probably best to void that home run record too. In fact, let's just say there is no home run record and talk about it no more. Void every home run ever hit and every win ever won by any team that may or may not have had a PED user, greenie user, carrier of a super-powerful STD, and player who played prior to integration. Throw away the record book and start the records over beginning during the 2015 season. That should ensure there is no funny business with the MLB record book.
Because baseball should wipe at least 190 home runs from Rodriguez’ current total of 654.
Maybe just round up to 200. Fuck it, why not? If MLB is going to start eliminating records then let's just make it easier to keep count and start rounding up or down.
Sprinter Ben Johnson lost an Olympic gold medal and a world record after a positive drug test.
A gold medal is a totally different thing from an all-time home run record in baseball. One takes place over a short period of time, while the other takes place over a 20+ year baseball career. They aren't comparable to each other.
Sprinter Marion Jones lost five Olympic medals and had all results from nearly a year-long period erased after she admitted to doping.
Still not the same thing. These are individual performances and baseball is a team sport.
Little League International stripped Jackie Robinson West of a U.S. title for playing fast and loose with geographical boundaries for its team members.
This is a team sport and it's little league, not professional baseball. I don't think MLB should be in the business of just removing home runs that a player hit because he used PED's. The MLB record book is going to be a bit of a mess already and I see no reason to remove home runs used in the win total of the teams that A-Rod played for. I think it would make the MLB record books even more convoluted and confusing to understand. Worried about "the kids" and what they will think of PED users? Try to tell "the kids" that A-Rod played for the Yankees and hit home runs that count in the win total of the Yankees but don't count for the MLB record book. Sure, the wins count, but the actions taken to get the win do not count.
And baseball leaves A-Rod’s numbers as is?
Yes. You are a quick learner.
Rodriguez told ESPN he had used performance-enhancing drugs from 2001 through 2003. He hit 156 home runs in those three seasons.
This is how Hersh got to the 190 home runs total. Of course, if A-Rod says he used PED's from 2001-2003, then why wouldn't Hersh trust a guy who has lied multiple times about his PED use? Let's base A-Rod's career home run total on when A-Rod states he used PED's. What could go wrong?
The Miami Herald reported Rodriguez told federal agents he had used banned substances from late 2010 to October 2012. He hit 34 home runs in 2011 and 2012.
And again, this is a number that can be trusted because A-Rod has always spit out the truth about his PED use?
Yet the .pdf document spelling out Major League Baseball’s policy on drug prevention and treatment includes no reference to invalidating / erasing individual statistics of a player who tests positive or admits to doping, a common part of discipline for such offenses in Olympic sports.
Which is why voiding the home runs that A-Rod hit so that another PED user can be the all-time home run king is a dumb idea. It's professional baseball, not the Olympics. There is no MLB policy on changing the record book or erasing statistics of a player who tests positive or admits doping and there should not be. Simply because Philip Hersh loves the Olympics and thinks the Olympic penalty for doping is the best policy doesn't mean that MLB should agree. Altering the record book and simply pretending a record wasn't set is a bad precedent for MLB to start doing. Maybe the Olympics are fine with just erasing history, good or bad, but I don't think MLB should be in that business. If so, there would be a lot of history and records set in the 1960's that violated today's MLB policy on drug preventing and treatment. If records are set which violate MLB's policy on drug prevention and treatment, then those records need to be consistently erased from the record books. We wouldn't want a stain on the record book by having any greenie users holding important MLB records.
MLB spokesman Pat Courtney confirmed in an email that the MLB discipline for doping, proved by test or admission, does not include erasing statistics.
Did this really require an email confirmation? There is nothing in the policy that mentions erasing statistics and MLB has never erased statistics before.
It will be even more laughable if A-Rod, who is returning from a one-season doping suspension, passes Bonds’ record, even if that mark hardly is sacrosanct.
MLB wouldn't want the travesty of a PED user surpassing the home run mark set by another PED user. It seems that Hersh uses the LIFO method of statistic erasing. The last person who sets the home run record by using PED's is the person whose name gets erased from the record book first. Bonds may have used PED's, but he was before A-Rod in the record books so his tainted record stays.
It already needs asterisks (***) because of Bonds’ involvement with PEDs, his ridiculous claims of having used them unknowingly notwithstanding.
Why does Bonds get an asterisk but A-Rod's record (that he won't achieve) gets erased completely? The randomness of life? Or is this just how the Olympics would handle the situation? We all know the IOC is an incorruptible organization so it's best to base MLB policies on what the IOC would do in a given situation.
If Manfred wanted to show the sport really has cleaned itself up and that his is a new era, he should start by wiping all the demonstrably tainted statistics from the record books.
But rest assured, this wiping of tainted statistics from the record books would have to include any baseball players in the 1950's through the 1970's that used a substance which is now banned by MLB. The statistics weren't tainted at the time they were set, but those statistics were achieved using methods that violate the current MLB policy on drug prevention.
That means not only A-Rod’s but those of every other player for whom there is a known period of use.
Of course, with many of these players having lied about using PED's in the first place, it's smart to just trust them on the time period in which they used PED's. Of course.
Their best days shouldn’t be numbered.
I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!
Philip Hersh will now retire from writing or thinking about baseball until next winter when his Hall of Fame ballot comes in the mail. These are your Hall of Fame voters.
Here is Hersh's background:
Philip Hersh, the Olympic specialist for Tribune Co., has covered 17 Olympics and reported from some 50 countries in 30 years with the Chicago Tribune. He likes to use sport as a way to write about the culture of a country or an athlete. Hersh graduated from Yale with a Bachelor of Arts in French literature. His passions include chamber music, road cycling (takes no PEDs except Advil) and Dr. Siri mysteries.
I don't think that precludes him from having a Hall of Fame vote, but since he is a self-admitted globetrotter then I wonder how he has time to pay attention to baseball enough to continue having a Hall of Fame vote? Also, is Hersh the only baseball Hall of Fame voter with a BA in French literature?
I love Hersh's picture alongside his column. It looks like he is very displeased that his picture is being taken because these newfangled cameras are going to suck just a little bit of the soul out of him. What happened to just taking a Polaroid picture and shaking it until it developed?
Alex Rodriguez reported Monday to the Yankees’ spring training camp, two days before position players were expected.
Which of course is another example of something that shows the selfishness of A-Rod in that he didn't even warn the Yankees he would be showing up early to prepare for the season. The Yankees want A-Rod to do his own thing and handle questions from reporters in his own way without involving them, but he should at least keep them updated on his every move. They want control over how A-Rod handles and interacts with the media until they don't anymore.
The repeat doping offender must have wanted to get a head start on his recently reported vow to break Barry Bonds’ career home run record.
Oh sure, Bonds' career home run record is THE OFFICIAL home run record when it comes time for Alex Rodriguez to chase it, but when it comes time to put Bonds in the Hall of Fame based on his all-time home run record, Hersh prefers to leave Bonds out of the Hall of Fame with his tainted record. It's the official home run record until it isn't convenient for it to be the official home run record.
If baseball’s leaders were fully committed to anti-doping, there would be no way Rodriguez could get close to Bonds’ 762 (***) home runs, no matter how many more years the 39-year-old A-Rod plays.
Absolutely true. If baseball's leaders were committed to anti-doping then they would void A-Rod's home runs so that the real home run king, Barry Bonds, could have his record stand. Well, then they would have to void Bonds' home runs since he is tied to PED's as well. So that leaves Hank Aaron's home run record, though given the fact he played during a time of vast greenie use there really isn't any guarantee that Aaron didn't use something that is now illegal for MLB players to use. So baseball should probably void that record too and give it back to Babe Ruth. Though, given Ruth's proclivities off the field, there is no guarantee he didn't have an STD that helped him hit the baseball further and there was simply no testing that could prove this STD contributed to his power surge. So it's probably best if MLB voids his home run record as well, just to be safe. That leaves Roger Connor as the all-time home run king. But he retired in 1897, so he didn't even play against any quality competition during an era when baseball integrated. It's probably best to void that home run record too. In fact, let's just say there is no home run record and talk about it no more. Void every home run ever hit and every win ever won by any team that may or may not have had a PED user, greenie user, carrier of a super-powerful STD, and player who played prior to integration. Throw away the record book and start the records over beginning during the 2015 season. That should ensure there is no funny business with the MLB record book.
Because baseball should wipe at least 190 home runs from Rodriguez’ current total of 654.
Maybe just round up to 200. Fuck it, why not? If MLB is going to start eliminating records then let's just make it easier to keep count and start rounding up or down.
Sprinter Ben Johnson lost an Olympic gold medal and a world record after a positive drug test.
A gold medal is a totally different thing from an all-time home run record in baseball. One takes place over a short period of time, while the other takes place over a 20+ year baseball career. They aren't comparable to each other.
Sprinter Marion Jones lost five Olympic medals and had all results from nearly a year-long period erased after she admitted to doping.
Still not the same thing. These are individual performances and baseball is a team sport.
Little League International stripped Jackie Robinson West of a U.S. title for playing fast and loose with geographical boundaries for its team members.
This is a team sport and it's little league, not professional baseball. I don't think MLB should be in the business of just removing home runs that a player hit because he used PED's. The MLB record book is going to be a bit of a mess already and I see no reason to remove home runs used in the win total of the teams that A-Rod played for. I think it would make the MLB record books even more convoluted and confusing to understand. Worried about "the kids" and what they will think of PED users? Try to tell "the kids" that A-Rod played for the Yankees and hit home runs that count in the win total of the Yankees but don't count for the MLB record book. Sure, the wins count, but the actions taken to get the win do not count.
And baseball leaves A-Rod’s numbers as is?
Yes. You are a quick learner.
Rodriguez told ESPN he had used performance-enhancing drugs from 2001 through 2003. He hit 156 home runs in those three seasons.
This is how Hersh got to the 190 home runs total. Of course, if A-Rod says he used PED's from 2001-2003, then why wouldn't Hersh trust a guy who has lied multiple times about his PED use? Let's base A-Rod's career home run total on when A-Rod states he used PED's. What could go wrong?
The Miami Herald reported Rodriguez told federal agents he had used banned substances from late 2010 to October 2012. He hit 34 home runs in 2011 and 2012.
And again, this is a number that can be trusted because A-Rod has always spit out the truth about his PED use?
Yet the .pdf document spelling out Major League Baseball’s policy on drug prevention and treatment includes no reference to invalidating / erasing individual statistics of a player who tests positive or admits to doping, a common part of discipline for such offenses in Olympic sports.
Which is why voiding the home runs that A-Rod hit so that another PED user can be the all-time home run king is a dumb idea. It's professional baseball, not the Olympics. There is no MLB policy on changing the record book or erasing statistics of a player who tests positive or admits doping and there should not be. Simply because Philip Hersh loves the Olympics and thinks the Olympic penalty for doping is the best policy doesn't mean that MLB should agree. Altering the record book and simply pretending a record wasn't set is a bad precedent for MLB to start doing. Maybe the Olympics are fine with just erasing history, good or bad, but I don't think MLB should be in that business. If so, there would be a lot of history and records set in the 1960's that violated today's MLB policy on drug preventing and treatment. If records are set which violate MLB's policy on drug prevention and treatment, then those records need to be consistently erased from the record books. We wouldn't want a stain on the record book by having any greenie users holding important MLB records.
MLB spokesman Pat Courtney confirmed in an email that the MLB discipline for doping, proved by test or admission, does not include erasing statistics.
Did this really require an email confirmation? There is nothing in the policy that mentions erasing statistics and MLB has never erased statistics before.
It will be even more laughable if A-Rod, who is returning from a one-season doping suspension, passes Bonds’ record, even if that mark hardly is sacrosanct.
MLB wouldn't want the travesty of a PED user surpassing the home run mark set by another PED user. It seems that Hersh uses the LIFO method of statistic erasing. The last person who sets the home run record by using PED's is the person whose name gets erased from the record book first. Bonds may have used PED's, but he was before A-Rod in the record books so his tainted record stays.
It already needs asterisks (***) because of Bonds’ involvement with PEDs, his ridiculous claims of having used them unknowingly notwithstanding.
Why does Bonds get an asterisk but A-Rod's record (that he won't achieve) gets erased completely? The randomness of life? Or is this just how the Olympics would handle the situation? We all know the IOC is an incorruptible organization so it's best to base MLB policies on what the IOC would do in a given situation.
If Manfred wanted to show the sport really has cleaned itself up and that his is a new era, he should start by wiping all the demonstrably tainted statistics from the record books.
But rest assured, this wiping of tainted statistics from the record books would have to include any baseball players in the 1950's through the 1970's that used a substance which is now banned by MLB. The statistics weren't tainted at the time they were set, but those statistics were achieved using methods that violate the current MLB policy on drug prevention.
That means not only A-Rod’s but those of every other player for whom there is a known period of use.
Of course, with many of these players having lied about using PED's in the first place, it's smart to just trust them on the time period in which they used PED's. Of course.
Their best days shouldn’t be numbered.
I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!
Philip Hersh will now retire from writing or thinking about baseball until next winter when his Hall of Fame ballot comes in the mail. These are your Hall of Fame voters.
Monday, February 9, 2015
0 comments Bill Madden Has Some Thoughts on an Expanded Hall of Fame Ballot and Will Vote for Mike Piazza Just as Soon as He Can Predict the Future
Bill Madden does not always enjoy new ideas. He is not cool with the Hall of Fame proposal to allow voters to choose 12 candidates on their ballot. Madden, who just a short year and a half ago missed steroids' and their impact on baseball, also won't vote for Mike Piazza to enter the Hall of Fame until he knows for sure that Piazza didn't use steroids. So basically he isn't going to ever vote for Mike Piazza to enter the Hall of Fame, because I can't imagine there will be more information revealed about whether a baseball player who retired five years ago used PED's or not when he played.
I'll start first with Bill Madden's sadness at the baseball Hall of Fame changing the selection process even just a little bit. After all, the process has worked perfectly for 71 years, why should it change now? Other than the Steroid Era presents a problem that Hall of Fame voters admit they aren't sure how to solve and haven't ever had to deal with in the past which some believe is affecting the process, of course. And other than an era of baseball that has changed the way voters consider candidates, nothing has changed from 71 years ago. Change isn't always good, sometimes it's scary when you don't have the energy to adjust to these changes.
No matter how many people the Baseball Writers’ Association votes into the Hall of Fame — Tuesday’s class of Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz and Craig Biggio was the biggest since 1955 — there are always those who want to change the process,
Why change something that is working and causes very little controversy?
even though that process and the way it’s played out over 71 years are why baseball’s shrine at Cooperstown is the only Hall of Fame anybody cares about so passionately.
Yes, people care about the baseball Hall of Fame so passionately because of the process and how voting works. If the Hall of Fame allowed voters to include 12 potential inductees on the ballot it would ruin the process forever. FOREVER, I tell you! If two more players can be placed on a single voter's ballot it would disrupt the delicate balance that currently exists which makes the Hall of Fame voting so flawless.
Johnson, with his 303 wins, 4,875 strikeouts (the second-most ever) and five Cy Young Awards; Pedro, with his three Cy Youngs, five ERA titles and three strikeout titles; “Double Duty” Smoltz, with his 213 wins and 154 saves and 15-4, 2.67 postseason record; and the versatile Biggio, with his 3,060 hits and 668 doubles, the most by a righthanded hitter, were clearly the cream of one of the strongest Hall of Fame ballots ever, and as a result, a lot of eminently Hall-worthy candidates not linked to steroids — such as Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina and Jeff Kent — suffered the consequences, with vote totals not even approaching 50% when 75% is required for election.
This is pretty annoying. Why should Hall-worthy candidates not receive votes because Johnson, Smoltz, Biggio and Pedro were on the ballot? If Schilling, Kent, and Mussina are all worthy of getting a Hall of Fame vote when the ballot is not as loaded then they wouldn't they be worthy when there is a more loaded ballot? The purpose of voting for the Hall of Fame isn't to elect new members every year, but to elect worthy members when they are worthy. If Curt Schilling is not a Hall of Famer on a loaded ballot, then he isn't a Hall of Famer on a weaker ballot either. His status doesn't and should not change simply because there are considered to be fewer Hall-worthy candidates on the ballot. I know this isn't how many of these moronic voters work, but it's how they should work. The point isn't to save votes for Schilling on a less loaded ballot, but to vote for him if he deserves induction no matter how many other worthy candidates are on the ballot.
On one hand, you still have the diehard fans and other media critics who feel the baseball writers should not have the power to keep the accused or suspected steroid cheats — Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Co. — out of Cooperstown
I don't know of any person who has written that Hall of Fame voters should not have the power to keep these suspected and accused steroid cheats out of the Hall of Fame. I've read people opine the voters SHOULD NOT keep these accused and suspected cheats out of the Hall of Fame, but not read these voters lack the power to do. I feel like Bill Madden doesn't even understand the argument the opposition to his point of view is making and he prefers to simply create the argument he believes they are making, in place of being informed.
What’s a mockery is what Bonds did to the home run records and the argument that, well, he was already a Hall of Famer before he started doing steroids.
I think he was.
As if we know exactly when that was, just like we didn’t know Alex Rodriguez was doing steroids all those years with the Yankees — and not just from 2001-2003 with Texas — until he confessed as much to the feds last summer.
Bill Madden pulls out the "We don't know when Barry Bonds started cheating" card. So Bill Madden knows Barry Bonds was cheating, because just look at his statistics, but he isn't able to tell when exactly Bonds started using steroids. Madden has no way of looking at Bonds' statistics and determining what seasons Bonds was clean, but he is an expert at looking at Bonds' statistics and knowing for sure that Bonds was cheating and when. It's funny how that works isn't it? Madden knows Bonds cheated, he just can't tell if Bonds' statistics were affected by it or not.
One would think that Bill Madden could use the same information that accuses of Bonds of using PED's to figure out when Bonds started using PED's and work his career backwards from there. But why would Madden use the same information he uses to indict Bonds in order to figure out whether Bonds was a Hall of Famer prior to his steroid use? It's Madden's job to do the smallest amount of research possible in order to come to the conclusion he wants to reach.
It has been shared in books that Bonds started using steroids after he saw how McGwire and Sosa were able to put up fantastic numbers by using them. So that would be around 1998-1999. A look at Bonds' career shows this to be true. Bonds had normal human numbers until the 2000 season when he all of a sudden exploded and started hitting career highs in home run numbers. So just looking at Bonds' career statistics it can be seen he probably started using PED's in 1999 or 2000. So he was a Hall of Fame prior to using PED's because he would have had 3 MVP awards, 445 home runs, 1299 RBI's, 2010 hits, and 8 Gold Gloves. Assuming that Bonds never used steroids he would have been a Hall of Famer with the statistics he accumulated from age 35 to when he retired. Even if Bonds retired in 1999 and never played again he would have been 40th in home runs all time, which would be even higher if I took the time to remove the other players above him who were suspected or accused of using PED's. Basically, I think Bonds was a Hall of Famer if he never used PED's and posted numbers that regressed like a normal 35 year old would regress.
The point is, it doesn’t matter when or for how long a player cheated. A cheater is a cheater and shouldn’t be bestowed with baseball’s highest honor.
Fine, that's your point of view, but I think if Bonds had never used steroids then he would have been a Hall of Famer. In determining a player's Hall of Fame credentials some voters would consider Bonds' numbers only when he was clean and vote for him anyway. A cheater is a cheater, but if the time when Bonds wasn't cheating is considered then he possibly should be bestowed with baseball's highest honor. He didn't cheat his whole career. It's pretty obvious when looking at his career statistics.
But there is now another faction of critics of the process — among the baseball writers themselves — complaining about the Hall limiting voters to “up to 10” candidates. Writers are venting over not having enough room on their ballot for players such as Mussina, Schilling or Kent, whom they really wanted to vote for but could not because they prioritized 10 other people.
I really fail to see the issue with having 12 candidates on the ballot. As will be pointed by Bill Madden, and pointed out by others, most voters don't even vote for 10 candidates. So what's the harm in responding to the Steroid Era's impact on the ballot by simply allowing voters to choose 12 candidates permanently or even temporarily? Voters will vote for who they choose to vote for. Maybe 4 candidates, maybe 12. No one gets hurt and the ballot gets changed in response to voters who are vexed by the Steroid Era players on the ballot.
Recently, a special committee formed by the Baseball Writers’ Association submitted a request to the Hall’s Board of Directors to expand the ballot to at least 12.
I suspect the request is going to be denied — as it should be.
Yes, because change is bad. The Steroid Era provides a predicament that the baseball Hall of Fame hasn't encountered before, but the Hall of Fame should not adjust the voting process in order to adjust to the predicament. Obviously.
Yes, the ballots in the last two years have been overcrowded with top quality candidates — in successive years, you had three no-brainer first ballot guys, Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Johnson, Martinez and Smoltz, all of whom were elected — and it has been exacerbated by the continued presence on the ballot of Bonds and Clemens, who would’ve been elected by now had they not been the poster boys for steroid cheating
But no special consideration should be given to deal with this overcrowding and the presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot. Again, this would be a change and the Hall of Fame balloting has done fine for 71 year now without change. Why should an unprecedented situation call for a change now?
Despite the laments of all those writers who wanted to vote for so many of the players who finished way down in the voting, if only they had room, what this election clearly showed is that the overwhelming sentiment of the writers was that those players were not in the same class as Johnson, Martinez, Smoltz and Biggio.
So there is nothing to worry about by increasing the number of candidates who voters can vote for. No unworthy Hall candidates will be elected into the Hall of Fame and those writers who want more room to vote for candidates they perceive as worthy will receive two extra spaces on the ballot. Everyone is happy.
It’s not to say they’re not worthy or will never get in, they just have to wait for a much leaner ballot, quality-wise.
WHICH MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE TO ME AND SHOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO BILL MADDEN EITHER!
If a player is worthy, then why should a lean or heavy ballot matter? A player's Hall of Fame candidacy should be irrelevant to what the rest of the ballot looks like. This infuriates me about the Hall of Fame voting. A player is suddenly deemed worthy of the Hall of Fame if no other quality candidates are on the ballot, but if the ballot is heavy then all of a sudden that player's Hall of Fame resume doesn't look as good, despite the fact nothing at all has changed about his candidacy. All of a sudden, Curt Schilling becomes the skinniest kid at fat camp because OF COURSE they have to elect someone to the Hall of Fame every year. Sure, Schilling wasn't worthy last year, but that's because the players around him were worthy. Now that the ballot is lighter, Schilling's candidacy which hasn't changed at all suddenly looks better to Hall of Fame voters.
And for the record, only 280 of the 540 voting writers, barely more than 50%, used all 10 spots on their ballots. The average was 8.4 spots per ballot.
Then increasing the amount of spots available to use for worthy candidates to 12 wouldn't make a difference at all. It would simply help out the 50% of voters who may want to vote for more than 10 candidates. Bill Madden can't argue increasing the number of spots would hurt or dramatically alter the Hall of Fame and then be all like, "Well, no one even uses those spots anyway." If no one uses the spots, then the Hall of Fame isn't in danger of being hurt or altered dramatically.
For what it’s worth to the “increase the ballot” bunch, 17 players, including the four just elected, will be coming off the ballot next year and, of the 2016 newcomers, only Ken Griffey Jr. could be considered a no-brainer
Which means these brain dead voters will all of a sudden think inducting Curt Schilling is a good idea, since we wouldn't want Ken Griffey Jr. to be standing alone on the podium would we? All of a sudden, Curt Schilling should be in the Hall of Fame. Not based on his career achievements, but based on the lighter ballot.
(The year after, the biggest names are Vladimir Guerrero, Jorge Posada and steroids-tainted Manny Ramirez and Pudge Rodriguez — none of them automatics.)
Vlad should be in. I didn't know Pudge Rodriguez was officially steroid-tainted. He's the Hispanic version of Mike Piazza I guess. I can't wait to see articles about Pudge's regression later in his career as proof of his PED use, while the fact other Hall of Fame catchers have regressed later in their career due to the wear and tear of the position will be ignored.
So for those voters who couldn’t find room for Schilling, Mussina or Kent this year, that’s at least four spaces that have opened up for you next year.
(Bangs head on the wall)
Vote for these guys, that's fine. Just don't vote for them next year, but not vote for them this year, simply because the ballot is lighter is next year.
And for those who voted for Bonds and Clemens, don’t bother wasting any of your 10 spaces on them anymore. They’re never getting in.
But some voters do want to waste their space voting for these guys. That's the purpose of increasing the spots on the ballot by two. The only reason Bill Madden doesn't want to increase the spots available to 12 is because he knows it is intended to allow voters to vote for Hall of Fame-worthy candidates who are PED users. He's already stated the increase to 12 wouldn't change much because barely 50% of voters put 10 players on their ballot this year anyway.
Now Bill Madden tells his readers why he didn't vote for Mike Piazza. It's because he can't predict the future and what if in the future it turns out Mike Piazza is found to have used steroids? Not that Madden would pay attention to rumors around Piazza of course, but he just wants to be sure no information that probably won't come out ends up not coming out. I'm sure Piazza will get Madden's vote during his last year of eligibility, right? Because that's the final chance for additional information to come out about Piazza's suspected PED use. I'm sure Madden isn't just saying he is waiting for additional information to come out as an excuse to not vote for Piazza based on rumors, innuendo, and bacne.
First of all, I’ve always had my suspicions about Piazza, even though he never tested positive nor was he mentioned in the Mitchell Report.
This doesn't sound like the opening statement of a sportswriter who is definitely open-minded about waiting to find information about Piazza in the future. It sounds like the opening statement of a sportswriter who thinks Mike Piazza used steroids and can't figure out a way to prove it yet. So basically Madden has his mind made up, he just wants to wait to find proof that verifies his conclusion, and then he won't vote for Piazza either way.
Those suspicions were heightened when players who played against Piazza, a number of players, told me he used steroids.
Bitter, angry, competitive opponents stated that Mike Piazza used steroids? If there is a better source for accurate information on a player's PED use then guys who used to play against that player then I don't know what it could be. I'm sure these players wouldn't smear Piazza's name to further their own agenda or discredit Piazza's accomplishments. Competitive athletes would never do that.
Again, there may have been no proof of that, but I do know that those same players didn’t tell me other players were on steroids who weren’t.
How does Bill Madden know which players were on steroids and which weren't? Contrary to what he wants to believe, it's not that easy to tell. I'm sure Madden is one of those who had Jason Grimsley, Jay Gibbons and Francisco Cervelli pegged from the very start. He's the Steroid Whisperer and knows who has and has not used steroids.
Sure, there may be no proof that Piazza used steroids but these players didn't tell Bill Madden other players were on steroids and they weren't. So obviously because these players had never lied before, they would not lie about Piazza. The first lie is always the hardest to figure out by the way.
Nobody ever told me Fred McGriff was on steroids, or Jeff Kent.
Okay, so that means they were definitely clean? Jeff Kent had a few 'roid rage fights with Barry Bonds through the years. I'd have some suspicions about him, but I guess he had no bacne.
So with all of that, I decided to withhold my vote on Piazza, the reason being I did not want to vote somebody into the Hall of Fame who I would then find out two or three years later had, in fact, been a steroids cheat.
See, this is just an excuse. Bill Madden just doesn't want to vote for Piazza because he believes he is a steroids cheat. Madden is waiting for revelations to come out which prove his theory that Piazza used PED's, and if these revelations never occur, he's still not voting for Piazza. You can bank on that.
As far as anyone knew for certain, Alex Rodriguez did steroids only those three years he was in Texas, because that’s what he told us, over and over again. And then five years later, we find out different: It turns out Rodriguez was a huge figure in the Biogenesis doping scandal in Miami, was suspended for a season by Major League Baseball even as he continued to deny publicly that he used steroids, then finally confessed to federal investigators that he was indeed a user during the years he was with the Yankees.
And if Bill Madden can't tell the difference in a two-admitted steroid user and a suspected steroid user then there is absolutely no hope for him. In fact, this comparison to A-Rod simply goes to my conclusion that Madden is hiding behind the whole "I need more information about Piazza's PED use" as an excuse for simply not wanting to vote for Piazza. There's not going to be information that proves Piazza didn't use steroids, so the only information Madden is waiting on is information that proves the conclusion he has already reached. So no matter what happens, Bill Madden is not voting for Mike Piazza. Just say it and don't hide behind the desperate search for new information like you are O.J. trying to find his wife's killers.
That’s why I withheld my vote on Mike Piazza.
So because an admitted steroid user again got caught using steroids then a suspected steroid user shouldn't get a vote? I guess that makes sense to someone who feels strongly that Mike Piazza used steroids. The same lack of benefit of the doubt that Madden is giving Piazza is the reason Madden will never vote for Piazza until he disproves a negative. Just don't hide behind the "I need more information on Piazza's suspected PED use" excuse. If you buy the rumors then your mind is already made up.
Conceivably, I may eventually vote for him.
You probably will not. Conceivably.
Of course my vote may not be necessary anyway, because barring revelations between now and then that he was a steroid user, I think he is going to get elected next year.
Maybe. I'm sure Bill Madden thinks Piazza will definitely get elected into the Hall of Fame if the ballot allows 12 candidates to receive a vote.
With or without my vote.
Probably without your vote. If you aren't going to vote for Mike Piazza just say it's because you think he used PED's. Don't say it's because you suspect he used PED's and are waiting for more information. Your readers aren't as dumb as you think they are.
I don't like Mike Piazza and I'm tired of seeming like I like him and want to defend him.
I'll start first with Bill Madden's sadness at the baseball Hall of Fame changing the selection process even just a little bit. After all, the process has worked perfectly for 71 years, why should it change now? Other than the Steroid Era presents a problem that Hall of Fame voters admit they aren't sure how to solve and haven't ever had to deal with in the past which some believe is affecting the process, of course. And other than an era of baseball that has changed the way voters consider candidates, nothing has changed from 71 years ago. Change isn't always good, sometimes it's scary when you don't have the energy to adjust to these changes.
No matter how many people the Baseball Writers’ Association votes into the Hall of Fame — Tuesday’s class of Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz and Craig Biggio was the biggest since 1955 — there are always those who want to change the process,
Why change something that is working and causes very little controversy?
even though that process and the way it’s played out over 71 years are why baseball’s shrine at Cooperstown is the only Hall of Fame anybody cares about so passionately.
Yes, people care about the baseball Hall of Fame so passionately because of the process and how voting works. If the Hall of Fame allowed voters to include 12 potential inductees on the ballot it would ruin the process forever. FOREVER, I tell you! If two more players can be placed on a single voter's ballot it would disrupt the delicate balance that currently exists which makes the Hall of Fame voting so flawless.
Johnson, with his 303 wins, 4,875 strikeouts (the second-most ever) and five Cy Young Awards; Pedro, with his three Cy Youngs, five ERA titles and three strikeout titles; “Double Duty” Smoltz, with his 213 wins and 154 saves and 15-4, 2.67 postseason record; and the versatile Biggio, with his 3,060 hits and 668 doubles, the most by a righthanded hitter, were clearly the cream of one of the strongest Hall of Fame ballots ever, and as a result, a lot of eminently Hall-worthy candidates not linked to steroids — such as Curt Schilling, Mike Mussina and Jeff Kent — suffered the consequences, with vote totals not even approaching 50% when 75% is required for election.
This is pretty annoying. Why should Hall-worthy candidates not receive votes because Johnson, Smoltz, Biggio and Pedro were on the ballot? If Schilling, Kent, and Mussina are all worthy of getting a Hall of Fame vote when the ballot is not as loaded then they wouldn't they be worthy when there is a more loaded ballot? The purpose of voting for the Hall of Fame isn't to elect new members every year, but to elect worthy members when they are worthy. If Curt Schilling is not a Hall of Famer on a loaded ballot, then he isn't a Hall of Famer on a weaker ballot either. His status doesn't and should not change simply because there are considered to be fewer Hall-worthy candidates on the ballot. I know this isn't how many of these moronic voters work, but it's how they should work. The point isn't to save votes for Schilling on a less loaded ballot, but to vote for him if he deserves induction no matter how many other worthy candidates are on the ballot.
On one hand, you still have the diehard fans and other media critics who feel the baseball writers should not have the power to keep the accused or suspected steroid cheats — Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Co. — out of Cooperstown
I don't know of any person who has written that Hall of Fame voters should not have the power to keep these suspected and accused steroid cheats out of the Hall of Fame. I've read people opine the voters SHOULD NOT keep these accused and suspected cheats out of the Hall of Fame, but not read these voters lack the power to do. I feel like Bill Madden doesn't even understand the argument the opposition to his point of view is making and he prefers to simply create the argument he believes they are making, in place of being informed.
What’s a mockery is what Bonds did to the home run records and the argument that, well, he was already a Hall of Famer before he started doing steroids.
I think he was.
As if we know exactly when that was, just like we didn’t know Alex Rodriguez was doing steroids all those years with the Yankees — and not just from 2001-2003 with Texas — until he confessed as much to the feds last summer.
Bill Madden pulls out the "We don't know when Barry Bonds started cheating" card. So Bill Madden knows Barry Bonds was cheating, because just look at his statistics, but he isn't able to tell when exactly Bonds started using steroids. Madden has no way of looking at Bonds' statistics and determining what seasons Bonds was clean, but he is an expert at looking at Bonds' statistics and knowing for sure that Bonds was cheating and when. It's funny how that works isn't it? Madden knows Bonds cheated, he just can't tell if Bonds' statistics were affected by it or not.
One would think that Bill Madden could use the same information that accuses of Bonds of using PED's to figure out when Bonds started using PED's and work his career backwards from there. But why would Madden use the same information he uses to indict Bonds in order to figure out whether Bonds was a Hall of Famer prior to his steroid use? It's Madden's job to do the smallest amount of research possible in order to come to the conclusion he wants to reach.
It has been shared in books that Bonds started using steroids after he saw how McGwire and Sosa were able to put up fantastic numbers by using them. So that would be around 1998-1999. A look at Bonds' career shows this to be true. Bonds had normal human numbers until the 2000 season when he all of a sudden exploded and started hitting career highs in home run numbers. So just looking at Bonds' career statistics it can be seen he probably started using PED's in 1999 or 2000. So he was a Hall of Fame prior to using PED's because he would have had 3 MVP awards, 445 home runs, 1299 RBI's, 2010 hits, and 8 Gold Gloves. Assuming that Bonds never used steroids he would have been a Hall of Famer with the statistics he accumulated from age 35 to when he retired. Even if Bonds retired in 1999 and never played again he would have been 40th in home runs all time, which would be even higher if I took the time to remove the other players above him who were suspected or accused of using PED's. Basically, I think Bonds was a Hall of Famer if he never used PED's and posted numbers that regressed like a normal 35 year old would regress.
The point is, it doesn’t matter when or for how long a player cheated. A cheater is a cheater and shouldn’t be bestowed with baseball’s highest honor.
Fine, that's your point of view, but I think if Bonds had never used steroids then he would have been a Hall of Famer. In determining a player's Hall of Fame credentials some voters would consider Bonds' numbers only when he was clean and vote for him anyway. A cheater is a cheater, but if the time when Bonds wasn't cheating is considered then he possibly should be bestowed with baseball's highest honor. He didn't cheat his whole career. It's pretty obvious when looking at his career statistics.
But there is now another faction of critics of the process — among the baseball writers themselves — complaining about the Hall limiting voters to “up to 10” candidates. Writers are venting over not having enough room on their ballot for players such as Mussina, Schilling or Kent, whom they really wanted to vote for but could not because they prioritized 10 other people.
I really fail to see the issue with having 12 candidates on the ballot. As will be pointed by Bill Madden, and pointed out by others, most voters don't even vote for 10 candidates. So what's the harm in responding to the Steroid Era's impact on the ballot by simply allowing voters to choose 12 candidates permanently or even temporarily? Voters will vote for who they choose to vote for. Maybe 4 candidates, maybe 12. No one gets hurt and the ballot gets changed in response to voters who are vexed by the Steroid Era players on the ballot.
Recently, a special committee formed by the Baseball Writers’ Association submitted a request to the Hall’s Board of Directors to expand the ballot to at least 12.
I suspect the request is going to be denied — as it should be.
Yes, because change is bad. The Steroid Era provides a predicament that the baseball Hall of Fame hasn't encountered before, but the Hall of Fame should not adjust the voting process in order to adjust to the predicament. Obviously.
Yes, the ballots in the last two years have been overcrowded with top quality candidates — in successive years, you had three no-brainer first ballot guys, Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas, Johnson, Martinez and Smoltz, all of whom were elected — and it has been exacerbated by the continued presence on the ballot of Bonds and Clemens, who would’ve been elected by now had they not been the poster boys for steroid cheating
But no special consideration should be given to deal with this overcrowding and the presence of Bonds and Clemens on the ballot. Again, this would be a change and the Hall of Fame balloting has done fine for 71 year now without change. Why should an unprecedented situation call for a change now?
Despite the laments of all those writers who wanted to vote for so many of the players who finished way down in the voting, if only they had room, what this election clearly showed is that the overwhelming sentiment of the writers was that those players were not in the same class as Johnson, Martinez, Smoltz and Biggio.
So there is nothing to worry about by increasing the number of candidates who voters can vote for. No unworthy Hall candidates will be elected into the Hall of Fame and those writers who want more room to vote for candidates they perceive as worthy will receive two extra spaces on the ballot. Everyone is happy.
It’s not to say they’re not worthy or will never get in, they just have to wait for a much leaner ballot, quality-wise.
WHICH MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE TO ME AND SHOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO BILL MADDEN EITHER!
If a player is worthy, then why should a lean or heavy ballot matter? A player's Hall of Fame candidacy should be irrelevant to what the rest of the ballot looks like. This infuriates me about the Hall of Fame voting. A player is suddenly deemed worthy of the Hall of Fame if no other quality candidates are on the ballot, but if the ballot is heavy then all of a sudden that player's Hall of Fame resume doesn't look as good, despite the fact nothing at all has changed about his candidacy. All of a sudden, Curt Schilling becomes the skinniest kid at fat camp because OF COURSE they have to elect someone to the Hall of Fame every year. Sure, Schilling wasn't worthy last year, but that's because the players around him were worthy. Now that the ballot is lighter, Schilling's candidacy which hasn't changed at all suddenly looks better to Hall of Fame voters.
And for the record, only 280 of the 540 voting writers, barely more than 50%, used all 10 spots on their ballots. The average was 8.4 spots per ballot.
Then increasing the amount of spots available to use for worthy candidates to 12 wouldn't make a difference at all. It would simply help out the 50% of voters who may want to vote for more than 10 candidates. Bill Madden can't argue increasing the number of spots would hurt or dramatically alter the Hall of Fame and then be all like, "Well, no one even uses those spots anyway." If no one uses the spots, then the Hall of Fame isn't in danger of being hurt or altered dramatically.
For what it’s worth to the “increase the ballot” bunch, 17 players, including the four just elected, will be coming off the ballot next year and, of the 2016 newcomers, only Ken Griffey Jr. could be considered a no-brainer
Which means these brain dead voters will all of a sudden think inducting Curt Schilling is a good idea, since we wouldn't want Ken Griffey Jr. to be standing alone on the podium would we? All of a sudden, Curt Schilling should be in the Hall of Fame. Not based on his career achievements, but based on the lighter ballot.
(The year after, the biggest names are Vladimir Guerrero, Jorge Posada and steroids-tainted Manny Ramirez and Pudge Rodriguez — none of them automatics.)
Vlad should be in. I didn't know Pudge Rodriguez was officially steroid-tainted. He's the Hispanic version of Mike Piazza I guess. I can't wait to see articles about Pudge's regression later in his career as proof of his PED use, while the fact other Hall of Fame catchers have regressed later in their career due to the wear and tear of the position will be ignored.
So for those voters who couldn’t find room for Schilling, Mussina or Kent this year, that’s at least four spaces that have opened up for you next year.
(Bangs head on the wall)
Vote for these guys, that's fine. Just don't vote for them next year, but not vote for them this year, simply because the ballot is lighter is next year.
And for those who voted for Bonds and Clemens, don’t bother wasting any of your 10 spaces on them anymore. They’re never getting in.
But some voters do want to waste their space voting for these guys. That's the purpose of increasing the spots on the ballot by two. The only reason Bill Madden doesn't want to increase the spots available to 12 is because he knows it is intended to allow voters to vote for Hall of Fame-worthy candidates who are PED users. He's already stated the increase to 12 wouldn't change much because barely 50% of voters put 10 players on their ballot this year anyway.
Now Bill Madden tells his readers why he didn't vote for Mike Piazza. It's because he can't predict the future and what if in the future it turns out Mike Piazza is found to have used steroids? Not that Madden would pay attention to rumors around Piazza of course, but he just wants to be sure no information that probably won't come out ends up not coming out. I'm sure Piazza will get Madden's vote during his last year of eligibility, right? Because that's the final chance for additional information to come out about Piazza's suspected PED use. I'm sure Madden isn't just saying he is waiting for additional information to come out as an excuse to not vote for Piazza based on rumors, innuendo, and bacne.
First of all, I’ve always had my suspicions about Piazza, even though he never tested positive nor was he mentioned in the Mitchell Report.
This doesn't sound like the opening statement of a sportswriter who is definitely open-minded about waiting to find information about Piazza in the future. It sounds like the opening statement of a sportswriter who thinks Mike Piazza used steroids and can't figure out a way to prove it yet. So basically Madden has his mind made up, he just wants to wait to find proof that verifies his conclusion, and then he won't vote for Piazza either way.
Those suspicions were heightened when players who played against Piazza, a number of players, told me he used steroids.
Bitter, angry, competitive opponents stated that Mike Piazza used steroids? If there is a better source for accurate information on a player's PED use then guys who used to play against that player then I don't know what it could be. I'm sure these players wouldn't smear Piazza's name to further their own agenda or discredit Piazza's accomplishments. Competitive athletes would never do that.
Again, there may have been no proof of that, but I do know that those same players didn’t tell me other players were on steroids who weren’t.
How does Bill Madden know which players were on steroids and which weren't? Contrary to what he wants to believe, it's not that easy to tell. I'm sure Madden is one of those who had Jason Grimsley, Jay Gibbons and Francisco Cervelli pegged from the very start. He's the Steroid Whisperer and knows who has and has not used steroids.
Sure, there may be no proof that Piazza used steroids but these players didn't tell Bill Madden other players were on steroids and they weren't. So obviously because these players had never lied before, they would not lie about Piazza. The first lie is always the hardest to figure out by the way.
Nobody ever told me Fred McGriff was on steroids, or Jeff Kent.
Okay, so that means they were definitely clean? Jeff Kent had a few 'roid rage fights with Barry Bonds through the years. I'd have some suspicions about him, but I guess he had no bacne.
So with all of that, I decided to withhold my vote on Piazza, the reason being I did not want to vote somebody into the Hall of Fame who I would then find out two or three years later had, in fact, been a steroids cheat.
See, this is just an excuse. Bill Madden just doesn't want to vote for Piazza because he believes he is a steroids cheat. Madden is waiting for revelations to come out which prove his theory that Piazza used PED's, and if these revelations never occur, he's still not voting for Piazza. You can bank on that.
As far as anyone knew for certain, Alex Rodriguez did steroids only those three years he was in Texas, because that’s what he told us, over and over again. And then five years later, we find out different: It turns out Rodriguez was a huge figure in the Biogenesis doping scandal in Miami, was suspended for a season by Major League Baseball even as he continued to deny publicly that he used steroids, then finally confessed to federal investigators that he was indeed a user during the years he was with the Yankees.
And if Bill Madden can't tell the difference in a two-admitted steroid user and a suspected steroid user then there is absolutely no hope for him. In fact, this comparison to A-Rod simply goes to my conclusion that Madden is hiding behind the whole "I need more information about Piazza's PED use" as an excuse for simply not wanting to vote for Piazza. There's not going to be information that proves Piazza didn't use steroids, so the only information Madden is waiting on is information that proves the conclusion he has already reached. So no matter what happens, Bill Madden is not voting for Mike Piazza. Just say it and don't hide behind the desperate search for new information like you are O.J. trying to find his wife's killers.
That’s why I withheld my vote on Mike Piazza.
So because an admitted steroid user again got caught using steroids then a suspected steroid user shouldn't get a vote? I guess that makes sense to someone who feels strongly that Mike Piazza used steroids. The same lack of benefit of the doubt that Madden is giving Piazza is the reason Madden will never vote for Piazza until he disproves a negative. Just don't hide behind the "I need more information on Piazza's suspected PED use" excuse. If you buy the rumors then your mind is already made up.
Conceivably, I may eventually vote for him.
You probably will not. Conceivably.
Of course my vote may not be necessary anyway, because barring revelations between now and then that he was a steroid user, I think he is going to get elected next year.
Maybe. I'm sure Bill Madden thinks Piazza will definitely get elected into the Hall of Fame if the ballot allows 12 candidates to receive a vote.
With or without my vote.
Probably without your vote. If you aren't going to vote for Mike Piazza just say it's because you think he used PED's. Don't say it's because you suspect he used PED's and are waiting for more information. Your readers aren't as dumb as you think they are.
I don't like Mike Piazza and I'm tired of seeming like I like him and want to defend him.
Friday, December 19, 2014
4 comments Murray Chass Bases His Hall of Fame Vote on Bacne And Rumors
It's well-known around these parts that Murray Chass is obsessed with Mike Piazza and his bacne. When he isn't solidifying his case against Mike Piazza entering the Hall of Fame with scientific bacne reports, suspicious that Piazza will admit to PED use in his book conveniently released AFTER he has been elected to the Hall of Fame, admitting that, okay maybe Piazza didn't admit to PED use in his book, but he still totally used PED's and the bacne proves it, Murray is threatening to stop voting for the Hall of Fame if Jack Morris isn't inducted into the Hall of Fame. It turns out Murray is still voting for the Baseball Hall of Fame and Jack Morris wasn't inducted in his final year of eligibility. You know, no one will believe what Murray has to say if he continues bluffing or lying like this.
I didn't expect that Murray would actually give away his Hall of Fame vote. He probably enjoys the power and the ability to be one of baseball's moral arbiters too much to give up his vote. That's exactly what Murray is doing today on his non-blog. He talks about Barry Bonds' ego-trip that leads him to believe he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame, and of course, discusses Mike Piazza's bacne. It seems that Murray is some sort of bacne expert. But remember, this isn't a blog, it's a diary of Murray's thoughts electronically written and placed on the Internet. That's completely different from having a blog.
Hear ye! hear ye! hear ye! Barry Bonds deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, and he shall be elected to the Hall of Fame.
Who makes such a proclamation? Why none other than Bonds himself.
I think this deserves a "BREAKING NEWS" label. A professional athlete believes that he deserves to be elected into that sport's Hall of Fame? Say it isn't so, Murray! How unforeseen is this turn of events? Do athletes usually have a great amount of confidence in their skill level as Bonds is displaying here or is his insistence he should be in the Hall of Fame just a result of his huge ego overshooting his career accomplishments? I know the answer, but of course, Murray comes to a different answer.
In a typically arrogant and self-serving interview with an MLB.com reporter who has long been a Bonds sycophant, Bonds said:
What's more arrogant? To call another baseball reporter "arrogant" while referring to and quoting an article that reporter wrote WITHOUT ACTUALLY LINKING THE ARTICLE in your non-blog column, or actually being an arrogant baseball reporter? I would argue criticizing a fellow baseball writer and using his words without even kindly providing a link to the article you are criticizing is more arrogant. Of course, Murray is a non-blogger, so he doesn't understand the courtesy required on the Interwebs. Criticize if you will, but provide a link so the reader can make a decision for him/herself.
“I love Major League Baseball. I always have and I loved playing the game. I don’t have any doubts that I’ll get there in time. I’m bothered about it, but I don’t sit here going, ‘I’m not going to make it.’ I don’t see how it stays the way it’s going. In my mind, in my head, I’m a lot more positive about it than I am negative. I think eventually they’ll do the right thing.”
I do disagree with Bonds' language of "do the right thing," otherwise there is nothing to report here. Bonds thinks he should be in the Hall of Fame and he's trying to stay positive. I don't think Bonds is out of line or really saying anything that a reasonable person (in other words, not a person who builds an anti-Hall of Fame case around bacne) wouldn't expect Bonds to say.
“I deserve to be there. Clemens deserves to be there. The guys that are supposed to be there are supposed to be there. Period. I don’t even know how to say it. We are Hall of Famers. Why are we having these conversations about it? Why are we talking about a baseball era that has come and gone?
“Era, era, era. Do the best players in the game deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? Yes. Everything that everyone has accomplished in baseball is in that book. Correct? So if that’s correct, then we need to be in there. End of story.”
I figure the "deserve to be there" part really has Murray's attention and is a source of anger for him. As a Hall of Fame moral arbiter, no one DESERVES to be in the Hall of Fame. Except for Jack Morris of course. Otherwise, Bonds is still pleading his case for the Hall of Fame and doing so in terms where he thinks his records that are recognized by MLB should also be recognized by the Hall of Fame. Again, it's a simple argument that really shouldn't be offensive.
Bonds referred to the baseball record book, not the excellent 2006 book “Game of Shadows” that tells you all you need to know about Bonds and performance-enhancing drugs.
Except the book left out that chapter about bacne. Murray will forgive the authors for this oversight just this once.
But Bonds indeed is in the record book – for having hit the most home runs in a single season (73) and for having hit the most home runs in a career (762). He is there, on page 19 of The Elias Book of Baseball Records, because Major League Baseball has not amended his achievements.
Seymour Siwoff, decades-long head of Elias Sports Bureau, explained why Bonds is there.
“He wasn’t accused of anything,” Siwoff said in a telephone interview Saturday, then referring specifically to the 73 home runs Bonds hit in 2001 added, “When he did it, he wasn’t guilty of anything we knew of so he was put in. It was the record. I couldn’t dispute it.”
Don't be a Bonds sycophant! Just change the record books on your own.
In retrospect, Siwoff said, “We know it’s a fraud. He never hit more than 49 home runs and he suddenly hits 73.”
What was his bacne status? THAT is the real test of steroid use. What do the record books say about Bonds' bacne status and give Murray a straight answer or he will accuse you of being in league with Bonds.
As for Bonds’ linking the record book and the Hall of Fame, Siwoff said, “The book has no bearing on the Hall of Fame.”
I am making a grimace face. Not a Grimace face like this, but a grimace/wince face more like this.
I mean, yeah, the record book has no bearing on the Hall of Fame in a world where Hall of Fame voters don't use the record book or statistics a player compiled that appear in the record book as part of a player's Hall of Fame candidacy. In the real world, the record book does have a bearing on the Hall of Fame. Like or not.
Bonds is not in the Hall of Fame because in the two years he has been on the ballot, the voters – members of the Baseball Writers Association – have rejected his achievements, believing they were chemically aided.
Voting individually but collectively coming to the same conclusion, they have done that because they believe Bonds achieved his record numbers with the aid of performance-enhancing drugs.
This is an instance where I'm not entirely sure what the hell Murray is trying to prove. Yes, the voters seem to think Bonds' achievements were chemically aided. That seems clear. I am not sure who would argue otherwise. This doesn't mean Barry Bonds shouldn't believe that he should be a member of the Hall of Fame. It's a personal opinion he holds.
Circumstantial evidence, however, weighs heavily against Bonds. In the five seasons 2000 through 2004 Bonds hit 258 home runs. In the previous five years he hit 186. Siwoff pointed out the unnatural leap in Bonds’ single-season home runs.
I think it's past the "Did Bonds use PED's?" part of the discussion. For the sake of argument, let's assume he did use PED's. That's the point we are at, so Murray shouldn't waste time explaining why he thinks Bonds used PED's and focus more on bacne and how rumors about Jeff Bagwell are considered sufficient evidence to prevent him from being inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Sosa, meanwhile, was raising an equal amount of eyebrows. He slugged 292 home runs in a five-year period, including more than 60 in three of four seasons within those five years.
And we have reached the "rambling along without a point" portion of the column on Murray's non-blog.
Before Sosa and McGwire waged their PED duel in 1998, Roger Maris and Babe Ruth had been the only players to reach 60, and they did it once each. From 1927 until 1998, two players reached 60. In the four-year span 1998-2001, three players did it a total of six times.
Like Bonds, Sosa eluded detection, but is any more circumstantial evidence needed? Convicts have been executed on less.
Well then the only solution is that Bonds definitely should be executed. If his hat no longer fits then you must not acquit. I would say give Bonds the electric chair, but it could only serve as a way to make him stronger if something goes wrong and Bonds' steroid strength turns into the ability to shoot electric charges from his hands at unsuspecting people on the street requiring a superhero like Derek Jeter to come along and save baseball and America by taking down Bonds "the right way." So the electric chair is out.
I think lethal injection is the way to go to execute Bonds. But hold on, wouldn't he enjoy the feeling of needles going in his arm? Isn't that what got him into the situation in the first place? So no lethal injection.
Then perhaps Bonds should be hanged (hung?), but how on Earth would anyone find rope big enough to get around his huge steroid-aided neck?
I guess the only option to execute Bonds based on the circumstantial evidence is to execute him by firing squad. Let's get it done.
In an interview a couple of years before the recent one, the same reporter, Barry Bloom, quoted Bonds as saying about the Hall of Fame:
Yet again, Murray doesn't provide a link. I say some critical things on this blog, but I always provide a link. I think it's only the right way to go about criticizing someone on the Internet. Obviously, as a non-blogger Murray disagrees.
“You have to vote on baseball the way baseball needs to be voted on. If you vote on your assumptions or what you believe or what you think might have been going on there, that’s your problem. You’re at fault. It has nothing to do with what your opinion is. Period.
This really isn't a terrible point overall. In regard to Bonds, the assumption he cheated by using PED's is there and I think it's a pretty safe assumption. Now in the case of other Hall of Fame candidates like Jeff Bagwell then I think this may be good advice.
“If that’s the case, you better go way, way back and start thinking about your opinions. If that’s how you feel life should be run, I would say then you run your Hall of Fame the way you want to run your Hall of Fame. That’s what I think. That’s my personal opinion. If you want to do the Hall of Fame the way the Hall of Fame is supposed to be done, then you make the right decision on that. If you don’t, that’s on you. To stamp something on your assumptions, it doesn’t work for me.”
Unfortunately for Bonds, the Hall of Fame voters did run the Hall of Fame the way they wanted to run it and that's why he isn't in the Hall of Fame. I do agree with not "stamping something based on assumptions." I think that can be a dangerous game.
His words did not sway them. With 75 percent of the vote needed for election, Bonds received 36.2 percent, less than half. In his second appearance on the ballot last year, he fared even worse, dropping to 34.7 percent.
Look at who is grasping the use of basic statistics! And here I thought Murray Chass would tally Hall of Fame voting totals for a player based on "feel."
The history of Hall of Fame voting shows that when players of star status appear for the first time, others on the ballot suffer.
Now Bonds is selfishly hurting others with his insistence that he thinks he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Stop advocating for yourself and taking away votes for others! Only Jack Morris is allowed to do that.
It is always possible that something could happen that would catapult Bonds into the Hall of Fame, but he shouldn’t hold his breath.
Well, he won't have any breath after he gets executed through the use of circumstantial evidence for Premeditated PED Use. This crime carries a death sentence, while Involuntary PED Use, the kind that Andy Pettitte has been convicted of carries a sentence of everyone forgetting about it because he acted contrite.
There is also the crime of Assumption of PED Use Due To Affiliation with Other PED Users. This is the crime Jeff Bagwell is guilty of. Bonds can be convicted of that crime as well. The only way to avoid being convicted for this PED-related crime is to be Derek Jeter.
The Hall’s board also knows that players already in the Hall object to being joined by players whose credentials includes PEDs. Some members have gone so far as to say they would boycott induction ceremonies if steroids users are elected.
If these members have intestinal fortitude of backing up their threats with actions like Murray Chass did when he claimed he was giving away his Hall of Fame vote if Jack Morris wasn't inducted in his final year of eligibility, then I would expect the entire Hall board to be present even if Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and McGwire all got elected in the same Hall of Fame class.
Three other players on the ballot have resumes that are foggier than these five. Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio have never been linked to steroids by anything other than news media mention,
And by "news media mention" what Murray means is "there is no direct evidence that they used steroids, but writers like me won't stop talking about their assumed link to steroids so it's just accepted as fact they used steroids at this point."
It must be nice to be the one stirring the dust about a story and then blame the media attention on other "news media." I can't think of a sportswriter more fervent in his insistence that Mike Piazza used steroids than Murray Chass. So one of the biggest ways Piazza is linked to steroids is through Murray's refusal to drop the issue of Piazza's bacne as anything more than speculation as to Piazza's PED use.
but in my view more time is needed to learn more about their past practices.
What the fuck does this even mean? "...more time is needed to learn more about their past practices."
Does Murray want the Hall of Fame to hire an outside investigative firm and do interviews as to whether Bagwell, Piazza and Biggio used steroids? If it requires this much work to get some semblance of an answer on whether any/all of these three players used PED's, then I think perhaps it should just be assumed they didn't use those PED's. I mean, "more time" is needed? Why not just assume these players didn't use PED's since there isn't evidence they did rather than spend time and money drumming up evidence one way or another. Murray just wants the tiniest bit of circumstantial evidence that he could use to point and say, "See! I told you Mike Piazza used steroids!"
I voted for Bagwell on his first appearance on the ballot, when he received 41.7 percent of the votes. After several people told me that he had been heavily involved in steroids, I left him off my ballot the second year.
Wait, what? Murray Chass, a professional journalist and amateur non-blogger, voted for Bagwell, and then some people whispered in his ear that Bagwell used steroids and Chass thought, "Well fuck my original thoughts, CLEARLY there is something to this rumor that Bagwell used steroids. After all, when have rumors ever been wrong? I'm going to now change my vote based on the speculation others have told me without personally doing one little bit of investigation into the truth of this speculation."
So yes, Murray Chass thinks more information needs to be learned about Bagwell's past practices in order to prove that Bagwell didn't use steroids, but ZERO investigation needs to be done in order to find out if the rumors he's being told by "several people" of Bagwell's PED use are true or not. Wow, that's a pretty embarrassing set of positions for a respected sportswriter. In fact, I think I would call this position of refusing to do research on second-hand information to be arrogant and even a little self-serving.
He received 56 percent of the votes that year and climbed to 59.6 percent the next year. But last year he slipped to 54.3 percent, perhaps a victim of the newcomers on the ballot.
Barry Bonds is such an asshole. Now he is lowering the vote total of Hall of Fame candidates that Murray Chass doesn't even believe should be in the Hall of Fame. YOU ARE JUST HURTING YOUR OWN SCUMMY KIND NOW!
Biggio will almost certainly be elected this time. He was only two votes short of election in the last election and should clear the threshold, even though a reporter friend told me that a dozen or more players told him that Biggio used steroids.
I bet there are a dozen or so players who will say that Biggio didn't use steroids. Why blindly accept one group's word over another group's word? Other than the fact Murray has a conclusion he wants to reach so he has no use for anyone who would tell him differently from what he wants to believe is true.
When I wrote that, Biggio’s fans were outraged.
I'm not a Biggio fan in any way. I didn't really like him as a player. I am a fan of using reason to make decisions and not ignoring information that disputes my conclusion, while only paying attention to information that proves the conclusion I want to reach.
If it’s not clear by now, I don’t vote for steroids-tainted players.
If it's also not clear by now, Murray Chass struggles with what is a rumor and what needs to be investigated as to whether it is rumor or not.
If steroids were legal, I’d have no problem with players using them. But they are illegal, and players who use them cheat. I can’t vote for players who cheat at the expense of their fellow players who don’t cheat.
That brings me to Piazza...
It shouldn't bring you to Piazza because he hasn't been proven to have cheated. Perhaps he did, but this goes double for Jeff Bagwell, speculation of PED use isn't proof of PED use.
But I have written about my belief that he was one of the steroids gang.
I have a lot of beliefs, but simply because they are my beliefs doesn't make them factually true. I have a list of players in my head of baseball players that I believe used PED's, but it doesn't mean I am correct. I think potentially up to 35-40% of NFL and NBA players use some some form of PED, because those are some really big guys. Does it mean my belief is true and if I were a sportswriter I could just start eliminating these players from Hall of Fame contention? Absolutely not. There should be proof, not conjecture or a couple dudes whispering sweet nothing rumors in my ear. Hall of Fame voters have to be better than that.
His many fans have excoriated me for my view, but they are blind to what I believe is strong evidence of his use.
Bacne. Maybe Piazza did use PED's. I'm not waffling on the issue. Gun to my head, I die if the answer is wrong, I think Piazza used PED's. But there's no proof of this like there is proof of other baseball players. I'm the person who thinks Marcus Giles used PED's. Little Marcus Giles. This is why personal beliefs can't be taken into account on issues like this. Leave out Bonds if you think he used PED's. Whatever, fine. It's Murray's right as a Hall of Fame voter. Don't invent reasons to leave out players from the Hall of Fame because of your personal beliefs that haven't been proven publicly.
I am not a Mike Piazza fan. I actually hated him as a player and wish Roger Clemens had hit him with the bat he threw. So I'm not a fan, but I will excoriate Murray for his view because there are other causes of bacne that pertain to Piazza. His bacne isn't "strong evidence" of his PED use, it is circumstantial evidence used to reach a conclusion Murray wants to reach. If Piazza were David Eckstein's size then Murray would chalk his bacne up to another cause, but because Piazza is a bigger guy then it's an easy and lazy conclusion to reach that Piazza's PED use can be seen in his bacne.
When he played for the New York Mets, he didn’t hide his acne-covered back. Steroids experts say that Piazza’s condition is one of the signs of steroids use.
Yes, it is a sign of steroid use. What steroid experts haven't told Murray, or he has chosen to ignore, is that there are other causes of bacne that apply directly to Piazza as a baseball player.
Heredity may also be a factor in how acne affects you. If one or both of your parents had acne, you're at a greater risk for inheriting the triggers that cause overproduction of sebum and lead to clogged follicles
Has Murray checked any of Piazza's relatives for bacne? Hey, Tommy Lasorda is related to Mike Piazza! Murray should make Lasorda take his shirt off to check for bacne.
Okay, now for the real cause of Piazza's bacne if one doesn't just care to claim it is PED-related:
If you participate in sports, you can get acne mechanica along your hairline from wearing a helmet.
HEY! Piazza wore a helmet while playing baseball!
Tight uniforms that put a lot of pressure on the skin can also be a cause of acne mechanica.
So playing in a tight uniform in the hot summer sun could cause acne as well? Weirdly, that's exactly what Piazza was doing for most of his career while playing catcher. It's almost like this could be an explanation for Piazza's bacne, just like his PED use could be an explanation for his bacne. It's funny how Murray just conveniently ignores any other logical causes of Piazza's bacne so he can reach the conclusion he wants to reach.
When I first wrote about Piazza’s possible use several years ago, his fans ridiculed me. They completely ignored a critical aspect of what I wrote.
Sort of like how you ignored tight uniforms can put pressure on the skin creating bacne? Or exactly like that? I think it is hilarious that Murray is playing the victim here, acting like everyone else is ignoring reasonable information he is presenting to them, while he ignores reasonable evidence that contradicts his "strong" (circumstantial) evidence of Piazza's PED use.
Piazza’s back cleared up completely when baseball began testing for steroids and remained clear to his retirement.
It's very possible he got treatment for his bacne or it cleared up as he played the catcher position less and first base/DH more, thereby not having his tight uniform directly pushing on his back as it did while in a crouched position behind home plate. Around the time MLB started testing for steroids, Piazza started playing catcher less.
Murray's whole "Piazza had bacne and then it cleared up!" argument fails for me because it's very circumstantial and because Piazza's bacne can easily be explained by kneeling in a catcher's crouch for most of his career. Get in a catcher's crouch sometime with a shirt on and see how your back naturally arches slightly more than when standing at first base or sitting. Piazza had a tight uniform on and it was more directly pressured against his back when crouched in a catcher's position. He also played the catcher position during the hottest months of the year. Piazza may have used PED's, but there are other logical explanations for his bacne that Murray ignores.
It was not a stretch to conclude that Piazza had stopped using steroids to avoid being caught by a urine test.
It's also not a stretch that Piazza got treatment for his bacne or his bacne started to clear up as he played the catcher position less and less. What is a stretch is using bacne as "strong evidence" and (damn you Murray for making me take my eye off the ball here) using some rumor you heard about Jeff Bagwell's PED use, then basing your Hall of Fame vote on this rumor without doing ANY research into whether the rumors were true or not. It's terrible journalism and is an embarrassment to those baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame. I wish Murray had not been lying when he stated he was giving up his Hall of Fame vote if Jack Morris didn't get in. It would have allowed a voter who actually cares to do research and base his vote on the research he/she has done to have a vote, rather than a bitter old man to base his Hall of Fame vote on rumors that support what he wants to believe.
I didn't expect that Murray would actually give away his Hall of Fame vote. He probably enjoys the power and the ability to be one of baseball's moral arbiters too much to give up his vote. That's exactly what Murray is doing today on his non-blog. He talks about Barry Bonds' ego-trip that leads him to believe he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame, and of course, discusses Mike Piazza's bacne. It seems that Murray is some sort of bacne expert. But remember, this isn't a blog, it's a diary of Murray's thoughts electronically written and placed on the Internet. That's completely different from having a blog.
Hear ye! hear ye! hear ye! Barry Bonds deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, and he shall be elected to the Hall of Fame.
Who makes such a proclamation? Why none other than Bonds himself.
I think this deserves a "BREAKING NEWS" label. A professional athlete believes that he deserves to be elected into that sport's Hall of Fame? Say it isn't so, Murray! How unforeseen is this turn of events? Do athletes usually have a great amount of confidence in their skill level as Bonds is displaying here or is his insistence he should be in the Hall of Fame just a result of his huge ego overshooting his career accomplishments? I know the answer, but of course, Murray comes to a different answer.
In a typically arrogant and self-serving interview with an MLB.com reporter who has long been a Bonds sycophant, Bonds said:
What's more arrogant? To call another baseball reporter "arrogant" while referring to and quoting an article that reporter wrote WITHOUT ACTUALLY LINKING THE ARTICLE in your non-blog column, or actually being an arrogant baseball reporter? I would argue criticizing a fellow baseball writer and using his words without even kindly providing a link to the article you are criticizing is more arrogant. Of course, Murray is a non-blogger, so he doesn't understand the courtesy required on the Interwebs. Criticize if you will, but provide a link so the reader can make a decision for him/herself.
“I love Major League Baseball. I always have and I loved playing the game. I don’t have any doubts that I’ll get there in time. I’m bothered about it, but I don’t sit here going, ‘I’m not going to make it.’ I don’t see how it stays the way it’s going. In my mind, in my head, I’m a lot more positive about it than I am negative. I think eventually they’ll do the right thing.”
I do disagree with Bonds' language of "do the right thing," otherwise there is nothing to report here. Bonds thinks he should be in the Hall of Fame and he's trying to stay positive. I don't think Bonds is out of line or really saying anything that a reasonable person (in other words, not a person who builds an anti-Hall of Fame case around bacne) wouldn't expect Bonds to say.
“I deserve to be there. Clemens deserves to be there. The guys that are supposed to be there are supposed to be there. Period. I don’t even know how to say it. We are Hall of Famers. Why are we having these conversations about it? Why are we talking about a baseball era that has come and gone?
“Era, era, era. Do the best players in the game deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? Yes. Everything that everyone has accomplished in baseball is in that book. Correct? So if that’s correct, then we need to be in there. End of story.”
I figure the "deserve to be there" part really has Murray's attention and is a source of anger for him. As a Hall of Fame moral arbiter, no one DESERVES to be in the Hall of Fame. Except for Jack Morris of course. Otherwise, Bonds is still pleading his case for the Hall of Fame and doing so in terms where he thinks his records that are recognized by MLB should also be recognized by the Hall of Fame. Again, it's a simple argument that really shouldn't be offensive.
Bonds referred to the baseball record book, not the excellent 2006 book “Game of Shadows” that tells you all you need to know about Bonds and performance-enhancing drugs.
Except the book left out that chapter about bacne. Murray will forgive the authors for this oversight just this once.
But Bonds indeed is in the record book – for having hit the most home runs in a single season (73) and for having hit the most home runs in a career (762). He is there, on page 19 of The Elias Book of Baseball Records, because Major League Baseball has not amended his achievements.
Seymour Siwoff, decades-long head of Elias Sports Bureau, explained why Bonds is there.
“He wasn’t accused of anything,” Siwoff said in a telephone interview Saturday, then referring specifically to the 73 home runs Bonds hit in 2001 added, “When he did it, he wasn’t guilty of anything we knew of so he was put in. It was the record. I couldn’t dispute it.”
Don't be a Bonds sycophant! Just change the record books on your own.
In retrospect, Siwoff said, “We know it’s a fraud. He never hit more than 49 home runs and he suddenly hits 73.”
What was his bacne status? THAT is the real test of steroid use. What do the record books say about Bonds' bacne status and give Murray a straight answer or he will accuse you of being in league with Bonds.
As for Bonds’ linking the record book and the Hall of Fame, Siwoff said, “The book has no bearing on the Hall of Fame.”
I am making a grimace face. Not a Grimace face like this, but a grimace/wince face more like this.
I mean, yeah, the record book has no bearing on the Hall of Fame in a world where Hall of Fame voters don't use the record book or statistics a player compiled that appear in the record book as part of a player's Hall of Fame candidacy. In the real world, the record book does have a bearing on the Hall of Fame. Like or not.
Bonds is not in the Hall of Fame because in the two years he has been on the ballot, the voters – members of the Baseball Writers Association – have rejected his achievements, believing they were chemically aided.
Voting individually but collectively coming to the same conclusion, they have done that because they believe Bonds achieved his record numbers with the aid of performance-enhancing drugs.
This is an instance where I'm not entirely sure what the hell Murray is trying to prove. Yes, the voters seem to think Bonds' achievements were chemically aided. That seems clear. I am not sure who would argue otherwise. This doesn't mean Barry Bonds shouldn't believe that he should be a member of the Hall of Fame. It's a personal opinion he holds.
Circumstantial evidence, however, weighs heavily against Bonds. In the five seasons 2000 through 2004 Bonds hit 258 home runs. In the previous five years he hit 186. Siwoff pointed out the unnatural leap in Bonds’ single-season home runs.
I think it's past the "Did Bonds use PED's?" part of the discussion. For the sake of argument, let's assume he did use PED's. That's the point we are at, so Murray shouldn't waste time explaining why he thinks Bonds used PED's and focus more on bacne and how rumors about Jeff Bagwell are considered sufficient evidence to prevent him from being inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Sosa, meanwhile, was raising an equal amount of eyebrows. He slugged 292 home runs in a five-year period, including more than 60 in three of four seasons within those five years.
And we have reached the "rambling along without a point" portion of the column on Murray's non-blog.
Before Sosa and McGwire waged their PED duel in 1998, Roger Maris and Babe Ruth had been the only players to reach 60, and they did it once each. From 1927 until 1998, two players reached 60. In the four-year span 1998-2001, three players did it a total of six times.
Like Bonds, Sosa eluded detection, but is any more circumstantial evidence needed? Convicts have been executed on less.
Well then the only solution is that Bonds definitely should be executed. If his hat no longer fits then you must not acquit. I would say give Bonds the electric chair, but it could only serve as a way to make him stronger if something goes wrong and Bonds' steroid strength turns into the ability to shoot electric charges from his hands at unsuspecting people on the street requiring a superhero like Derek Jeter to come along and save baseball and America by taking down Bonds "the right way." So the electric chair is out.
I think lethal injection is the way to go to execute Bonds. But hold on, wouldn't he enjoy the feeling of needles going in his arm? Isn't that what got him into the situation in the first place? So no lethal injection.
Then perhaps Bonds should be hanged (hung?), but how on Earth would anyone find rope big enough to get around his huge steroid-aided neck?
I guess the only option to execute Bonds based on the circumstantial evidence is to execute him by firing squad. Let's get it done.
In an interview a couple of years before the recent one, the same reporter, Barry Bloom, quoted Bonds as saying about the Hall of Fame:
Yet again, Murray doesn't provide a link. I say some critical things on this blog, but I always provide a link. I think it's only the right way to go about criticizing someone on the Internet. Obviously, as a non-blogger Murray disagrees.
“You have to vote on baseball the way baseball needs to be voted on. If you vote on your assumptions or what you believe or what you think might have been going on there, that’s your problem. You’re at fault. It has nothing to do with what your opinion is. Period.
This really isn't a terrible point overall. In regard to Bonds, the assumption he cheated by using PED's is there and I think it's a pretty safe assumption. Now in the case of other Hall of Fame candidates like Jeff Bagwell then I think this may be good advice.
“If that’s the case, you better go way, way back and start thinking about your opinions. If that’s how you feel life should be run, I would say then you run your Hall of Fame the way you want to run your Hall of Fame. That’s what I think. That’s my personal opinion. If you want to do the Hall of Fame the way the Hall of Fame is supposed to be done, then you make the right decision on that. If you don’t, that’s on you. To stamp something on your assumptions, it doesn’t work for me.”
Unfortunately for Bonds, the Hall of Fame voters did run the Hall of Fame the way they wanted to run it and that's why he isn't in the Hall of Fame. I do agree with not "stamping something based on assumptions." I think that can be a dangerous game.
His words did not sway them. With 75 percent of the vote needed for election, Bonds received 36.2 percent, less than half. In his second appearance on the ballot last year, he fared even worse, dropping to 34.7 percent.
Look at who is grasping the use of basic statistics! And here I thought Murray Chass would tally Hall of Fame voting totals for a player based on "feel."
The history of Hall of Fame voting shows that when players of star status appear for the first time, others on the ballot suffer.
Now Bonds is selfishly hurting others with his insistence that he thinks he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Stop advocating for yourself and taking away votes for others! Only Jack Morris is allowed to do that.
It is always possible that something could happen that would catapult Bonds into the Hall of Fame, but he shouldn’t hold his breath.
Well, he won't have any breath after he gets executed through the use of circumstantial evidence for Premeditated PED Use. This crime carries a death sentence, while Involuntary PED Use, the kind that Andy Pettitte has been convicted of carries a sentence of everyone forgetting about it because he acted contrite.
There is also the crime of Assumption of PED Use Due To Affiliation with Other PED Users. This is the crime Jeff Bagwell is guilty of. Bonds can be convicted of that crime as well. The only way to avoid being convicted for this PED-related crime is to be Derek Jeter.
The Hall’s board also knows that players already in the Hall object to being joined by players whose credentials includes PEDs. Some members have gone so far as to say they would boycott induction ceremonies if steroids users are elected.
If these members have intestinal fortitude of backing up their threats with actions like Murray Chass did when he claimed he was giving away his Hall of Fame vote if Jack Morris wasn't inducted in his final year of eligibility, then I would expect the entire Hall board to be present even if Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and McGwire all got elected in the same Hall of Fame class.
Three other players on the ballot have resumes that are foggier than these five. Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio have never been linked to steroids by anything other than news media mention,
And by "news media mention" what Murray means is "there is no direct evidence that they used steroids, but writers like me won't stop talking about their assumed link to steroids so it's just accepted as fact they used steroids at this point."
It must be nice to be the one stirring the dust about a story and then blame the media attention on other "news media." I can't think of a sportswriter more fervent in his insistence that Mike Piazza used steroids than Murray Chass. So one of the biggest ways Piazza is linked to steroids is through Murray's refusal to drop the issue of Piazza's bacne as anything more than speculation as to Piazza's PED use.
but in my view more time is needed to learn more about their past practices.
What the fuck does this even mean? "...more time is needed to learn more about their past practices."
Does Murray want the Hall of Fame to hire an outside investigative firm and do interviews as to whether Bagwell, Piazza and Biggio used steroids? If it requires this much work to get some semblance of an answer on whether any/all of these three players used PED's, then I think perhaps it should just be assumed they didn't use those PED's. I mean, "more time" is needed? Why not just assume these players didn't use PED's since there isn't evidence they did rather than spend time and money drumming up evidence one way or another. Murray just wants the tiniest bit of circumstantial evidence that he could use to point and say, "See! I told you Mike Piazza used steroids!"
I voted for Bagwell on his first appearance on the ballot, when he received 41.7 percent of the votes. After several people told me that he had been heavily involved in steroids, I left him off my ballot the second year.
Wait, what? Murray Chass, a professional journalist and amateur non-blogger, voted for Bagwell, and then some people whispered in his ear that Bagwell used steroids and Chass thought, "Well fuck my original thoughts, CLEARLY there is something to this rumor that Bagwell used steroids. After all, when have rumors ever been wrong? I'm going to now change my vote based on the speculation others have told me without personally doing one little bit of investigation into the truth of this speculation."
So yes, Murray Chass thinks more information needs to be learned about Bagwell's past practices in order to prove that Bagwell didn't use steroids, but ZERO investigation needs to be done in order to find out if the rumors he's being told by "several people" of Bagwell's PED use are true or not. Wow, that's a pretty embarrassing set of positions for a respected sportswriter. In fact, I think I would call this position of refusing to do research on second-hand information to be arrogant and even a little self-serving.
He received 56 percent of the votes that year and climbed to 59.6 percent the next year. But last year he slipped to 54.3 percent, perhaps a victim of the newcomers on the ballot.
Barry Bonds is such an asshole. Now he is lowering the vote total of Hall of Fame candidates that Murray Chass doesn't even believe should be in the Hall of Fame. YOU ARE JUST HURTING YOUR OWN SCUMMY KIND NOW!
Biggio will almost certainly be elected this time. He was only two votes short of election in the last election and should clear the threshold, even though a reporter friend told me that a dozen or more players told him that Biggio used steroids.
I bet there are a dozen or so players who will say that Biggio didn't use steroids. Why blindly accept one group's word over another group's word? Other than the fact Murray has a conclusion he wants to reach so he has no use for anyone who would tell him differently from what he wants to believe is true.
When I wrote that, Biggio’s fans were outraged.
I'm not a Biggio fan in any way. I didn't really like him as a player. I am a fan of using reason to make decisions and not ignoring information that disputes my conclusion, while only paying attention to information that proves the conclusion I want to reach.
If it’s not clear by now, I don’t vote for steroids-tainted players.
If it's also not clear by now, Murray Chass struggles with what is a rumor and what needs to be investigated as to whether it is rumor or not.
If steroids were legal, I’d have no problem with players using them. But they are illegal, and players who use them cheat. I can’t vote for players who cheat at the expense of their fellow players who don’t cheat.
That brings me to Piazza...
It shouldn't bring you to Piazza because he hasn't been proven to have cheated. Perhaps he did, but this goes double for Jeff Bagwell, speculation of PED use isn't proof of PED use.
But I have written about my belief that he was one of the steroids gang.
I have a lot of beliefs, but simply because they are my beliefs doesn't make them factually true. I have a list of players in my head of baseball players that I believe used PED's, but it doesn't mean I am correct. I think potentially up to 35-40% of NFL and NBA players use some some form of PED, because those are some really big guys. Does it mean my belief is true and if I were a sportswriter I could just start eliminating these players from Hall of Fame contention? Absolutely not. There should be proof, not conjecture or a couple dudes whispering sweet nothing rumors in my ear. Hall of Fame voters have to be better than that.
His many fans have excoriated me for my view, but they are blind to what I believe is strong evidence of his use.
Bacne. Maybe Piazza did use PED's. I'm not waffling on the issue. Gun to my head, I die if the answer is wrong, I think Piazza used PED's. But there's no proof of this like there is proof of other baseball players. I'm the person who thinks Marcus Giles used PED's. Little Marcus Giles. This is why personal beliefs can't be taken into account on issues like this. Leave out Bonds if you think he used PED's. Whatever, fine. It's Murray's right as a Hall of Fame voter. Don't invent reasons to leave out players from the Hall of Fame because of your personal beliefs that haven't been proven publicly.
I am not a Mike Piazza fan. I actually hated him as a player and wish Roger Clemens had hit him with the bat he threw. So I'm not a fan, but I will excoriate Murray for his view because there are other causes of bacne that pertain to Piazza. His bacne isn't "strong evidence" of his PED use, it is circumstantial evidence used to reach a conclusion Murray wants to reach. If Piazza were David Eckstein's size then Murray would chalk his bacne up to another cause, but because Piazza is a bigger guy then it's an easy and lazy conclusion to reach that Piazza's PED use can be seen in his bacne.
When he played for the New York Mets, he didn’t hide his acne-covered back. Steroids experts say that Piazza’s condition is one of the signs of steroids use.
Yes, it is a sign of steroid use. What steroid experts haven't told Murray, or he has chosen to ignore, is that there are other causes of bacne that apply directly to Piazza as a baseball player.
Heredity may also be a factor in how acne affects you. If one or both of your parents had acne, you're at a greater risk for inheriting the triggers that cause overproduction of sebum and lead to clogged follicles
Has Murray checked any of Piazza's relatives for bacne? Hey, Tommy Lasorda is related to Mike Piazza! Murray should make Lasorda take his shirt off to check for bacne.
Okay, now for the real cause of Piazza's bacne if one doesn't just care to claim it is PED-related:
If you participate in sports, you can get acne mechanica along your hairline from wearing a helmet.
HEY! Piazza wore a helmet while playing baseball!
Tight uniforms that put a lot of pressure on the skin can also be a cause of acne mechanica.
So playing in a tight uniform in the hot summer sun could cause acne as well? Weirdly, that's exactly what Piazza was doing for most of his career while playing catcher. It's almost like this could be an explanation for Piazza's bacne, just like his PED use could be an explanation for his bacne. It's funny how Murray just conveniently ignores any other logical causes of Piazza's bacne so he can reach the conclusion he wants to reach.
When I first wrote about Piazza’s possible use several years ago, his fans ridiculed me. They completely ignored a critical aspect of what I wrote.
Sort of like how you ignored tight uniforms can put pressure on the skin creating bacne? Or exactly like that? I think it is hilarious that Murray is playing the victim here, acting like everyone else is ignoring reasonable information he is presenting to them, while he ignores reasonable evidence that contradicts his "strong" (circumstantial) evidence of Piazza's PED use.
Piazza’s back cleared up completely when baseball began testing for steroids and remained clear to his retirement.
It's very possible he got treatment for his bacne or it cleared up as he played the catcher position less and first base/DH more, thereby not having his tight uniform directly pushing on his back as it did while in a crouched position behind home plate. Around the time MLB started testing for steroids, Piazza started playing catcher less.
Murray's whole "Piazza had bacne and then it cleared up!" argument fails for me because it's very circumstantial and because Piazza's bacne can easily be explained by kneeling in a catcher's crouch for most of his career. Get in a catcher's crouch sometime with a shirt on and see how your back naturally arches slightly more than when standing at first base or sitting. Piazza had a tight uniform on and it was more directly pressured against his back when crouched in a catcher's position. He also played the catcher position during the hottest months of the year. Piazza may have used PED's, but there are other logical explanations for his bacne that Murray ignores.
It was not a stretch to conclude that Piazza had stopped using steroids to avoid being caught by a urine test.
It's also not a stretch that Piazza got treatment for his bacne or his bacne started to clear up as he played the catcher position less and less. What is a stretch is using bacne as "strong evidence" and (damn you Murray for making me take my eye off the ball here) using some rumor you heard about Jeff Bagwell's PED use, then basing your Hall of Fame vote on this rumor without doing ANY research into whether the rumors were true or not. It's terrible journalism and is an embarrassment to those baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame. I wish Murray had not been lying when he stated he was giving up his Hall of Fame vote if Jack Morris didn't get in. It would have allowed a voter who actually cares to do research and base his vote on the research he/she has done to have a vote, rather than a bitter old man to base his Hall of Fame vote on rumors that support what he wants to believe.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
0 comments Gregg Doyel Has a List of Baseball Players Who He Knows Use PED's, Which He Will Totally Reveal Once It's Confirmed They Used PED's
You know guys, I know who is going to win the World Series this year. I can't obviously tell you now who will win the World Series this year, because that wouldn't be fair, but I will tell you after the baseball season is over who will win the World Series. Also, I know who the next President of the United States will be. Again, I can't tell you yet, but it's going to surprise you. Don't worry, I will tell you after the next President is elected if I was right or not. Much along the same lines, Gregg Doyel has a list of baseball players he knows use PED's. He can't name their names right now, but when the new Biogenesis names come out he will confirm those were the players he suspected of PED use. The reason he knows these players used PED's is because it's so obvious when an MLB player is using steroids. Just take a look at this list. Who didn't take a look at J.C. Romero or Neifi Perez and say, "Now THAT is a player who is using PED's." I remember looking at Freddy Galvis' career statistics and knowing he couldn't have hit nine career home runs without a little additional help from illegal performance enhancing drugs. Pablo Ozuna's fastball doesn't dip and dive like that without a little help from the old Cream and Clear.
The best part about this column is it gives readers a chance to speculate in the comments about which MLB players are using PED's. So Gregg Doyel's guessing game---I'm sorry, that's wrong---scientifically accurate judgment based on visual inspection on which current MLB players are using PED's is a game that YOU TOO can play at home. This is an interactive column.
I have a list. So do you, right?
Oh yeah, I do. I have a grocery list, a list of improvements needing to be made around the house, a list of people who I will call and cuss out once I'm old enough to pretend to be senile, and a shit-list which had new names added every week.
If you're a baseball fan and you're hearing that more names are about to be connected to Biogenesis, the cheatingest PED factory since BALCO, this is where you dig through your mental rolodex for the names of guys you're sure are cheating.
Nope. Don't have a list. I don't care. Players cheat and players I never dreamed would cheat (Hi, Clay Hensley!) are caught cheating. I enjoy the sport of baseball, and as much fun as it would be to speculate, I have long gotten over the PED name-and-then-blame game. MLB does testing, players will get caught, sportswriters will write columns about what a terrible person he is for cheating, and then I will cover a few columns on this site if the outrage is silly enough. Guess what? NBA and NFL players are using PED's too. I would give out my mental rolodex for the guys I'm sure are cheating, but I don't care enough to do that. If the NBA and the NFL doesn't care, why should I? MLB does care, which is why they have a PED policy. That's good enough for me at this point. I'm taking back my love of baseball by not worrying if there are certain players using PED's.
It wouldn't be fair to say that list out loud, certainly not with a megaphone as large as the one given to me here at CBSSports.com,
Well yes, that certainly would not be fair. It's much more fair to have a mental rolodex of these player's names and then write an entire column stating you know the players that have cheated because it's so obvious. Contribute to steroid hysteria by claiming you can name names, it's much more fair that way.
But I have a list.
Which Gregg will reveal immediately after the new Biogenesis names are announced. Once that happens, we will all see just how right Gregg was.
Baseball deserves the scrutiny, even the suspicion, that its players have stirred among us since the 1990s -- when the ordinary became stars, and stars became superstars, and superstars began doing things we had never seen before. Mark McGwire hitting 70 home runs? Barry Bonds hitting 73? Roger Clemens posting a career-best 1.87 ERA at age 43?
Yes, baseball does deserve the scrutiny. Though I am very focused on the current players who aren't putting up crazy numbers like this. All of those numbers happened over a decade ago. What crazy, insane, hard-to-believe numbers are MLB players putting up currently that sends Gregg Doyel's PED radar off so much?
Come on. To this day Bonds hasn't admitted he was cheating. Neither has Clemens. So they're on another list, a list that seems fair to say out loud, even on a megaphone as large as the one given to me here at CBSSports.com. Given their superhuman results and their constant links to PEDs, Bonds and Clemens -- and Sammy Sosa -- are on that list of players we suspect used PEDs.
(Gregg Doyel drags 10 year old PED story horse out and starts beating it)
At some point, these sportswriters have to move past the Clemens, Bonds, and Sosa names. It won't happen for a while because these are the go-to names whenever PED's in baseball are brought up. PED use by these players is the gift that keeps on giving when some enterprising sports columnists needs to crap out a column about baseball's sordid PED history.
The players we suspect are using them to this day? That's another list, and soon baseball will provide us with its own list, and we can compare notes.
And I bet Gregg's list will have a few names that are revealed by baseball. Not that Gregg would ever have a list and then pretend some of the names that are revealed were on his list too. That's not something he would do. He wouldn't have to, because his PED list is so obvious, just like Humberto Cota's PED use was obvious to anyone willing to pay attention.
It would be foolish, not bordering on naive but bordering on outright denial, to think baseball doesn't have a PED problem anymore.
I recognize this is a strawman argument, but where is the outrage and denial about PED use in other sports? Whey doesn't Julius Peppers' PED suspension not lead to angry columns from sportswriters about how the NFL has a PED problem? MLB has faced their PED problem and have very stringent drug testing. And yes, it would be naive to think baseball doesn't have a PED problem anymore. Just like it is foolish to think there will never be another murder in the United States. It's ridiculous to suggest baseball, or any sport for that matter, will be completely free of PED's. That doesn't mean there is a massive problem throughout baseball and it doesn't mean contributing to steroid hysteria is a logical reaction to this reality.
Here's a tip for you, so mark this down in ink: Baseball will always have a PED problem.
Here's a tip for you, so mark this down in ink: No shit, Sherlock. I don't think anyone has ever suggested baseball wouldn't have players trying to use PED's. I guess that makes it a problem if a person wants to be hysterical about it, but as long as humans are humans (and not dancer), then athletes are going to find a way to cheat. The fact there is a stringent drug policy in question that MLB is committed to which will lead to baseball players testing positive for PED's doesn't make it seem like a "problem" to me. It seems like the positive effect of drug testing.
The cheaters are always ahead of the testers, and while the PED police eventually catch lots of cheaters -- as they caught Victor Conte of BALCO and Anthony Bosch of Biogenesis -- there are more cheaters out there. Baseball can't catch them, because baseball doesn't know they exist. Not yet anyway.
So baseball can't catch cheaters they don't know about yet? No way.
Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be spoken. The fact baseball will have more players who try to cheat is an example of one of these statements. This doesn't mean baseball has a "problem," it means baseball players are human. As long as Sabermetricians are kept away from the sport, baseball will be played by humans and not computers. This means humans will try to cheat. So yes, the cheaters will always be slightly ahead of the PED police.
There's nothing new in this column. It's the same stuff as other PED hysteria columns.
The next Conte and Bosch think they're untouchable, because for now they are. The cheaters are always ahead of the testers, and they're like degenerate gamblers or thieves on a hot streak: They stupidly think they'll stay ahead forever.
So what baseball needs are pre-cogs. People who can predict a crime before it happens so that the PED police can round up these future cheaters and punish them for the crime they are going to commit.
The fact these cheaters "think" they will stay ahead forever is why I would argue baseball doesn't have a PED problem. MLB may not be able to stay ahead of the cheaters, but they will catch up, and the players who have cheated by using PED's will be found out most likely. It's not a problem, because lateness aside, MLB has a system that enables PED users to be caught.
Ryan Braun used to think he would never be caught, I promise you. So did Melky Cabrera. And Alex Rodriguez. And going back, Mark McGwire.
So the system works and MLB doesn't have a problem? Does it mean I have ant problem if I lay out ant bait systems in my house that attracts and kill ants or does it just mean that ants are going to find their way into my house and I have a way of killing them before they end up crawling on my food?
And I'm 100% sure before Melky Cabrera was caught using PED's he was on Gregg's list of players who DEFINITELY used PED's. I don't doubt that at all.
Nothing lasts forever, not even something as murky and vaporous as a drug the police don't yet know exists. The cream that Barry Bonds took? Drug testers didn't catch that because they didn't know what it was. Just as life finds a way to survive, evolving to adapt in the conditions it has confronted, cheaters are the same.
And yet, writers like Gregg Doyel trot out the same tired names like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, and other "name" players to show the huge problem MLB has, as well as show how it's so obvious which players are using PED's. This is all done in a way to prove it's easy to figure out which players are using PED's, but conveniently ignores the hundred other players suspended for PED use whose name wasn't on any person's mental list.
And people like us, we sit back and wait for the next wave of players to be caught, then outed publicly, so we can scorn them like we scorned A-Rod and Braun.
Perhaps it says something about me, but I don't wait for the next wave of players to be caught so I can scorn them. Is there some sort of self-satisfaction in scorning athletes publicly for using PED's that I just haven't chosen to experience to it's fullest morally superior extent? Athletes who use PED's deserve to get caught and suspended, but I'm very much over taking up my energy to scorn these players.
When the next list comes out, I'll scan it for three names I'm sure are cheating.
These are three names Gregg KNOWS are cheating. No matter who they are, I'm betting those three names will be on the new Biogenesis list. It's obvious these players are cheating and Gregg would out them, but that's not the classy thing to do. It's more classy to vaguely refer to players you know are cheating, since it's so obvious who is using PED's and who isn't, and then gloat once these names appear on the Biogenesis list. But don't worry, Gregg will reveal just how right he was once that new Biogenesis list is revealed, just like I'll tell you all who is going to be the next President of the United States (because it's so obvious) just after the next Presidential election occurs.
What do I look for? I'll tell you some day, when the list comes out and if any of my names are on there. I figure one of them will be at least. This stuff is easy, really. It's simple to look at certain guys and just think, just know, "He's not doing that legally."
Someone like Jesus Montero. Someone that is playing baseball and you look at and KNOW he can't be that slow and unable to hit the baseball well naturally. He must be secretly less talented and is using PED's to just bring himself up to the level of being a massive disappointment. What about Kevin Frandsen? He makes hitting .256 look a little too easy if you ask me. How did we not see his PED suspension coming?
Especially given what we know about the nature of baseball, just like the nature of sprinting and cycling. Certain things have never been possible before, and while breakthroughs and advances do happen, there are some ceilings that get cracked that just don't seem plausible. Not legally plausible, anyway.
I'd love to know what ceilings have been cracked that don't seem plausible. It's been well-documented that hitters are striking out more and this is supposedly the age of pitchers (it's the pitchers who are using PED's!). No players are destroying home run records and no players are putting up the numbers seen during the Steroid Era. I'm just wondering what the advances and breakthroughs that are happening now are. Of course if Gregg Doyel told me now, it would ruin the surprise once the list comes out.
So my list is ready. Is yours? Baseball's about to release its list, and while I have no idea who's nice anymore, I have a strong feeling about which guys have been naughty.
Of course you do. Just be sure to tell us how right your list was once the Biogenesis list is released. I'm dying to know how right you were and what factors you looked for that tipped you off to whether a player was using PED's or not. My guess is Gregg is going to reverse-engineer this whole thing and everything will look way more obvious once he gets the answers to the test questions. Of course we should have expected Player X! I mean, that one time he did that one thing! We should have known, just like it was obvious Antonio Bastardo was a PED user.
The best part about this column is it gives readers a chance to speculate in the comments about which MLB players are using PED's. So Gregg Doyel's guessing game---I'm sorry, that's wrong---scientifically accurate judgment based on visual inspection on which current MLB players are using PED's is a game that YOU TOO can play at home. This is an interactive column.
I have a list. So do you, right?
Oh yeah, I do. I have a grocery list, a list of improvements needing to be made around the house, a list of people who I will call and cuss out once I'm old enough to pretend to be senile, and a shit-list which had new names added every week.
If you're a baseball fan and you're hearing that more names are about to be connected to Biogenesis, the cheatingest PED factory since BALCO, this is where you dig through your mental rolodex for the names of guys you're sure are cheating.
Nope. Don't have a list. I don't care. Players cheat and players I never dreamed would cheat (Hi, Clay Hensley!) are caught cheating. I enjoy the sport of baseball, and as much fun as it would be to speculate, I have long gotten over the PED name-and-then-blame game. MLB does testing, players will get caught, sportswriters will write columns about what a terrible person he is for cheating, and then I will cover a few columns on this site if the outrage is silly enough. Guess what? NBA and NFL players are using PED's too. I would give out my mental rolodex for the guys I'm sure are cheating, but I don't care enough to do that. If the NBA and the NFL doesn't care, why should I? MLB does care, which is why they have a PED policy. That's good enough for me at this point. I'm taking back my love of baseball by not worrying if there are certain players using PED's.
It wouldn't be fair to say that list out loud, certainly not with a megaphone as large as the one given to me here at CBSSports.com,
Well yes, that certainly would not be fair. It's much more fair to have a mental rolodex of these player's names and then write an entire column stating you know the players that have cheated because it's so obvious. Contribute to steroid hysteria by claiming you can name names, it's much more fair that way.
But I have a list.
Which Gregg will reveal immediately after the new Biogenesis names are announced. Once that happens, we will all see just how right Gregg was.
Baseball deserves the scrutiny, even the suspicion, that its players have stirred among us since the 1990s -- when the ordinary became stars, and stars became superstars, and superstars began doing things we had never seen before. Mark McGwire hitting 70 home runs? Barry Bonds hitting 73? Roger Clemens posting a career-best 1.87 ERA at age 43?
Yes, baseball does deserve the scrutiny. Though I am very focused on the current players who aren't putting up crazy numbers like this. All of those numbers happened over a decade ago. What crazy, insane, hard-to-believe numbers are MLB players putting up currently that sends Gregg Doyel's PED radar off so much?
Come on. To this day Bonds hasn't admitted he was cheating. Neither has Clemens. So they're on another list, a list that seems fair to say out loud, even on a megaphone as large as the one given to me here at CBSSports.com. Given their superhuman results and their constant links to PEDs, Bonds and Clemens -- and Sammy Sosa -- are on that list of players we suspect used PEDs.
(Gregg Doyel drags 10 year old PED story horse out and starts beating it)
At some point, these sportswriters have to move past the Clemens, Bonds, and Sosa names. It won't happen for a while because these are the go-to names whenever PED's in baseball are brought up. PED use by these players is the gift that keeps on giving when some enterprising sports columnists needs to crap out a column about baseball's sordid PED history.
The players we suspect are using them to this day? That's another list, and soon baseball will provide us with its own list, and we can compare notes.
And I bet Gregg's list will have a few names that are revealed by baseball. Not that Gregg would ever have a list and then pretend some of the names that are revealed were on his list too. That's not something he would do. He wouldn't have to, because his PED list is so obvious, just like Humberto Cota's PED use was obvious to anyone willing to pay attention.
It would be foolish, not bordering on naive but bordering on outright denial, to think baseball doesn't have a PED problem anymore.
I recognize this is a strawman argument, but where is the outrage and denial about PED use in other sports? Whey doesn't Julius Peppers' PED suspension not lead to angry columns from sportswriters about how the NFL has a PED problem? MLB has faced their PED problem and have very stringent drug testing. And yes, it would be naive to think baseball doesn't have a PED problem anymore. Just like it is foolish to think there will never be another murder in the United States. It's ridiculous to suggest baseball, or any sport for that matter, will be completely free of PED's. That doesn't mean there is a massive problem throughout baseball and it doesn't mean contributing to steroid hysteria is a logical reaction to this reality.
Here's a tip for you, so mark this down in ink: Baseball will always have a PED problem.
Here's a tip for you, so mark this down in ink: No shit, Sherlock. I don't think anyone has ever suggested baseball wouldn't have players trying to use PED's. I guess that makes it a problem if a person wants to be hysterical about it, but as long as humans are humans (and not dancer), then athletes are going to find a way to cheat. The fact there is a stringent drug policy in question that MLB is committed to which will lead to baseball players testing positive for PED's doesn't make it seem like a "problem" to me. It seems like the positive effect of drug testing.
The cheaters are always ahead of the testers, and while the PED police eventually catch lots of cheaters -- as they caught Victor Conte of BALCO and Anthony Bosch of Biogenesis -- there are more cheaters out there. Baseball can't catch them, because baseball doesn't know they exist. Not yet anyway.
So baseball can't catch cheaters they don't know about yet? No way.
Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be spoken. The fact baseball will have more players who try to cheat is an example of one of these statements. This doesn't mean baseball has a "problem," it means baseball players are human. As long as Sabermetricians are kept away from the sport, baseball will be played by humans and not computers. This means humans will try to cheat. So yes, the cheaters will always be slightly ahead of the PED police.
There's nothing new in this column. It's the same stuff as other PED hysteria columns.
The next Conte and Bosch think they're untouchable, because for now they are. The cheaters are always ahead of the testers, and they're like degenerate gamblers or thieves on a hot streak: They stupidly think they'll stay ahead forever.
So what baseball needs are pre-cogs. People who can predict a crime before it happens so that the PED police can round up these future cheaters and punish them for the crime they are going to commit.
The fact these cheaters "think" they will stay ahead forever is why I would argue baseball doesn't have a PED problem. MLB may not be able to stay ahead of the cheaters, but they will catch up, and the players who have cheated by using PED's will be found out most likely. It's not a problem, because lateness aside, MLB has a system that enables PED users to be caught.
Ryan Braun used to think he would never be caught, I promise you. So did Melky Cabrera. And Alex Rodriguez. And going back, Mark McGwire.
So the system works and MLB doesn't have a problem? Does it mean I have ant problem if I lay out ant bait systems in my house that attracts and kill ants or does it just mean that ants are going to find their way into my house and I have a way of killing them before they end up crawling on my food?
And I'm 100% sure before Melky Cabrera was caught using PED's he was on Gregg's list of players who DEFINITELY used PED's. I don't doubt that at all.
Nothing lasts forever, not even something as murky and vaporous as a drug the police don't yet know exists. The cream that Barry Bonds took? Drug testers didn't catch that because they didn't know what it was. Just as life finds a way to survive, evolving to adapt in the conditions it has confronted, cheaters are the same.
And yet, writers like Gregg Doyel trot out the same tired names like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, and other "name" players to show the huge problem MLB has, as well as show how it's so obvious which players are using PED's. This is all done in a way to prove it's easy to figure out which players are using PED's, but conveniently ignores the hundred other players suspended for PED use whose name wasn't on any person's mental list.
And people like us, we sit back and wait for the next wave of players to be caught, then outed publicly, so we can scorn them like we scorned A-Rod and Braun.
Perhaps it says something about me, but I don't wait for the next wave of players to be caught so I can scorn them. Is there some sort of self-satisfaction in scorning athletes publicly for using PED's that I just haven't chosen to experience to it's fullest morally superior extent? Athletes who use PED's deserve to get caught and suspended, but I'm very much over taking up my energy to scorn these players.
When the next list comes out, I'll scan it for three names I'm sure are cheating.
These are three names Gregg KNOWS are cheating. No matter who they are, I'm betting those three names will be on the new Biogenesis list. It's obvious these players are cheating and Gregg would out them, but that's not the classy thing to do. It's more classy to vaguely refer to players you know are cheating, since it's so obvious who is using PED's and who isn't, and then gloat once these names appear on the Biogenesis list. But don't worry, Gregg will reveal just how right he was once that new Biogenesis list is revealed, just like I'll tell you all who is going to be the next President of the United States (because it's so obvious) just after the next Presidential election occurs.
What do I look for? I'll tell you some day, when the list comes out and if any of my names are on there. I figure one of them will be at least. This stuff is easy, really. It's simple to look at certain guys and just think, just know, "He's not doing that legally."
Someone like Jesus Montero. Someone that is playing baseball and you look at and KNOW he can't be that slow and unable to hit the baseball well naturally. He must be secretly less talented and is using PED's to just bring himself up to the level of being a massive disappointment. What about Kevin Frandsen? He makes hitting .256 look a little too easy if you ask me. How did we not see his PED suspension coming?
Especially given what we know about the nature of baseball, just like the nature of sprinting and cycling. Certain things have never been possible before, and while breakthroughs and advances do happen, there are some ceilings that get cracked that just don't seem plausible. Not legally plausible, anyway.
I'd love to know what ceilings have been cracked that don't seem plausible. It's been well-documented that hitters are striking out more and this is supposedly the age of pitchers (it's the pitchers who are using PED's!). No players are destroying home run records and no players are putting up the numbers seen during the Steroid Era. I'm just wondering what the advances and breakthroughs that are happening now are. Of course if Gregg Doyel told me now, it would ruin the surprise once the list comes out.
So my list is ready. Is yours? Baseball's about to release its list, and while I have no idea who's nice anymore, I have a strong feeling about which guys have been naughty.
Of course you do. Just be sure to tell us how right your list was once the Biogenesis list is released. I'm dying to know how right you were and what factors you looked for that tipped you off to whether a player was using PED's or not. My guess is Gregg is going to reverse-engineer this whole thing and everything will look way more obvious once he gets the answers to the test questions. Of course we should have expected Player X! I mean, that one time he did that one thing! We should have known, just like it was obvious Antonio Bastardo was a PED user.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)