Steroids, HGH, and the HOF

[jackie hayes]

I simply cannot see assigning a percentage value. If it were me voting, if there was an amalgam of strong evidence - like there appears to be for Clemens and some others in the Mitchell report, for example - that to me would be enough to not vote him in. Bonds and others have very strong cases against them.

 

Some guys though, its a weaker case. I strongly suspect Sosa, but I have seen zero actual evidence of anything. So I think I'd have to try to keep that suspicion out of my judgement as a voter.

 

Now, if we are talking court of law here, and possible prosecution, then the bar would need to be higher.

 

Is that more what you are looking for? I can't see getting any more precise than that.

Sorry, but saying there has to be "strong" evidence, then saying that "strong" can mean whatever you want it to mean, is to demand an empty standard.

 

Of course each case is different. But the standard used to judge each case should be the same, and shouldn't be hopelessly vague, at least in the mind of a voter.

[NorthSideSox72]

Sorry, but saying there has to be "strong" evidence, then saying that "strong" can mean whatever you want it to mean, is to demand an empty standard.

 

Of course each case is different. But the standard used to judge each case should be the same, and shouldn't be hopelessly vague, at least in the mind of a voter.

You are looking for a standard that cannot exist. Which I understand, you are probably trying to say means that no standard can be enforced. I disagree. Courts decide to indict or convict all the time on an amalgam of "strong" evidence. Why is that not a reasonable standard for the theoretical me (the one that votes for the HOF) to use to decide on their highly subjective "character"?

 

[jackie hayes]

You are looking for a standard that cannot exist. Which I understand, you are probably trying to say means that no standard can be enforced. I disagree. Courts decide to indict or convict all the time on an amalgam of "strong" evidence. Why is that not a reasonable standard for the theoretical me (the one that votes for the HOF) to use to decide on their highly subjective "character"?

Courts have standards which mean something to individual jurors. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means, to me, something like 90%.

 

Moreover, I believe beliefs about beliefs exist and are meaningful. While someone else may have a different threshold for "beyond a reasonable doubt", it seems clear that it must at least be strictly greater than 50% -- especially considering that other courts have a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which is universally considered to be a weaker standard, and which seems to clearly declare a 50% standard.

 

It is a standard on individual jurors' subjective beliefs, but still a standard -- unlike saying there must be "strong" evidence.

[NorthSideSox72]

Courts have standards which mean something to individual jurors. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means, to me, something like 90%.

 

Moreover, I believe beliefs about beliefs exist and are meaningful. While someone else may have a different threshold for "beyond a reasonable doubt", it seems clear that it must at least be strictly greater than 50% -- especially considering that other courts have a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which is universally considered to be a weaker standard, and which seems to clearly declare a 50% standard.

 

It is a standard on individual jurors' subjective beliefs, but still a standard -- unlike saying there must be "strong" evidence.

You are really nitpicking something that is just not that precise - and its that way by design. "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a numerical value. You yourself may assign one - but that is just you. I simply see no possible way to assign a percentage to these standards. It makes no sense to me.

 

Let's go by situation instead...

 

Bonds: admitted use, people claim to have sold him stuff, people have seen him use it, all kinds of bizarre medical records, added to the circumstantial stuff like his freakish physical development and the typical side effects... that to me is enough STRONG evidence to feel confident he did it. Therefore, I wouldn't vote him in.

 

Giambi is at a similar level.

 

Sosa: meets all the circumstantial criteria for it, but, there is literally no HARD evidence of him doing so. That is not a STRONG pool of evidence. Therefore, even though I suspect he did it, I couldn't justify using it against him. Therefore, I might vote him in, if everything else warrants it.

 

McGuire: here is where it gets in that grey area. He meets some of the circumstantial criteria. The biggest evidence though, from what I understand, is his no-comment to Congress (there may be more, that's all I am aware of). That alone is SOME evidence, I am not sure I'd call it an amalgam of STRONG evidence. I'm on the fence. I'd want to know more before deciding.

 

Is that a little more clear?

 

[jackie hayes]

You are really nitpicking something that is just not that precise - and its that way by design. "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a numerical value. You yourself may assign one - but that is just you. I simply see no possible way to assign a percentage to these standards. It makes no sense to me.

 

Let's go by situation instead...

 

Bonds: admitted use, people claim to have sold him stuff, people have seen him use it, all kinds of bizarre medical records, added to the circumstantial stuff like his freakish physical development and the typical side effects... that to me is enough STRONG evidence to feel confident he did it. Therefore, I wouldn't vote him in.

 

Giambi is at a similar level.

 

Sosa: meets all the circumstantial criteria for it, but, there is literally no HARD evidence of him doing so. That is not a STRONG pool of evidence. Therefore, even though I suspect he did it, I couldn't justify using it against him. Therefore, I might vote him in, if everything else warrants it.

 

McGuire: here is where it gets in that grey area. He meets some of the circumstantial criteria. The biggest evidence though, from what I understand, is his no-comment to Congress (there may be more, that's all I am aware of). That alone is SOME evidence, I am not sure I'd call it an amalgam of STRONG evidence. I'm on the fence. I'd want to know more before deciding.

 

Is that a little more clear?

No, but that's because you don't want it to be clear. EVERYONE accepts that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means more than 50%, because there is a competing standard that clearly implies anything more than 50%, which is a weaker standard. That at least narrows the field, and the strength of the language suggests that it should be significantly higher than 50%. Yes, it is still uncomfortably vague, and that's something that gets discussed by scholars -- should there be an explicit threshold?, etc. But that's a lot more direction than absolutely none.

 

And it still leaves the question of what YOU think "strong" evidence means. If you were the voter, what would your standard be? You suggest above that some evidence shouldn't be considered ("...I couldn't justify using it against him"). What would you not consider?

 

The problem with not having any notion of a standard, and just going "by situation", is that a person is free to define it up or down depending on the individual being considered. It would clearly be unacceptable if juries across the US convicted blacks at a higher rate than whites in cases with exactly the same evidence. Yet, if we accept your position, there would be no problem with that, since the jurors can determine "beyond a reasonable doubt" however they see fit on a case-by-case basis. Similarly (though obviously much less important), we don't want voters for the Hall determining that there's "strong" evidence against the guy who was a jerk to the press while saying the evidence against another guy, who was real nice to his mother, wasn't really "strong", if there are only trivial differences in the facts.

 

That's even ignoring whether or not it's relevant, and what happens when you find out a guy who's already enshrined was a user. And if it's fair to exclude the people who just happened to have the popular supplier, while putting in dozens who used the more low-key guy.

 

I'm done. I'm just tired of the idea that by selectively picking guys who we really think maybe probably didn't use, we'll get the 'right' guys in, and get a true picture of the era. It's like we want to portray the last 15 years like we wish it had been. We don't know, we'll never know, the whole period and all its numbers are tainted. To reject a guy because someone thinks he was 25% likely to have used while accepting a guy who was only 10% likely to have used seems just ridiculously arbitrary. But hey, whatever. I can't say I have much respect for the HOF to lose.

[NorthSideSox72]

No, but that's because you don't want it to be clear. EVERYONE accepts that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means more than 50%, because there is a competing standard that clearly implies anything more than 50%, which is a weaker standard. That at least narrows the field, and the strength of the language suggests that it should be significantly higher than 50%. Yes, it is still uncomfortably vague, and that's something that gets discussed by scholars -- should there be an explicit threshold?, etc. But that's a lot more direction than absolutely none.

 

And it still leaves the question of what YOU think "strong" evidence means. If you were the voter, what would your standard be? You suggest above that some evidence shouldn't be considered ("...I couldn't justify using it against him"). What would you not consider?

 

The problem with not having any notion of a standard, and just going "by situation", is that a person is free to define it up or down depending on the individual being considered. It would clearly be unacceptable if juries across the US convicted blacks at a higher rate than whites in cases with exactly the same evidence. Yet, if we accept your position, there would be no problem with that, since the jurors can determine "beyond a reasonable doubt" however they see fit on a case-by-case basis. Similarly (though obviously much less important), we don't want voters for the Hall determining that there's "strong" evidence against the guy who was a jerk to the press while saying the evidence against another guy, who was real nice to his mother, wasn't really "strong", if there are only trivial differences in the facts.

 

That's even ignoring whether or not it's relevant, and what happens when you find out a guy who's already enshrined was a user. And if it's fair to exclude the people who just happened to have the popular supplier, while putting in dozens who used the more low-key guy.

 

I'm done. I'm just tired of the idea that by selectively picking guys who we really think maybe probably didn't use, we'll get the 'right' guys in, and get a true picture of the era. It's like we want to portray the last 15 years like we wish it had been. We don't know, we'll never know, the whole period and all its numbers are tainted. To reject a guy because someone thinks he was 25% likely to have used while accepting a guy who was only 10% likely to have used seems just ridiculously arbitrary. But hey, whatever. I can't say I have much respect for the HOF to lose.

I really do understand what you are trying to say. I just think you are trying to apply a level of precision that is not possible, but I feel that a judgement can still be made based on less numeric and more subjective analysis. That's why there are hundreds of voters for the Hall, not 5 or 6.

 

No "test" will be 100% for all players - some will require a grey-area approach and analysis, no matter how much information you gather. But that shouldn't stop them from trying to be as fair as possible. And I don't think its fair at all to just let everyone in because "we can't know for sure", or just not let anyone in for the same reason. That is, in my view, a total cop-out.

 

[SoxFanInDallas]

Follow-up Question:

 

The first mention of 'banning steroids' started in 2003 when after years of turning an eye on what was happening in baseball (by Selig, Owners, players, and even the media). So, much of what is being reported took place PRIOR to when the league was basically forced to not look the other way anymore. So, why are the fans and now the voting HOF writers so high and mighty about keeping out players who 'cheated'. For a long period of time, EVERYONE was playing "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" when it came to steroids, greenies, etc. So, why should players during that time be punished? The GM's didn't care (See Brian Sabian in SF). There are numerous stories about how the media that is 'close' to a team will keep certain dirty little secrets so that they can get all their other stories.

 

I truly find all this so hypocritacal. There was an era of steroid use. There has been an even longer era of greenie usage. Don't greenies provide an advantage? Both are illegal if prescriptions are not obtained. So, are we going to go back to the 50-60's and start investigating everyone that took a greenie?

 

My vote would be to vote these players based on their stats, not whether they took steroids or greenies unless it is proven they took them from the time these were banned and testing was begun.

[NorthSideSox72]

My vote would be to vote these players based on their stats, not whether they took steroids or greenies unless it is proven they took them from the time these were banned and testing was begun.

Except that unlike other sports, baseball specifically asks that HOF voters take into account the effect on the game in general by those players. There is a "character clause" as part of the evaluating criteria. To me, that is one of the things that sets baseball's HOF apart from others in a positive way.

 

[Steve9347]

I say screw it. Previous roiders are in... we already don't have the all-time hitking in the hall of fame... not including the best pitcher and power hitter of all time would further lend to denounce the validity of the HoF and what it stands for...

 

Which is fine by me.

 

Believe it or not, players got hopped up on amphetamines in the 70s, probably injected themselves with horse testosterone in the 50s for christ's sake. These guys have always cheated, always will cheat, and thinking anything else is looking at this through rose-colored glasses.

 

There is no "purity" to Major League Baseball. It's grown men playing a game, getting paid millions to do it (nowadays), and doing whatever they can to get ahead.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Steve9347

[jackie hayes]

Follow-up Question:

 

The first mention of 'banning steroids' started in 2003 when after years of turning an eye on what was happening in baseball (by Selig, Owners, players, and even the media). So, much of what is being reported took place PRIOR to when the league was basically forced to not look the other way anymore. So, why are the fans and now the voting HOF writers so high and mighty about keeping out players who 'cheated'. For a long period of time, EVERYONE was playing "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" when it came to steroids, greenies, etc. So, why should players during that time be punished? The GM's didn't care (See Brian Sabian in SF). There are numerous stories about how the media that is 'close' to a team will keep certain dirty little secrets so that they can get all their other stories.

 

I truly find all this so hypocritacal. There was an era of steroid use. There has been an even longer era of greenie usage. Don't greenies provide an advantage? Both are illegal if prescriptions are not obtained. So, are we going to go back to the 50-60's and start investigating everyone that took a greenie?

 

My vote would be to vote these players based on their stats, not whether they took steroids or greenies unless it is proven they took them from the time these were banned and testing was begun.

Well, they were banned before testing began. Since 1990 or so.

[Steve9347]

I don't get the whole "they weren't banned" argument either.

 

They were illegal to use in the US, so why must MLB explicitly list these drugs in their banned substances. People tend to forget that it is illegal in the United States to acquire and use non-prescription steroids.

[Soxbadger]

Steve,

 

Well in theory they could have taken the drugs outside of the United States.

 

IE Im in Venezuela, I get my HGH on.

 

Then I go back to the United States and wait to do HGH until the next time im back in Venezuela.

 

USA has no jurisdiction.

[SoxFanInDallas]

I don't get the whole "they weren't banned" argument either.

 

They were illegal to use in the US, so why must MLB explicitly list these drugs in their banned substances. People tend to forget that it is illegal in the United States to acquire and use non-prescription steroids.

 

 

Steve, to your point then, lets keep every single player that was taking greenies during the 70's to present. I don't see the greenies witchhunt going on. Isn't that both cheating and illegal? Players passing along pills to other players (illegal taking someone elses prescription) to boost their energy. Seems like that would be an advantage over someone not taking a greenie.

 

This whole steroid / HGH thing is insane and a witchhunt at this point. I do think that they should be banned and tested against, as well as the other banned stimulants. But, these things were NOT tested for prior to 2003 and players were taking them, owners/management was turning the other way to it, as well as the media. Now, the media says they will not vote for some of these players to make the hall. What a load of crap.

[jackie hayes]

I don't get the whole "they weren't banned" argument either.

 

They were illegal to use in the US, so why must MLB explicitly list these drugs in their banned substances. People tend to forget that it is illegal in the United States to acquire and use non-prescription steroids.

I don't agree with that. It's not MLB's place to enforce federal law, only its own rules. Imo it's unreasonable for MLB to discipline anyone who used steroids before the MLB ban, or HGH before MLB banned that. If the feds want to pursue a case, that's their business, not baseball's.

[Gregory Pratt]

1. Baseball's first 300 game winner was injecting monkey testosterone. This goes back a long way.

2. Specifically, in response to the "character clause" Northside brought up -- I respectfully submit that the clause is a joke. Of the initial HOF class, Ty Cobb received the most votes -- more than even Walter Johnson, one of baseball's nicest, "classiest" figures. The voters then don't care about "character" and neither do the current ones and neither do I. Are you a Hall of Famer? Check.

 

As an aside, I don't care about character in baseball HOF matters, provided the guy didn't throw a World Series, molest children or kill anyone. Jerk? "Cheater"? Whatever. This isn't a pure game and I'm not going to punish people for what the league has allowed and does allow.

 

I believe in the Hall as a preservation of history, not an attempt to delete inconvenient parts.

[Balta1701]

I don't agree with that. It's not MLB's place to enforce federal law, only its own rules. Imo it's unreasonable for MLB to discipline anyone who used steroids before the MLB ban, or HGH before MLB banned that. If the feds want to pursue a case, that's their business, not baseball's.

So, in terms of steroids, do you apply that as of 1991? Here's the actual memo Commissioner Vincent wrote stating baseball's policy Re: PED's.

"This prohibition applies to ALL illegal drugs and controlled substances, INCLUDING STEROIDS or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."

 

--Commiss. Francis T. "Fay" Vincent, memo (June 7, 1991), p. 2

 

[NorthSideSox72]

1. Baseball's first 300 game winner was injecting monkey testosterone. This goes back a long way.

2. Specifically, in response to the "character clause" Northside brought up -- I respectfully submit that the clause is a joke. Of the initial HOF class, Ty Cobb received the most votes -- more than even Walter Johnson, one of baseball's nicest, "classiest" figures. The voters then don't care about "character" and neither do the current ones and neither do I. Are you a Hall of Famer? Check.

 

As an aside, I don't care about character in baseball HOF matters, provided the guy didn't throw a World Series, molest children or kill anyone. Jerk? "Cheater"? Whatever. This isn't a pure game and I'm not going to punish people for what the league has allowed and does allow.

 

I believe in the Hall as a preservation of history, not an attempt to delete inconvenient parts.

The HOF is not a bin of stuff that happened. Its a place of honor for the game's greatest. Not voting players is nothing like "deleting" them. Its simply pointing out that they did not represent the best interests of the game.

 

Also, by your standard that some players have gotten in that are not great people... that argument would hold no water in any other circumstance, so why should it here? People break the law all the time, and some of them get away with it. Does that make the law bogus? Of course not.

 

If all you want is statistical performance, then don't bother to have a Hall at all - just have a big old server there that you can plug your Playstation into and drool for a while. Stats are great, but the game is unquestionably more than that.

[jackie hayes]

So, in terms of steroids, do you apply that as of 1991? Here's the actual memo Commissioner Vincent wrote stating baseball's policy Re: PED's.

Yes.

[Steve9347]

I don't agree with that. It's not MLB's place to enforce federal law, only its own rules. Imo it's unreasonable for MLB to discipline anyone who used steroids before the MLB ban, or HGH before MLB banned that. If the feds want to pursue a case, that's their business, not baseball's.

I wasn't saying it was MLB's... I was saying regardless of whether it was in the baseball bylaws, these players are still breaking the law, so it's still inherently wrong.

 

I think people misunderstood my point though. I'm over the steroids thing, I think the Mitchell Report is a joke and didn't tell anyone anything that they didn't already know, and these accusations are largely based on heresay. Yeah, if it puts pressure on the MLBPA, it makes a difference, but was that worth $20 mill? If they decide to let MLB do blood tests (HIGHLY DOUBTFUL), then the bad boys will find a new way to beef up the hitters. It's an endless cycle.

 

Badger, your point about taking the drugs out of country was a good one.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Steve9347

[jackie hayes]

I wasn't saying it was MLB's... I was saying regardless of whether it was in the baseball bylaws, these players are still breaking the law, so it's still inherently wrong.

 

I think people misunderstood my point though. I'm over the steroids thing, I think the Mitchell Report is a joke and didn't tell anyone anything that they didn't already know, and these accusations are largely based on heresay. Yeah, if it puts pressure on the MLBPA, it makes a difference, but was that worth $20 mill? If they decide to let MLB do blood tests (HIGHLY DOUBTFUL), then the bad boys will find a new way to beef up the hitters. It's an endless cycle.

 

Badger, your point about taking the drugs out of country was a good one.

I understand, I wasn't saying that you thought it was MLB's rule, I'm just saying that imo it IS important whether or not MLB itself had banned the substances. I would say it's wrong for baseball to discipline someone based on US law, and not their own rules.

[Steve9347]

I understand, I wasn't saying that you thought it was MLB's rule, I'm just saying that imo it IS important whether or not MLB itself had banned the substances. I would say it's wrong for baseball to discipline someone based on US law, and not their own rules.

I'm not the least bit concerned with MLB's discipline or anything else though, that's my point. The excuse people use is that these items weren't "banned by MLB" so it's not necessarily wrong.

 

However, if they are illegal to use without a prescription it is wrong no matter what MLB has to say. I'm not concerned with disciplinary action, rather just the ethics in the situation and the fact that, regardless of what MLB says, it's still "wrong."

[Gregory Pratt]

The HOF is not a bin of stuff that happened. Its a place of honor for the game's greatest. Not voting players is nothing like "deleting" them. Its simply pointing out that they did not represent the best interests of the game.

 

Also, by your standard that some players have gotten in that are not great people... that argument would hold no water in any other circumstance, so why should it here? People break the law all the time, and some of them get away with it. Does that make the law bogus? Of course not.

 

If all you want is statistical performance, then don't bother to have a Hall at all - just have a big old server there that you can plug your Playstation into and drool for a while. Stats are great, but the game is unquestionably more than that.

 

I think it rather humorous to suggest that Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa weren't "in the best interests of the game". The owners' wallets, fans, Bud Selig etc. etc. would all disagree. And it's a little awkward to suggest that X players should be kept out of the Hall of Fame when they were never disciplined for baseball, let alone banned.

 

I'm not going to tell Ty Cobb to get out of the Hall of Fame. I'm not interested in telling Gaylord Perry to pack his things and go and take Don Sutton with him. I'm not going to go down that road. I do not have the same view of history or the Hall of Fame as you; I think time has shown that the HOF is for the best players in the history of baseball who are not banned from baseball. You disagree? Well, we'll see what happens.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[Steve9347]

I think it rather humorous to suggest that Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa weren't "in the best interests of the game". The owners' wallets, fans, Bud Selig etc. etc. would all disagree. And it's a little awkward to suggest that X players should be kept out of the Hall of Fame when they were never disciplined for baseball, let alone banned.

 

I'm not going to tell Ty Cobb to get out of the Hall of Fame. I'm not interested in telling Gaylord Perry to pack his things and go and take Don Sutton with him. I'm not going to go down that road. I do not have the same view of history or the Hall of Fame as you; I think time has shown that the HOF is for the best players in the history of baseball who are not banned from baseball. You disagree? Well, we'll see what happens.

McGwire and Sosa's race in '98 greatly enhanced the scope of Major League Baseball throughout the world. Before that, fans were still reeling because of the strike. I believe the next year the Cubs opened the season in Japan bc of Sammy Sosa. To say that those two hurt the game of baseball I think is misleading. There wasn't a person in the states who wasn't captivated by that race. McGwire and Sosa's "stomach punch" celebration...

 

It sucks that that's now tainted, but come on... just looking at Big Mac, anyone with half a brain knew he had juice coming out of his eyeballs. With the body of Kevin Nash and the HR ability of... Mark McGwire. No one had a problem with it then, but now he's banished bc of it. I think that's a joke.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Steve9347

[Gregory Pratt]

"Banished" but not by the League. I think he'll eventually make it in...and if not, I think he should.

[SoxFanInDallas]

I'm not the least bit concerned with MLB's discipline or anything else though, that's my point. The excuse people use is that these items weren't "banned by MLB" so it's not necessarily wrong.

 

However, if they are illegal to use without a prescription it is wrong no matter what MLB has to say. I'm not concerned with disciplinary action, rather just the ethics in the situation and the fact that, regardless of what MLB says, it's still "wrong."

 

 

I am not sure you 'get' my point. I am that as an excuse. What MY issue is is that the Mitchell Report is a 'sliver' (Sen. Mitchell's words) of the problem that existed in baseball. What is going to happen is that HOF voters are going to NOT vote in Clemens and Bonds or anyone else noted in this report. As the Senator said, it is a SLIVER of the problem. Owners, commissioners, etc. perpetuated the problem. So, net effect is that during a period of time going back to the 70's and 80's when players were using amphetamines, etc., steroids started to also enter the picture. While this was happening, the whole league was turning its back on the problem. So, I have a problem that a guy like Clemens will likely not make the HOF, but there are guys that will not have been identified that may have shot themselves up weekly, but just happened to not get their stuff from the guys that cooperated with the investigation.