Reply With Quote
Uh, no he's not Nick Cannon avatar dude.
You realize that just because someone's name is not on the list doesn't mean they're clean. Just because their name is on the list doesn't mean they're dirty. Mitc admitted himself that just about all of his information came from a trainer who was MANDATED BY A JUDGE to talk to him as part of the res ution regarding his own case. That's what's called dirty evidence as it comes from a dirty coerced source. That guy would give up everybody he ever even heard a rumor from to try to take his own ass somewhat out of the fire. This whole report is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously. I personally think at least 80% of the current MLB is on some form of HGH. Until there is a blood test in MLB or an alternate HGH test then I'm assuming all of baseball is tainted and will remain as much. This fluff is all hearsay.
Uh, no he's not Nick Cannon avatar dude.
Incomplete list. No Sosa no Beltre on there.
Repeat: Omission is not defense. This report was not the end-all-be-all of everybody who used steroids, or the end-all-be-all of the extent of use by the people mentioned.
Jerry Crasnick:
One thing that bothers me is the arbitrary nature of the names being tossed around. If you went to BALCO or you crossed paths with Kirk Radomski, your name is splashed all over this report. If you went to a different supplier, you're in the clear. We all know that the list of players mentioned by Mitc doesn't even scratch the surface.
@ some people thinking A-Rod is clean because Mitc didn't put him in his list. A-Rods' head is expanding at a Sosa like rate.
Great. Omission is not defense. Neither is it guilt.
You're right. Nothing in the Mitc report points to his doing steroids.
His testimony before Congress is what points to him doing steroids.
Omission is not defense. Neither is it guilt.
That's a rather tattered and threadbare shred of hope you're clutching onto.
The fifth amendment gives Mac the right not to incriminate himself. Therefore the only reason to invoke it would be if the truth would have incriminated him.
It's like a 'no contest' plea. From a legal standpoint, it's not an admission. But in the court of public opinion, it's as strong as DNA evidence.
...OR someone else.
My point is simple. Just as KState says, omission is not guilt. Likewise, the omission of is testimony is not guilt. Can't have it both ways.
uhhh, no. re-read our cons ution. (or read it for the first time - with the exception of some talk of 3/5 of a person, it's a brilliant and wonderful do ent)
you do NOT have the right to refuse testimony under oath that might incriminate somebody else.
the fifth amendment (the portion that is applicable) deals only with being a witness against one's self.
Last edited by K-State Spur; 12-15-2007 at 04:10 PM.
No, you can't plead the Fifth in order not to testify against somebody else. That would be contempt of Congress.
OK, fine, he won't get put in jail. That's the point of pleading the Fifth; he doesn't have to admit in front of Congress to purchasing illegal controlled substances. But he won't get in the Hall of Fame either, because everybody on Earth who is not a Cardinals homer understands what his pleading the Fifth means.
Pet te has admitted that Mitc 's discovery was correct.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3156305
I assume that you are sleeping better knowing that the baseball writers of America have sent a message. What that message might be, I am not certain, but there is comfort in knowing that a message has been sent. This week's announcement of the Baseball Hall of Fame voting saw Mark McGwire, once regarded as a Hall of Fame lock, receiving only 23.5% of the votes from the writers.
Did this happen because McGwire used steroids? Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't. Nothing has been proven and, indeed, if he did use steroids that would not have violated baseball drug policy at the time. What he did use was androstenedione, a pre-steroid which was banned in many sports, but which was perfectly legal in baseball. It works much like a steroid and indeed this is why it is banned in many venues.
When andro was found in Mark McGwire's locker, was there any suggestion that he was doing anything wrong? Very little. It did set off a brief discussion about banning andro in baseball. This was followed by a discussion of other bodybuilding substances and supplements, such as creatine, which was reported in wide use in sport. Sammy Sosa, McGwire's home-run-chase partner, was one who admitted to using creatine.
Performance enhancement substances were out there aplenty, and we can assume that many were being used. Did anyone, at the time, suggest that andro or creatine invalidated Sosa and McGwire's home runs? If there was, it was largely unheard. On the contrary, the baseball writers and baseball executives were just pleased as punch that Big Mac and Sammy were "saving the game."
On the face of it then, it would seem that the Hall of Fame vote did not stem from a performance enhancement transgression. What then was this week's message sending about? Perhaps it was Mark McGwire's appearance before the Congressional Committee hearings in March of 2005. At this farcical "dog and pony show," McGwire refused, as he said, to talk about the past. It was his rather abstruse way of pleading the Fifth Amendment, which in my view he should have done, along with all players called before this fishing expedition and publicity stunt by Congress.
For some reason McGwire's quasi-Fifth Amendment position infuriated sportswriters. I am not sure why. It reminded me of the hearings before Senator Joseph McCarthy when people took the Fifth Amendment, only to have the Senator denounce them as "Fifth Amendment Communists." It was a clever way of changing a cons utional protection into an admission of guilt. McCarthy used to say that these people refused to answer questions because to do so would prove their guilt. McGwire got the same treatment. Refusal to talk about the past was taken as evidence of guilt and steroid use, a reckless form of justice applied by less than brilliant writers and commentators. McGwire clearly is a "Fifth Amendment Steroid User."
What then is the message? Don't expect justice in the press. You are guilty without proof. Cons utional protections can't be used when dealing with baseball and steroids.
Furthermore, if we assume that McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, and a raft of other home run hitters used steroids, does that diminish their hitting achievements? How many pitchers used steroids or other performance enhancing substances, and would that negate any edge hitters might have gotten from steroids? We know now that pitchers test positive for illegal substances more frequently than hitters. We know that singles hitters are just as likely to use performance enhancement substances as power hitters. We know that marginal players are more likely to use performance enhancement drugs than the elite of the sport.
So why single out McGwire in this way? It is hypocritical in some cases, self-righteous in other cases, and just a simpleminded attack on cons utional rights in yet other instances. It was not a good day for Mark McGwire. It was not a good day for baseball. And it was not a good day for the Bill of Rights.
Why would anyone think McGwire deserved to be inducted into the Hall of Fame on the first ballot? Of the top 10 home run hitters of all-time, McGwire is most like Harmon Killebrew. Those two are the only hitters in the top 10 in home runs who didn't have career batting averages exceeding .270 (McGwire hit .263; Killebrew hit .256). McGwire hit 10 more home runs than Killebrew, but, admittedly played in substantially fewer games. Still, Killebrew one an MVP and finished in the top 10 in 5 other seasons; McGwire never won an MVP, but finished in the top 10 in 5 seasons.
With all of that -- Killebrew retired as the 5th most prolific home run hitter in major league history -- it took Killebrew 4 years of eligibility to reach the Hall of Fame.
I wouldn't attribute all of McGwire's failure to attain enshrinement on the first ballot to be a steroid backlash. I think there's a perfectly valid argument supporting the notion that while McGwire is a likely Hall of Famer, entry on the first ballot was never realistic. Given the substantial questions that (I think understandably) surround McGwire's career and the historical precedent of Killebrew, I don't see last year's vote as being particularly surprising.
"maybe he did, maybe he didn't??????????????"
he took the 5th amendment - which is only applicable if his answers would have incriminated himself. (as captain mike himself as so often pointed out, andro itself was not illegal at that time, so there's nothing incriminating there)
but, at least our good captain has backed off from showing ignorance towards the cons ution of the nation in which he dwells. in some circles, i suppose that could be called progress...
Last edited by K-State Spur; 12-16-2007 at 01:57 AM.
he's in on the first ballot without the steroids.
but there is evidence against him. we can all live in bliss with the guys who are up in the air. but when somebody gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they have see some form of punishment.
at the end of the day, mac did more harm than good to the game, and that shouldn't be rewarded with enshrinement.
I don't think McGwire is in the hall on first ballot regardless. He hit home runs and that's pretty much it. Average sucked, played decent 1st but nothing special, and never led his club to much of anything after the le season with the A's of which he was an integral part but not a cornerstone or leader.
reggie jackson's stats were similar, easily made the first ballot.
no member of the 500 HR club has missed the first ballot in the modern era.
Other than Harmon Killebrew -- and, as I said before, Killebrew's numbers are eerily similar to McGwire's.
And, yes, Killebrew is a modern era 500 HR guy; he retired in 1975 and was inducted in 1984 on the 4th ballot.
I was thinking more recent that Killebrew (i.e. since 1990), but I concede the point - since my sample size is a whopping 2 - Jackson & Eddie Murray.
But I think there is zero doubt Mac would have been in on the first ballot without the allegations and basically admitting it to congress.
I'll concede, as well, that today's media is more enthralled by big home run numbers and might not take the same principled stance taken a generation ago with regard to Killebrew. I maintain that one-dimensional guys like McGwire and Killebrew are not first-ballot hall of famers, despite gaudy HR numbers. You can point to Reggie, but I'll tell you that if you buy Baseball Reference's similarity scores (I generally do), Reggie Jackson's career is most like Ken Griffey Jr.'s career at this point. Griffey is a no-brainer first ballot Hall of Famer and I can understand why the multidimensional Reggie Jackson, who was also the most obviously clutch player of his generation, was a no-brainer first ballot Hall of Famer.
McGwire's comparables are guys like Jim Thome, Jose Canseco, Carlos Delgado, Killebrew, Willie McCovey, Jason Giambi, Juan Gonzalez, Norm Cash, Dave Kingman, and Manny Ramirez. Of those guys, Killebrew and McCovey are in the Hall and Thome and Manny seem bound for the Hall. But none of the names at the very top of the list -- the most similar players historically to McGwire -- are exactly no-brainer first ballot guys. Admittedly, McCovey did reach the Hall on the first ballot, but he might be the only comparable to Big Mac to hold that distinction -- and rightly so, I think.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 12-18-2007 at 06:38 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions