Joey Votto Critical of Davis Saying the HR Record Is 61

[tntoriole]

I think the true baseball fan doesn't need an asterisk or an official proclamation to make their own conclusion about these matters. All fans think what they want already about Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, McGuire and they will pass their opinions down to their sons or daughters and so on, and so on. These players are stained irreparably and always will be and their performances will always be seen as illegitimate by baseball fans for the ages to come.

[El Gordo]

But what if we have almost 100% confidence that thousands of players had used aluminum bats disguised as wood, and we just applied asterisks to the 50 or 100 we know used the aluminum ones? You've just told the guys who were or are lucky and/or resourceful enough to cheat without getting caught that they're free and clear.

I think it's far better to just let the facts stand, and acknowledge that a lot of players were (and almost certainly continue to) operate outside the rules. We're not sure who they are/were, or what the impact on on the game is/was.

My proposal would be for an asterisk next to every record set during a designated PED era. I would say any player who played most of his career during that era would get an asterisk next to his record. For me that time period would be from 1970-2004. Of course there were players using PED's prior and there still are, but that time period is when the use was most prevalent and there were no controls. So by using an asterisk you are merely stating for reasons of clarification, that these records were set during a period were PED use was widespread, causing an uneven playing field, and possibly effecting the numbers. It wouldn't invalidate any record, just qualify it. And yes it would apply to Cal's record. Sorry Cal.

[DrungoHazewood]

My proposal would be for an asterisk next to every record set during a designated PED era. I would say any player who played most of his career during that era would get an asterisk next to his record. For me that time period would be from 1970-2004. Of course there were players using PED's prior and there still are, but that time period is when the use was most prevalent and there were no controls. So by using an asterisk you are merely stating for reasons of clarification, that these records were set during a period were PED use was widespread, causing an uneven playing field, and possibly effecting the numbers. It wouldn't invalidate any record, just qualify it. And yes it would apply to Cal's record. Sorry Cal.

I think that type of asterisk is painting with so broad a brush as to be meaningless. You might as well just throw out a blanket disclaimer that variations in PEDs, gambling, rules, segregation, player pool, scouting and development, and countless other variables have resulted in a myraid of playing conditions, and you should treat any assumptions of a level playing field across time accordingly.

[Uli2001]

I think the cheaters ended up cheating themselves, out of a place in MLB history. I remember the time when 500 HRs was rarified air. There's no way that Bonds does not end up with 500 homers, without the steroids. He would be one of the all-time greats. But instead he went for instant gratification. As all cheaters do.

[Uli2001]

I think it's far better to just let the facts stand, and acknowledge that a lot of players were (and almost certainly continue to) operate outside the rules. We're not sure who they are/were, or what the impact on on the game is/was.

That would be incorrect in the case of steroids. It is well known who most of the cheaters were (the ones who matter, that is). And the impact on the game is clearly known (HR records).

[Ruzious]

That cannot stand. It would be meaningless from day one. We know with essentially 100% certainty that there are and almost always have been players who used PEDs who will never be caught. In fact, the vast majority of PED users will never be caught. So there would be asterisks on the records of a handful of people unlucky enough to have been caught (or without access to the really good stuff that stayed ahead of the tests) and nothing marking the larger number of records set with assistance but without a failed test or admission.

And you say steroids, but you have to mean PEDs. The only reason I see to exclude some types of drugs and not others would be to keep things nice and tidy, so we wouldn't have to involve guys like Mays and Aaron in the asterisk business.

You keep on with that argument, but almost nobody buys it. ?And even nobody's having second thoughts.

[DrungoHazewood]

That would be incorrect in the case of steroids. It is well known who most of the cheaters were (the ones who matter, that is). And the impact on the game is clearly known (HR records).

Well, of course that's wrong. Unless by "it's well know who most of the cheaters were" you mean to just assume everyone was. Otherwise assuming that everyone who used steriods has been caught is laughable, not credible in any way. The idea that the primary impact of PEDs is increased homers seems incredibly myopic, especially since most failed drug tests have been by pitchers.

You keep on with that argument, but almost nobody buys it. ?And even nobody's having second thoughts.

What argument? The one that cheaters are cheaters, whether they used andro or steroids or greenies or flubber or emory boards or spit or cork? I don't think that's particularly controversial. I truly don't see how the "we didn't use the drugs that weren't available until 1998, just all the ones that were available at the time" defense holds any water at all.

[El Gordo]

I think that type of asterisk is painting with so broad a brush as to be meaningless. You might as well just throw out a blanket disclaimer that variations in PEDs, gambling, rules, segregation, player pool, scouting and development, and countless other variables have resulted in a myraid of playing conditions, and you should treat any assumptions of a level playing field across time accordingly.

The difference with PED's and most of your other variables is that those variables applied to all. Segregation affected all players in MLB, as do rule changes, changes in playing conditions, scouting and development, etc. PED's were not available to all, nor was it fair to expect players to accept the health risks. That is a very different uneven playing field IMO.

[MrOrange82]

What argument? The one that cheaters are cheaters, whether they used andro or steroids or greenies or flubber or emory boards or spit or cork? I don't think that's particularly controversial. I truly don't see how the "we didn't use the drugs that weren't available until 1998, just all the ones that were available at the time" defense holds any water at all.

In re: the idea that there are, and have always been, lots of cheaters...my only question is "who cares"? Would you like to operate by social and/or legal rules as they existed, and were enforced, 50 years ago? 100? Or is it preferable that we endeavor to improve our enforcement of good rules as time passes (and I think it should go without saying that removing the financial incentive from "self medicating" with potentially dangerous substances is a "good" thing)?

Honestly, it rings absurd that people who're living and playing today should be given a pass because "the powers that be" decades ago weren't up to snuff in terms of controlling/eliminating cheating. And hey...even if the baseball gods of old encouraged "cheating" as we understand the term, that doesn't mean that we should continue to encourage similar behavior(s) in 2013.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread: you're probably never going to have a 100% success rate when it comes to catching cheaters, just as you never have a 100% success rate in the judicial system. But knowing that some people get away with breaking the rules is an exceedingly poor reason for letting the ones who do get caught off the hook.

Hopefully catching and punishing some cheaters, rather than none, will make it such that fewer players overall, across all levels of play, will decide to take PEDs.

[DrungoHazewood]

In re: the idea that there are, and have always been, lots of cheaters...my only question is "who cares"? Would you like to operate by social and/or legal rules as they existed, and were enforced, 50 years ago? 100? Or is it preferable that we endeavor to improve our enforcement of good rules as time passes (and I think it should go without saying that removing the financial incentive from "self medicating" with potentially dangerous substances is a "good" thing)?

Honestly, it rings absurd that people who're living and playing today should be given a pass because "the powers that be" decades ago weren't up to snuff in terms of controlling/eliminating cheating. And hey...even if the baseball gods of old encouraged "cheating" as we understand the term, that doesn't mean that we should continue to encourage similar behavior(s) in 2013.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread: you're probably never going to have a 100% success rate when it comes to catching cheaters, just as you never have a 100% success rate in the judicial system. But knowing that some people get away with breaking the rules is an exceedingly poor reason for letting the ones who do get caught off the hook.

Hopefully catching and punishing some cheaters, rather than none, will make it such that fewer players overall, across all levels of play, will decide to take PEDs.

I'm fine catching cheaters and enforcing rules. I have a problem putting asterisks on records set by the small subset of cheaters who were caught.

[MrOrange82]

I'm fine catching cheaters and enforcing rules. I have a problem putting asterisks on records set by the small subset of cheaters who were caught.

Scant difference between that and sandwich board sentences, IMO.

[Stotle]

It boils down to the fan's perception of the games integrity. If they continue to see poor umpiring, and the celebration of tainted records coupled with the "crackdown" on PED's, the players recognizing those "records" on one hand while decrying the cheaters who use PED's on the other, the fan's perception of the game's integrity continues to erode.

Enjoyed a presentation on team valuation at a sports law conference a couple weeks ago -- included some quick examples and historical comparisons. Baseball is doing very, very well and fans are buying into the game arguably more than any time in history.

[Aristotelian]

I think the true baseball fan doesn't need an asterisk or an official proclamation to make their own conclusion about these matters. All fans think what they want already about Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, McGuire and they will pass their opinions down to their sons or daughters and so on, and so on. These players are stained irreparably and always will be and their performances will always be seen as illegitimate by baseball fans for the ages to come.

I agree with this, but that does not answer the question of what MLB should do as the body that determines the official records and player statistics.

The biking association looked the other way for years but finally stripped Lance of his titles and records. I would like to see them punish every guy who ever cheated, but at least they did something for a high profile guy who got caught. If they don't do anything, that is just encouraging future cheating. I would be in favor of MLB doing the same (but I don't think they can or should do anything for guys where there is no evidence).