La Russa Campaigning for McGwire for the HOF

[BrewCity]

Is it time to poll the jury yet?

Count my vote for "The Moose Rationale":clap3:

[Migrant Redbird]

I've made points on this topic several times before. My point is exactly what I said, you're very biased on this topic, and he most likely used steroids. Those are blatantly obvious.

If you think it's "blatantly obvious", you're sorely lacking in rational judgment -- at least on this issue. And if you think that I'm "very biased", you lack a proper understanding of the meaning of biased. My bias is towards people who form absolute opinions without a valid basis.

No, we don't have scientific evidence or the government finding evidence, or an admission of guilt.

Thank you for conceding my point.

But his statements or lack thereof at the hearings are the closest thing one could expect to the latter. There's just not a good reason to refuse to answer that unless he is guilty of using.

Not every decision has a "good reason". Not having a good reason isn't proof of guilt.

I have no problem with conceding that McGwire's refusal to testify appears suspicious. However, it's not "proof" in any way of what he did, and there are any number of possible hypotheses why he took that position, of which I've only enunciated one.

How confident would you say you are regarding his usage(or not) of steroids? Can you put a percentage on it?

Not really. If I were pulling a number out of the air, I might say 50 percent. However, there's not really any justifiable rationale for picking 50 percent over 10 percent or 90 percent because I simply have no evidence to support any of those choices. I usually resist prognosticating on the standings for the next season for the same reason -- such predictions involve too much "WAG".

I'll go 99%.

If I'm pulling a percentage out of the air, you're yanking yours from your nether region.

This is really analogous to a religious discussion. If we attempted to convince a Muslim that Allah wasn't really the Supreme Being, no amount of rationale is likely to budge his faith. I don't understand what is so difficult about conceding that there are issues on which we really don't know the answer.

And as I said earlier, I wouldn't keep guys out of the HOF due to steroid/HGH usage.

That's not really relevant to the discussion, but if there were any reliable way of differentiating those who used PEDs from those who didn't, it would make sense to use that as a criteria for HOF admission. As it is, the voters are discriminating on the basis of suspicion, when those they're keeping out of the HOF might have been "clean" and those they're electing might have been "dirty".

I have less of an issue with denying entry to those who have actually been caught, and those for whom there is credible evidence of usage, but we're still left with the conundrum of not knowing whom among their peers -- against whom they were competing -- were actually "clean".

Should Bonds get a pass on steroids use because he was hitting against pitchers like Clemens and Pettitte who also used it? I look at it this way. I'm not likely to get a pass on a speeding ticket by pointing out that the police miss 99 percent of those drivers who were driving even faster than I did through that particular zone.

[McNulty]

Do you actually have a point? Or are you just bashing?

I've never claimed that McGwire never used steroids. I've just pointed out that there's no credible evidence that he did, and postulated a hypothesis for why he refused to testify on the issue before congress. You don't have to believe the hypothesis to admit that it's a possibility. You don't have to label someone else "biased" to defend your point.

If he never used, then why not just admit as much to congress? Any unbiased person will tell you that he sure seemed like he was hiding something there. I know that if someone accused me of something involving the validity of my life's work, I'd sure as hell try and defend myself if I was innocent.

Gotta side with Moose on this one.

[Migrant Redbird]

Is it time to poll the jury yet?

Count my vote for "The Moose Rationale":clap3:

The vast majority will vote the same way. That doesn't mean they are right. Don't forget, an overwhelming majority voted for Nixon in 1972. (I voted for Nixon in 1968 and McGovern in 1972, joining a few yellow dog Democrats and devout anti-war protesters.)

[Migrant Redbird]

Any unbiased person will tell you that he sure seemed like he was hiding something there.

I've always conceded that. However, many things are not what they "seem" to be.

I know that if someone accused me of something involving the validity of my life's work, I'd sure as hell try and defend myself if I was innocent.

So would I -- I think -- but McGwire has demonstrated that he marches to a different drummer. It's always a little risky to apply one's own rationale to someone else's decisions.

Gotta side with Moose on this one.

Be my guest. There were millions of flat earthers and Nixon supporters who took the same tack of going with a majority.

[MurphDogg]

I firmly believe that in all likelyhood, Mark McGwire used steroids. One cannot rationally come to any other conclusion. Regardless, I wholeheartedly support his candidacy for the Baseball Hall of Fame. It is not the steroid-free Hall of Fame, it is the Baseball Hall of Fame and to suggest that McGwire's career did not meet Hall of Fame standards is silly.

[Moose Milligan]

:laughlol: This is rich.

Redbird, you're a master of dodging, ducking, dipping, diving and dodging!

[GeorgiaBird]

The vast majority will vote the same way. That doesn't mean they are right. Don't forget, an overwhelming majority voted for Nixon in 1972. (I voted for Nixon in 1968 and McGovern in 1972, joining a few yellow dog Democrats and devout anti-war protesters.)

What a bizarre argument. I will agree the majority is not always right. Not by a long shot. But you have to admit the majority is not always wrong, either. A majority of people believe clouds are not made of cotton candy.

Personally McGwire's day before Congress is the most compelling piece of evidence for me either way. I have no idea if he did anything or not, but if you ask me my opinion, I think back to that day, and I would say yes I think he did. But to automatically dismiss the prevailing view of a community of baseball fans on a baseball issue simply because you can bring up a past example of the majority not being correct is a pretty weak defense.

[Moose Milligan]

What a bizarre argument. I will agree the majority is not always right. Not by a long shot. But you have to admit the majority is not always wrong, either. A majority of people believe clouds are not made of cotton candy.

Personally McGwire's day before Congress is the most compelling piece of evidence for me either way. I have no idea if he did anything or not, but if you ask me my opinion, I think back to that day, and I would say yes I think he did. But to automatically dismiss the prevailing view of a community of baseball fans on a baseball issue simply because you can bring up a past example of the majority not being correct is a pretty weak defense.

Aw...aw come on! McGwire was CLEARLY thinking back to his high school football days and the time he tried a cycle of Winstrol! That's why he got all teary eyed and emotional!

[mweb]

You're an absolute joke on this topic, I don't care to get into this any further with you, it's like talking to Oldfan about certain topics.

[McNulty]

Be my guest. There were millions of flat earthers and Nixon supporters who took the same tack of going with a majority.

Are you really comparing my thought process on McGwire using steroids to these two examples? I'm actually a little embarrassed for you if so.

I'm curious, do you think Sosa used? Or Bonds?

[Migrant Redbird]

Are you really comparing my thought process on McGwire using steroids to these two examples? I'm actually a little embarrassed for you if so.

You should instead be embarrassed for yourself and those of your compatriots who have such closed minds on the issue.

Unfortunately, the American public is all too eager to believe salacious rumors, particularly when they involve celebrities. The song, Harper Valley PTA describes the phenomenon well. Another example is the prevalent rumors on the internet that Babe Ruth used steroids. Gelf Magazine: The Babe's Living Legend

In 1991, Wiley Publishing released a book called The Baseball Hall of Shame's Warped Record Book. The book, which is aimed at 8-12-year-olds, includes a fascinating story about the Babe:

The Bambino fell ill one year attempting to inject himself with extract from a sheep's testes. This effort by more than a few athletes of his era to seek the healing and strengthening properties of testosterone prefigured the craze for steroids. When Ruth fell ill from his attempted enhancement, the media was told that Ruth merely had 'a bellyache.'

Gelf Magazine goes on to discuss the allegations with Sam Creamer, one of the Babe's many biographers.

GM: Well, Zirin presents another charge, which he found in the Baseball Hall of Shame Warped Record Book, that alleges that Ruth injected himself with sheep testosterone. As Ruth's biographer, do you believe this story to be accurate, and if so, what are your thoughts on Ruth's history with these substances?

BC: I've never heard the sheep-testosterone story before, but I googled Ruth and sheep testosterone and found your interview with Dave Zirin, as well as Dave's column mentioning the sheep stuff and a similar column by Stephan F. Nathans. If I weren't such a cynic, I'd be outraged by the casual acceptance of the sheep-testosterone story by the writers, and their undocumented projections of the item.

Creamer should have investigated a little further. The book, Baseball Hall of Shame Warped Record Book, is out of print, but you can buy a used copy through Amazon for the cost of the postage. I did that several months ago and, guess what? I was unable to find the story about the Babe's belly ache anywhere in the book. Either there was a different edition which had the legend, or I'm blind as a bat, or this is just another urban legend, falsely citing a source which nobody has bothered to check out.

I'm not claiming that the Babe never used supplements or "tonics" containing extracts of animal testes. Researchers were preparing extracts of animal testes in the latter half of the 19th century and reporting extraordinary results from injecting themselves with said extracts, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that many ballplayers -- both before and after the turn of the century -- attempted to gain an advantage over their peers with such injections, or with patent medicine "tonics" containing those extracts. Whether that occurred or not, and there's some evidence that it did, we really can not know and it might not have benefited those athletes anyhow.

Another early player alleged to have used animal testes extracts was Pud Galvin. This review of “The Dark Side of The Diamond” passes along the story. (I haven't read this book.)

The fun of this book is in the stories most readers won’t have heard. Pittsburgh pitcher Pud Galvin had been injected with an extract derived from the testicles of a guinea pig and a dog when he beat Boston, 9-0, on August 13th…1889.

Before I'd believe that story, I'd want to check it out further. You can't believe something just because you read it on the internet.

I'm curious, do you think Sosa used? Or Bonds?

I don't know whether Sosa used steroids or not. There are indications that he might have been, but no real evidence of which I've heard, beyond his loss of command of the English language.

Did Sosa cheat with a corked bat? We have the evidence that he did, but no evidence of how often he cheated. I'm skeptical of Sosa's claim that he picked up a practice bat by mistake and had never before used a corked bat in a game, but not skeptical enough to call him a liar.

The evidence on Bonds seems to be pretty clear that he did use steroids, even though our knowledge of that evidence is based largely upon illegally leaked grand jury testimony.

The misconception of fans regarding Bonds is that many think we know when he began using steroids. We don't. All we really know is that his performance spiked dramatically when he hooked up with BALCO and was able to take advantage of their scientific steroids regimens which they developed working with "amateur" Olympics athletes. Bonds could have been using steroids his entire career. So could have McGwire and Pujols, for that matter. Without some credible evidence one way or the other, we're kidding ourselves if we think that we "know".

We have fans who would swear on a stack of Bibles that a player's injuries "prove" he was using steroids but, if we look up what the medical authorities believe cause those types of injuries, we usually find no mention of steroids and often statements such as "we don't really know". If the medical professionals are couching their opinions with so many caveats, why are laymen so willing to state their medical opinions so emphatically? I can only attribute it to arrogance and/or ignorance.

I'm disappointed that so many O's fans have such closed minds on the topic that they're not even willing to read and comprehend my arguments. Again, I've never said that McGwire didn't use steroids, because I have no way of knowing whether he did or not. I'm just not willing to follow the crowd which asserts that he must have used steroids because that's the only explanation their closed minds are willing to consider.

[Mackus]

I think its a joke that McGwire did not get in. He very obviously deserves to be there, IMO.

I also think that he used steroids, and think anyone who believes he doesn't is either in denial or incredibly naive.

I also think Bonds and Clemens, when their time comes, should be in.

[Migrant Redbird]

I think its a joke that McGwire did not get in. He very obviously deserves to be there, IMO.

There are legitimate arguments why a relatively one dimensional player such as McGwire shouldn't be in the HOF. A .263 career BA, 29th all time in career strikeouts, and -- despite the gold glove -- not a particularly good fielder in the latter part of his career. I don't necessarily agree with the arguments, but they are legitimate.

I also think that he used steroids, and think anyone who believes he doesn't is either in denial or incredibly naive.

In other words, you reject the middle ground -- that someone can simply believe the evidence isn't adequate to support an absolute opinion one way or the other?

[Moose Milligan]

I'm disappointed that so many O's fans have such closed minds on the topic that they're not even willing to read and comprehend my arguments. Again, I've never said that McGwire didn't use steroids, because I have no way of knowing whether he did or not. I'm just not willing to follow the crowd which asserts that he must have used steroids because that's the only explanation their closed minds are willing to consider.

We just think there's a high chance that he did it. Personally, I'm at about 90%.