La Russa Campaigning for McGwire for the HOF

[Migrant Redbird]

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

I'm OK with that. As I said, I don't think that I have enough information to put a number on it.

[GeorgiaBird]

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.

And I am disappointed that a Cardinal's fan who provides so much good information on so many topics here continues to insist that everyone else simply has a closed mind, and doesn't seem to consider that perhaps some of us are reading, and I believe comprehending, your arguments but simply don't find them convincing enough to change our opinions.

For the record I don't think McGwire should be held out based on potential steroid use. But I don't believe my opinion that he most likely used steroids is in any way due to my failure to comprehend your arguments.

[Mackus]

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?

I don't think "there is inadequate evidence" is a legit opinion. Its just the opinion of someone who doesn't want to admit that they think he juiced.

There certainly isn't enough evidence to convict him in any sort of court of law if using steroids was a crime, but that's not the degree of certainty fans need to adhere to, IMO.

[sangar]

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.

I'm no expert on Hall of Fame induction criteria but I'm betting there is some sort of standard for Integrity. Its only my opinion but I do not believe cheating is ethical. If someone cheats on a test in school and get an A, do you believe he deserves an A? I do not believe McGwire meets Hall of Fame standards. I'll take a thousand Pete Roses before one of this guy.

[Migrant Redbird]

I'll take a thousand Pete Roses before one of this guy.

OK!

So how do you feel about Gaylord Perry then? Phil Niekro? Ty Cobb? John McGraw? Reggie Jackson? Biggest cheaters in baseball

Baseball has always reveled in its cheaters. The pitchers who scuffed up the ball or smeared tobacco juice on it, the guys who stole signs off the opposing catcher or coaches, the grounds crews that tailored the slope along the baseline according to whatever team they were playing that day and turned the takeoff area around 1st base into a sea of mud.

[McNulty]

And I am disappointed that a Cardinal's fan who provides so much good information on so many topics here continues to insist that everyone else simply has a closed mind, and doesn't seem to consider that perhaps some of us are reading, and I believe comprehending, your arguments but simply don't find them convincing enough to change our opinions.

For the record I don't think McGwire should be held out based on potential steroid use. But I don't believe my opinion that he most likely used steroids is in any way due to my failure to comprehend your arguments.

I agree with this completely.

[McNulty]

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.

I actually have an adequate amount of time to reply to this one, so I'm going to do it now.

This quote from you was in response to me saying that if someone questioned my life's work I would most certainly defend myself and refute the allegiations. And this was your reply.

Its quite the deviation from your earlier "defense" of his testimony (or lack thereof) that he was worried about not being able to invoke the 5th once he started to talk about things.

Two things bother me about this. First, you do realize that these are two of the flimiest arguments you could have for not clearing your name. It was the biggest chance of his life to come clean and refute any allegiations against him. Second, what is he trying to hide? Lets assume for just a second that your theory is correct (about using them in high school). Is this something that the public would not forgive? Are we expected to make all the right decisions at 18? Wouldn't this speak more to his character because he not only admitted using it, but the fact that he exercised proper judgment and decided for whatever reason that steroids were wrong and not something he needed?

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

I'm not being closed minded on this issue. I think, steroids or not, McGwire has a very interesting case for the Hall. Honestly, I do not care who gets in and who doesn't; it means very little to me. Personally I think if you gave someone like Bonds the choice between the Hall and a WS ring, he'd pick the ring every time. Results (to me) are the only thing that matters, and the Hall is something that's nice for the player and fans after retirement; I personally don't care.

I'm taking the facts that I am aware of and drawing conclusions based upon those facts. Seems like a perfectly open minded thing to do. And I will admit that there is certainly a possibility that he never used any steroids. I just don't think that the possibility, based on what I know, is all that high.

If you want to throw something like being a Nixon supporter because the vast majority of the nation was behind him, then you are making assumptions about me to which you have no evidence of (which is the crux of your argument here). You can ask Moose about this one if you wish - I most certainly do not go along with popular conventions simply because it is popular (and therefore must be correct). And the fact that you are applying this line of thinking to a large portion of the board here with broad strokes is, in my opinion, quite embarrassing.

[sangar]

OK!

So how do you feel about Gaylord Perry then? Phil Niekro? Ty Cobb? John McGraw? Reggie Jackson? Biggest cheaters in baseball

Baseball has always reveled in its cheaters. The pitchers who scuffed up the ball or smeared tobacco juice on it, the guys who stole signs off the opposing catcher or coaches, the grounds crews that tailored the slope along the baseline according to whatever team they were playing that day and turned the takeoff area around 1st base into a sea of mud.

In Poker there is 'legal' cheating that will earn you a reputation as "shot puller" and there is 'illegal' cheating that will get you a night in jail and your picture in the security chiefs book. McGwire's name doesn't belong in the same sentence as those other gentlemen and you know it. I'm really surprised by your attitudes on this issue. I've always had a great deal of respect for your knowledge and opinions.

[Migrant Redbird]

... This quote from you was in response to me saying that if someone questioned my life's work I would most certainly defend myself and refute the allegiations. And this was your reply.

You seem to have omitted the quote.

... Its quite the deviation from your earlier "defense" of his testimony (or lack thereof) that he was worried about not being able to invoke the 5th once he started to talk about things.

Two things bother me about this. First, you do realize that these are two of the flimiest arguments you could have for not clearing your name. It was the biggest chance of his life to come clean and refute any allegiations against him.

No, whatever McGwire wasn't going to "clear" his name. The only way that most of you would have believed him would have been if he confessed to using drugs and confirmed your suspicions.

If McGwire had continued to insist to Congress that he never used steroids, many of you would have been been convinced he was lying, particularly after Palmeiro made such an emphatic denial and then tested positive for stanazol.

... Second, what is he trying to hide? Lets assume for just a second that your theory is correct (about using them in high school). Is this something that the public would not forgive?

The "public" would never have believed him if he'd said that he used steroids as a teenager, but wasn't using them when he broke the home run record. If that was actually a valid scenario -- and remember I only proposed it as a hypothesis -- McGwire confessing to it would have done him no good at all.

... Are we expected to make all the right decisions at 18? Wouldn't this speak more to his character because he not only admitted using it, but the fact that he exercised proper judgment and decided for whatever reason that steroids were wrong and not something he needed?

First, you would need to have believed him, which I think would have been very unlikely. Believing Palmeiro was a lot easier for Orioles fans, and now many of you are convinced Palmeiro was lying and that he betrayed your trust. You would have been far less inclined to have believed anything McGwire told you which didn't confirm the beliefs you already held .

... I will admit that there is certainly a possibility that he never used any steroids. I just don't think that the possibility, based on what I know, is all that high.

That's all that I'm asking for, is an admission that it's possible. I'm not asking you to believe he didn't. I'm not going to put a probability on it myself because I don't have enough information to make an informed estimate.

... If you want to throw something like being a Nixon supporter because the vast majority of the nation was behind him, then you are making assumptions about me to which you have no evidence of (which is the crux of your argument here).

Forget Nixon. Forget flat earth. They're only examples of how the majority can be, and often is, wrong. This is especially ]likely true when the majority jumps to conclusions based upon flimsy evidence and prejudices.

I repeat again, I am not and have never claimed that McGwire has not used steroids. I'm only evaluating the "evidence" that he did, and arguing that it's not very substantial -- i.e., "flimsy".

... I most certainly do not go along with popular conventions simply because it is popular (and therefore must be correct).

We all, myself included, tend to form beliefs based upon assumptions and inadequate evidence. If we're raised up as Christians, most of us remain more or less devout believers, while those raised as Muslims just as adamantly believe we're wrong. I haven't seen anything from you which would suggest that you're different in this regard, despite your protests.

What's difficult is being capable of stepping back and examining one's own beliefs, and having the ability to "think outside the box".

Even those who can think outside the box tend to do so within relatively narrow channels. The prototypical example of someone who thinks outside the box are inventors -- the guys who observe a phenomenon from a different perspective and come up with a new idea. The 3M researcher who looked at a new adhesive that wasn't as strong as desired and came up with "post it notes". The guy who looked at a coiled up spring his company had manufactured and decided to turn it into a toy -- the "slinky". The guy who took a section of garden hose and made it into a hula hoop.

Some of you have read my idea for an electronic device which would assist umpires in the calling of balls and strikes. I never patented it because my management didn't want to pursue it. Do you know how many patents I hold? Zero! There are inventors with hundreds or even thousands of patents to their credit. If I could think outside the box on everything, I'd be among their number.

... And the fact that you are applying this line of thinking to a large portion of the board here with broad strokes is, in my opinion, quite embarrassing.

Sorry, but I don't have a great deal of respect for your opinion in this particular regard.

The progress which I have made is that I now have people like you responding and saying "I think it's very likely McGwire used steroids." instead of saying "I'm absolutely convinced he did." I'm not asking for anything more than that.

I've conceded from the beginning that McGwire's congressional testimony is very suspicious. However, it's not proof.

The guy in Oakland who allegedly supplied Canseco and McGwire made a plea bargain with federal investigators which required him to give sworn testimony about his dealings. If he had provided McGwire with steroids, he would have told the investigators and that information would have been in the Mitchell report.

That doesn't mean that McGwire didn't obtain steroids from someone else. For all I know, his parents drove across the border to Tiajuana and picked them up for him, and McGwire wouldn't testify to congress because he wasn't willing to implicate his parents. I don't know! The nature of McGwire's explanation for not testifying, such as it was, did imply that he didn't want to implicate other people. That might have only been an excuse, not a reason for his unwillingness to testify, but it's all speculation as far as I can establish.

[Moose Milligan]

Hey Redbird-

If McGwire said during that hearing that he never used steroids, I would have believed him. Just like I did with Raffy.

[Migrant Redbird]

If McGwire said during that hearing that he never used steroids, I would have believed him. Just like I did with Raffy.

And I would have taken it with the same skepticism I had for Palmeiro's vehement denial, or Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman".

No, I take that back. I had a pretty good suspicion that Clinton was lying; with Palmeiro, I simply didn't know and wasn't willing to take his righteous attitude as evidence of truthfulness. With McGwire, I simply suspected the allegations might have been true.

Even before the hearing, I had posted that Palmeiro's career path didn't look like that of someone who suddenly started using PEDs halfway through his career. Raffy hit 14 home runs in just 244 plate appearances as a 22-year-old rookie, which would equate to 40 home runs over 700 PAs. Raffie only hit 40 or more home runs 4 times, which by strange coincidence is the same number of seasons he had more than 700 PAs. (No, they don't correlate.)

[Moose Milligan]

Wait, wait, wait...

So you were skeptical of Raffy when he was wagging his finger?

[Migrant Redbird]

Wait, wait, wait...

So you were skeptical of Raffy when he was wagging his finger?

I can't search back that far on the O's forum, but I'll offer up what I can find on my favorite Cardinals forum from a thread discussing Senator Bunning's pontificating.

How would you interpret this, which I posted at Birds on the Bat on March 18, 2005, at 3:10 AM?

Schilling's testimony seemed the most impressive of those I saw. Sosa letting his translator read his statement didn't carry any credibility.

Those who never used steroids (Schilling, Palmeiro?) were in the best situation. They were free to issue ringing denials and stirring calls for action.

That was 3-1/2 years ago, but I believe that my question mark following Palmeiro's name was intended to express skepticism about both him and Schilling.

Of course, you're probably more interested in my first reaction to McGwire's testimony.

McGwire's floundering was painful to watch, and certainly implies that he at least tried steroids. He appeared to be trying to comply with legal guidance from his lawyer that he was uncomfortable with. The reminder that he has contributed $3M to his abused children foundation begs comparison to the comment about the serial murderer, "But at least he was good to his ma."

... Those who had used steroids, even if it was only experimentally and insufficient to have boosted their performance, were on the spot. They essentially had 4 options, none particularly palatable:

(1) Come clean and let it all hang out. If their usage was outside the statute of limitations, that might have been a viable option. The public would still have been skeptical about their telling of the truth; there will always be drunks in bars insisting they have inside knowledge that X did a lot more than he admitted to doing. In addition, they would have cost themselves Hall of Fame votes and possibly had their records adjusted. (Yes, adjusting records is a stupid idea, but Congress and MLB are fond of stupid ideas that appear to demonstrate their sincerity.

(2) Deny everything. That's a risky tack. Their usage is probably mostly beyond the statute of limitations and it's unlikely anyone would be proscecuted over admissions of personal use, but perjury would open up a whole new statute of limitations and DC juries are notoriously prone to bring in perjury convictions. (Remember, one of the three counts Ollie North was convicted on was lying to Congress.)

(3) Claim the fifth. That is possibly the most difficult course because the public has generally regarded the fifth as a particularly shameful equivalent of an admission of guilt. It opens players up to harsh criticism and possibly harms their HOF chances even more than a simple admission of guilt.

(4) Waffle. Try to use the fifth without specifically claiming it. Toss out red herrings like huge charitable contributions. This was the course McGwire seems to have chosen, or was instructed by his lawyers to take. Maybe it was the best course to take--certainly it was the most conservative choice--but it came off pretty bad for McGwire.

I think that my position in 2005 is consistent with my position now, even if it read then as a little harsher on McGwire. McGwire didn't actually take the 5th, because the committee never forced him to do it. The course he took made him appear to be guilty in the eyes of most of the public.

In a different thread a few months later, discussing Palmeiro's failed test, I offered the following hypotheses.

I have no doubt whatsoever of the validity of the positive drug test Palmeiro flunked in May because it was independently verified by a second laboratory. However, Palmeiro passed tests administered in spring training and a few weeks after the positive test, and he also passed tests administered in 2003 and 2004. There are any number of possible explanations for this, but Palmeiro's claim that he didn't knowingly take the steroid can not be dismissed out of hand when considered with the fact that he passed so many other tests. I see these as the possibilities:

(1) The dosing was inadvertent, as Palmeiro claims, whether it was in the B12 vial he got from Tejada or from another, as yet unidentified source.

(2) He deliberately took the stanozolol, but only briefly in early 2005, under the pressure of trying to reach the 600 HR plateau.

(3) Palmeiro was using stanozolol and other performance enhancing drugs routinely, but in a carefully planned routine designed to mask their detection , but he slipped up. Either he miscalculated the schedule or he got tripped up by an unanticipated random drug test.

Frankly, I do believe the 3rd possibility appears to be the most likely explanation for Palmeiro's positive test result last May. We do know that track athletes and their trainers have developed very sophisticated dosage schedules to maximize their performance while avoiding detection, and we do know that some baseball players, like Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi, did have access to the trainers and suppliers who supported these track athletes on the extremely sophisticated programs to avoid detection. Thus, the possibility that Palmeiro just got tripped up is a very credible explanation. However, the other two possibilities, though less credible, can not be ruled out.

At least I have a track record of looking at alternative explanations and avoiding the temptation to jump to unwarranted conclusions.

[McNulty]

Your entire argument seems to be this: McGwire didn't try to deny the allegiations at his hearing because it wouldn't of made any difference, and he would of been subjected to questions to which he could not take the fifth.

I just don't understand why, under any circumstances (if he had nothing to hide), he would say what he said. If people accuse you of something, you try your best to refute it. If people continue to not believe you, that's on them.

How do you know if I wouldn't of believed him? HE DIDN'T EVEN GIVE ME A CHANCE in that regard! All he did was leave himself open to an enormous amount of doubt. Since he didn't deny it (while under oath), I'm going to choose to believe he had something to hide. Nothing you've said has convinced me otherwise.

I haven't seen anything from you which would suggest that you're different in this regard, despite your protests.

Um, how about you not judge me like you don't want me judging McGwire? The only difference is I know a lot more about McGwire's situation then you know about me.

[JamesI]

If McGwire had denied it at the hearing, he would be in the HOF already. People would suspect, but would have nothing but Canseco's word to base it on.