Olney: PED use shouldn't prohibit HOF votes

[Moose Milligan]

Why the change in heart?

Well the initial shock and outrage of it all...I was pretty upset like everyone else. Then I realized how widespread it was...the Mitchell Report, Manny, etc...After awhile, to me, it just became kinda useless to be up in arms about it all due to how widespread it is. I guess I've just kind of accepted it as an era that was definitely exciting and fun to watch, yet tarnished the game and the records...but there's no use in witholding records, adding asterisks, or whatever. As mentioned before and in other threads, guys like Ruth weren't playing against some of the best talent during their period due to ignorance and MLB didn't have strict PED rules, either. IMO, Selig is as much to blame as anyone as I truly believe he turned a blind eye to it...not that I can't really blame him, he needed something to get people watching after the 94 strike.

So there's a lot there...I guess I just got tired of being bitter all the time and realized that it wasn't going to change anything. The damage is done, and it's a shame. Oh well.

In the end, I have more of an issue with guys like Clemens and Bonds, not for necessarily what they did, but for the fact they can stare mountains of evidence and testimony in the face and still lie and say they were clean. THAT really bothers me....guys like Pettite and Giambi admitted to it, said they were sorry (even if they were really sorry for getting caught) and are still playing.

Someone like Pettite won't be remembered for using PED's...if anything, IMO, it'll be a blip on his career. Guys like McGwire, Clemens, Bonds...they lied about it and it became such a huge issue with them that it can't be overshadowed or cast aside by anything else they can do. So while I do agree they should be in the HoF, I'm not going to get up in arms about if they don't make it. They did it to themselves, they've got no one to blame but themselves...maybe, just maybe, if they fessed up when they were called out to begin with they wouldn't be wondering why they're not the locks for the HoF that everyone thought they were.

[mweb]

Well the initial shock and outrage of it all...I was pretty upset like everyone else. Then I realized how widespread it was...the Mitchell Report, Manny, etc...After awhile, to me, it just became kinda useless to be up in arms about it all due to how widespread it is. I guess I've just kind of accepted it as an era that was definitely exciting and fun to watch, yet tarnished the game and the records...but there's no use in witholding records, adding asterisks, or whatever. As mentioned before and in other threads, guys like Ruth weren't playing against some of the best talent during their period due to ignorance and MLB didn't have strict PED rules, either. IMO, Selig is as much to blame as anyone as I truly believe he turned a blind eye to it...not that I can't really blame him, he needed something to get people watching after the 94 strike.

So there's a lot there...I guess I just got tired of being bitter all the time and realized that it wasn't going to change anything. The damage is done, and it's a shame. Oh well.

In the end, I have more of an issue with guys like Clemens and Bonds, not for necessarily what they did, but for the fact they can stare mountains of evidence and testimony in the face and still lie and say they were clean. THAT really bothers me....guys like Pettite and Giambi admitted to it, said they were sorry (even if they were really sorry for getting caught) and are still playing.

Someone like Pettite won't be remembered for using PED's...if anything, IMO, it'll be a blip on his career. Guys like McGwire, Clemens, Bonds...they lied about it and it became such a huge issue with them that it can't be overshadowed or cast aside by anything else they can do. So while I do agree they should be in the HoF, I'm not going to get up in arms about if they don't make it. They did it to themselves, they've got no one to blame but themselves...maybe, just maybe, if they fessed up when they were called out to begin with they wouldn't be wondering why they're not the locks for the HoF that everyone thought they were.

Sounds reasonable in terms of why you changed your mind, although I don't think it's really fair to label an era the PED era since it was prevalent before most are likely to define that era as starting. As Drungo and I have said, there's plenty of other reasons for the increases in homers than just PED's. But one thing I didn't mention was the effectiveness of PED's have obviously improved with time.

Concerning your last part, I don't give much credit to guys who mostly gave poor apoligies after denying it before and were basically being forced into it. I agree it's annoying that some guys don't admit the obvious, but to me that has nothing to do with their HOF case. BTW, Bonds did at one time basically admit to it if you read between the lines, but yes, he hasn't come out and truly fessed up.

On a related note, Ken Burns' 10th inning is supposed to spend some time focusing on the HR chase of '98 and Bonds' frustration over it, which apparently led to his use.

[Moose Milligan]

Sounds reasonable in terms of why you changed your mind, although I don't think it's really fair to label an era the PED era since it was prevalent before most are likely to define that era as starting. As Drungo and I have said, there's plenty of other reasons for the increases in homers than just PED's. But one thing I didn't mention was the effectiveness of PED's have obviously improved with time.

Concerning your last part, I don't give much credit to guys who mostly gave poor apoligies after denying it before and were basically being forced into it. I agree it's annoying that some guys don't admit the obvious, but to me that has nothing to do with their HOF case. BTW, Bonds did at one time basically admit to it if you read between the lines, but yes, he hasn't come out and truly fessed up.

On a related note, Ken Burns' 10th inning is supposed to spend some time focusing on the HR chase of '98 and Bonds' frustration over it, which apparently led to his use.

Oh absolutely there are other reasons why homers went up...but no one apparently seems to have issues with a tighter ball or bats with thinner handles.

I don't think their lack of admission has anything to directly do with getting into the HoF or not. But let's be honest...in a sense, the HoF is a popularity vote. Right or wrong, guys are voted in or out by some other things than just stats. Remember that Cleveland reporter who kept Alomar out this year for a perceived lack of hustle? How many times did the Hirshbeck fiasco come up? I'd honestly forgotten about it.

If Bonds doesn't get in, IMO, it's for the roids as much for the fact that he's a jerk and people don't like him. He was rude to the press for years and there are people in the press who I think will use their HoF vote as a way to "get back" at him, or punish him. Same with Clemens, same with A-Rod...no one liked those guys to begin with, they were never media favorites.

It may not have anything to do directly with their HoF votes but if they were to fess up right away and offer a heartfelt apology it definitely couldn't have done as much damage as continually denying despite more and more evidence being brought to the table.

Yeah, Bonds was spurred by the homer chase of 98. IIRC, he was also slighted by being left off the all century team, but Griffey making it instead. Those two instances combined drove him to use.

[mweb]

Oh absolutely there are other reasons why homers went up...but no one apparently seems to have issues with a tighter ball or bats with thinner handles.

I don't think their lack of admission has anything to directly do with getting into the HoF or not. But let's be honest...in a sense, the HoF is a popularity vote. Right or wrong, guys are voted in or out by some other things than just stats. Remember that Cleveland reporter who kept Alomar out this year for a perceived lack of hustle? How many times did the Hirshbeck fiasco come up? I'd honestly forgotten about it.

If Bonds doesn't get in, IMO, it's for the roids as much for the fact that he's a jerk and people don't like him. He was rude to the press for years and there are people in the press who I think will use their HoF vote as a way to "get back" at him, or punish him. Same with Clemens, same with A-Rod...no one liked those guys to begin with, they were never media favorites.

It may not have anything to do directly with their HoF votes but if they were to fess up right away and offer a heartfelt apology it definitely couldn't have done as much damage as continually denying despite more and more evidence being brought to the table.

Yeah, Bonds was spurred by the homer chase of 98. IIRC, he was also slighted by being left off the all century team, but Griffey making it instead. Those two instances combined drove him to use.

I agree with basically everything you are saying here. I'm simply saying I don't think it should have an effect on whether they get voted in or not, I realize it does along with their personalities in general as you mention.

[The Rick]

Mweb, I understand what your saying about prior greenies usage and other cheating measures throughout the history of the game, but this prevalant steroids era we just witnessed had an unprecedented impact on results, no? I realize that the equipment and hitter friendly parks had a lot to do with it too, but IMO this steroids era was unprecedented as far as impact goes, and that is probably why people are treating those caught the way they are.

[NittanyOsFan]

I agree totally, they should all be in. When McGwire played, HGH and anabolic steroids weren't even illegal in the MLB yet. All players from every era of baseball have had some kind of advantage.

Actually that's a common myth. Steriods were illegal in baseball since 1991. They weren't tested for, but they were against MLB policy. ESPN dug up policy memos from 1991 and 1997 which both specificly banned steriods without a prescription.

A Ban Ignored

[Snutchy]

To me, this means that as of the steroids era, the HOF is now irrelevant. If you made it to the HOF before the steroids era, then you are a baseball hero. If you make it to the HOF having played in the steroids era, whoopty-doo, congratulations cheater.

Have to spread the rep around.

[mweb]

Mweb, I understand what your saying about prior greenies usage and other cheating measures throughout the history of the game, but this prevalant steroids era we just witnessed had an unprecedented impact on results, no? I realize that the equipment and hitter friendly parks had a lot to do with it too, but IMO this steroids era was unprecedented as far as impact goes, and that is probably why people are treating those caught the way they are.

Steroids have been at least somewhat prevalent in baseball for over 40 years now. So it's hard to single them out for the impact on results. However, like I said, the effect of steroids has grown over time, but that's in part due to the dedication of the users in terms of their workouts.

[mweb]

Have to spread the rep around.

Why would that post get rep? Do you think cheating in baseball just started in nineteen ninety whatever?

[mweb]

Actually that's a common myth. Steriods were illegal in baseball since 1991. They weren't tested for, but they were against MLB policy. ESPN dug up policy memos from 1991 and 1997 which both specificly banned steriods without a prescription.

A Ban Ignored

The fact that it had to be dug up and and that it was being largely ignored from both sides is the key takeaway imo.

[DrungoHazewood]

Why would that post get rep? Do you think cheating in baseball just started in nineteen ninety whatever?

Maybe he meant that the HOF was basically meaningless from (at least) nineteen fifty whatever until the present.

[jerios55]

But they were illegal in the US. MLB doesn't determine the laws of our nation. I think it goes without saying that if there's a law against it you shouldn't be doing it. If they themsevles didn't feel that it was an issue because MLb didn't care then they wouldn't have been so secretive about their use. They knew what they were doing was wrong.

Were they illegal in Canada? Just curious if teams like the Blue Jays and Expos could have gotten away with PEDs.