1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

2020 Baseball Hall of Fame Class

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Della9250, Jul 9, 2019.

  1. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Bullshit. The owners and commissioner had no problem the money made off the backs of PED use.
    Regan MacNeil likes this.
  2. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    No disagreement. They loved the money, so did the players. They were partners in PED usage . Neither the Union nor Owners wanted enforceable rules. Had the players wanted it stopped and enforced it would have been, earlier. Which is why I believe the players liked it more.
    bigpern23 likes this.
  3. matt_garth

    matt_garth Active Member

  4. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    No screen shots? Who'd he piss on the most in his tweets?
  5. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Every guy on that ballot used some kind of PED during his career. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. If you’re a voter and you refuse to vote for PED users, you have to return a blank ballot.
  6. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    Start connecting your Harold Baines dots

  7. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    Agreed, 100 percent.
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I think it is fair to think every play may have used PEDs.

    But unless you have evidence that a player actually did use, I don't see how you are a fool for not making an assumption about something you just don't know with regard to other players.

    These aren't opinions. There is an objective truth regarding each player, whether you know that truth or not on a player by player basis. In the case of a player who got caught, you know the truth. They used. In the case of players who were never caught or implicated with evidence, you don't know. All you know is that they were never caught. It doesn't mean they didn't use. It doesn't mean they used.

    Maybe the right thing to do in that kind of murky world is to not play the game -- not vote. But it certainly doesn't imply that you have to return a blank ballot in order to be consistent. If someone takes the stance that they won't vote for anyone they know for certain used, there is no inconsistency in voting for players for whom they have no evidence of use.
    bigpern23 likes this.
  9. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    The problem then is how you define knowing the guy used. Does that require a positive test or an admission of guilt? Or can it be just a suspicious spike in power or adding too much muscle during his career? What about rumors or accusations with no evidence?
  10. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Reggie Jackson went from 180 to about 240 in the time span of about 1973-75. Just sayin.
  11. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    Maybe it’s in reverse, give extra credit for those who appeared to be clean?
  12. Chef2

    Chef2 Well-Known Member

    This was Selig's personal stash of porn 21 years ago.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page