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!

BBWAA: Mark McGwire died for your sins

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by heyabbott, Jan 10, 2007.

  1. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    We could have done it. We did not want to do it.

    When the biggest story of the summer is how these guys are blasting home runs all over the place, perhaps we should have. Papers sure as hell did plenty of stories on whether the ball was juiced or not.

    Not too many on whether the players were juiced.
  2. Montezuma's Revenge

    Montezuma's Revenge Active Member

    Well, a ball can't sue you for speculating on whether or not it's juiced.
  3. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    How about the ones that wrote books proclaiming the glory of the 1998 season as the emergence of Jefferson's American Utopia, yet giggled in the press box? Are they suspiciously quiet now? Self Flaggation? Or just rightously indignent.

    As for the standard for Bonds, Bonds is a proven steroid user. There is nothing about McGwire's history that offers proof. And the leaked Grand Jury testimony? That's the life's blood of journalism.
  4. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    "Bonds is a proven steroid user"

    I believe 100% Bonds is a steroid user.
    However, I have never seen conclusive evidence that proves this point.
    Are you always this accurate when you write? Or are you not really anything close to a journalist?
  5. tenacious_g

    tenacious_g Member

    I've had this thought for awhile and maybe its been answered and I have never saw it. But while the subject of turning a blind eye to McGwire and steroids is being discussed, can somebody tell me if anyone has ever asked Cal Ripken if he was able in anyway to extend his mythical streak with the benefit of amphetamines?

    From what I've read, amphetamines (now banned) were pretty commonplace during those years and it seems it would make sense that playing through a sore ankle or a bad back could be a tad easier with a couple pills.

    Just a question. And again, if its been asked and answered, I apologize for my ignorance.

    I know it's almost taboo to question Ripken's streak, but this McGwire thread seems to warrant the question. If Cal did pop a few pills that are now banned, what would the reaction be to that?
  6. EE94

    EE94 Guest

    I know a couple who didn't put him on because his numbers - specifically hits - weren't HoF calibre, in their opinion
  7. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    What would be the difference between popping a few pills and having the trainer shoot up your bad back to numb the pain?
  8. tenacious_g

    tenacious_g Member

    I think a pill that enables you to play through pain is certainly performance enhancing. And, if it was legal but now banned by baseball, I think it would be worth pointing out to readers that even Ripken took some drugs that are now considered shameful.

    Again, I don't know if he did, but I think in light of all this revisionist history on McGwire, it is at least worth noting. Nothing more.
  9. Brain of J

    Brain of J Member

    Tell me, what exactly makes a player HOF worthy? Isn't it performance ON THE FIELD?
    Gaylord Perry, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle, etc, etc...writers have voted cheaters, racists, liers, indecent humans into the Hall of fame based on their performance.
    McGwire probably did use steroids. Until anyone proves it, however, which is highly unlikely given he' s retired, you have to base his case on what he's done on the field. Sure he MIGHT'VE cheated to get his 500 home runs. You can say that about anyone, though.
    Tim Cowlishaw had an interesting article in the Dallas Daily News, he states that, while the media suspects McGwire of steroid use, fairly or unfairly, they let people like Ripken, Gwynn, Griffey Jr, and so on go without any questions of juicing. McGwire, however, is thrown over the coals for something that's based on speculation.
    His congress hearing debacle aside, you can't tell me you have anything substancial proving he used steroids. I agree with Abbott in the sense that writers have no reason not to vote for him other then what he did between the lines.
  10. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Then let's talk about everyone who took a shot to play through pain. You're talking about every major league player in the last 40 years, if not more. I think the discussion, first and foremost, has to be about where we draw the line.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with "performance enhancers" to a certain extent. I'm not sure what that extent is, and I'm not sure to what extent steroids and these other methods actually help enhance performance.

    But I do know that, as a fan, I want my favorite players on the field as often as possible. And I know that it's likely going to take some supplemental assistance for that to happen.
  11. McGwire was implicated in an FBI investigation: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/289500p-247837c.html

    That's enough proof for any resonable voter to vote against him.
  12. Smasher_Sloan

    Smasher_Sloan Active Member

    But to do <i>what</i>? Watch what they do in the bathroom? Inspect UPS and FedEx packages delivered to their houses? This isn't like they were stealing cars or breaking into houses and you were going to catch them in the act. It's also not like they were driving to the bad part of town to make a buy through a street dealer.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page