Belichick For Pro Football HOF?

That might fly at a convention of lawyers. Most people with common sense don't care. At no point did any player think that taking steroids or any other PED was acceptable because it was all within the rules of baseball. If that was the case, Mark McGwire, and other players, would have used them openly, would have talked about them as if they are accessories like pine tar or batting gloves or barbells, and they wouldn't lie their asses off about using every time they get asked about it. They knew they were doing something others consider cheating.

Vincent's "advisory opinion" pretty much spelled out what no one actually had to SAY for players to know that. If the memo didn't exist, people would say, "He never even specified the obvious--that illegal drugs have no place in the sport, including the ones which can potentially make players freakishly better than their natural talent allows." The memo does exist, though, and there are people saying, "Oh, it was just a meaningless 'advisory' memo." Sounds like a no win to me.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/format/memos20051109?memo=1991

 

You're not understanding what I've typed. It didn't take a memo for everyone involved in baseball to know the obvious.

Simple question: If Mark McGwire felt he was doing something legitimate, all within the rules, 1) Why did he hide and lie about his use? 2) Why is he hiding and ducking today and instead of making your argument that he did nothing wrong (which would have been ridiculous in 1991, 1997, 2002 OR today)?

The fact that that memo exists, though, just makes the point that the commissioner actually put the obvious on paper. You'd think it would stop people from making the ridiculous argument that steroids were within the rules of baseball. Instead, they dismiss what was a formal, written policy (read it) as unimportant.

You can't have it both ways. The memo was unnecessary. It was as necessary as stating a policy that the sky is blue. But the memo actually DOES exist.

 

So what you are saying is... Since in 1991, he was blissfully unaware of the scope of an emerging problem, he (and everyone else in baseball) endorsed the use of steroids.

It's not the way most people see it. At least one supplier pointed the finger at at least 20 MLB players who would have been using that early. Those players weren't doing it out in the open, under some delusion that what they were doing was legal and within the rules of baseball. I can't imagine why anyone would be arguing that kind of revisionist history today.

If an employee steals from his employer, it isn't OK because the employer doesn't know about it. That is in essence the way you are interpreting what you just quoted.

EDIT: If anything, it makes his memo all the more remarkable. He didn't realize the problem that loomed, yet he still spelled it out in his drug policy. That should give the memo MORE teeth, not less.

 

You are totally not understanding what Vincent said. To paraphrase what he said in what you keep quoting, and what he has said at various other times, "The memo didn't seem like a big deal at the time. In 1991, we didn't think there was a steroid problem in baseball. So it's not like this was an urgent problem that already existed that we were giving a lot of thought to."

That makes PERFECT sense.

It also doesn't mean that 1) It is obvious that steroids were NEVER acceptable in baseball, and 2) Even in 1991, before use had reached the levels they did later in the decade, Vincent didn't actually put the obvious in writing and say, "This stuff is NOT OK."

First you argue that the rules didn't prohibit them (which is utter nonsense). Then I show you the written policy and you are arguing, "Well, he wasn't really serious about it!" (And misunderstanding what you are quoting to make the argument.)

 

I'm not excusing anyone. Not sure where you get that from.

You never answered. If McGwire thought he was acting within the rules and doing nothing wrong... why did he HIDE his use, why has he LIED about it and why is he DUCKING the world now, like a man who knows he did something others don't approve of?

Feel free to believe he acted in good faith and didn't realize others perceived him as a cheater when he used steroids. You are in a small minority of people who legitimately believe that is possible.

As 21 said, he made a choice. He could cheat or not cheat. He chose to cheat. It's that simple--it WAS that simple in his mind at the time, however he rationalized his cheating.