No New Baseball Hall of Fame Members for 2013

[WestCoastJoe]

NEW YORK -- The most polarizing Hall of Fame debate since Pete Rose will now be decided by the baseball shrine's voters: Do Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa belong in Cooperstown despite drug allegations that tainted their huge numbers?

In a monthlong election sure to become a referendum on the Steroids Era, the Hall ballot was released Wednesday, and Bonds, Clemens and Sosa are on it for the first time.

Bonds is the all-time home run champion with 762 and won a record seven MVP awards. Clemens took home a record seven Cy Young trophies and is ninth with 354 victories. Sosa ranks eighth on the homer chart with 609.

Yet for all their HRs, RBIs and Ws, the shadow of PEDs looms large.

"You could see for years that this particular ballot was going to be controversial and divisive to an unprecedented extent," Larry Stone of The Seattle Times wrote in an email. "My hope is that some clarity begins to emerge over the Hall of Fame status of those linked to performance-enhancing drugs. But I doubt it."

More than 600 longtime members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America will vote on the 37-player ballot. Candidates require 75 per cent for induction, and the results will be announced Jan. 9.

Craig Biggio, Mike Piazza and Curt Schilling also are among the 24 first-time eligibles. Jack Morris, Jeff Bagwell and Tim Raines are the top holdover candidates.

If recent history is any indication, the odds are solidly stacked against Bonds, Clemens and Sosa. Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro both posted Cooperstown-caliber stats, too, but drug clouds doomed them in Hall voting.

Some who favour Bonds and Clemens claim the bulk of their accomplishments came before baseball got wrapped up in drug scandals. They add that PED use was so prevalent in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s that it's unfair to exclude anyone because so many who-did-and-who-didn't questions remain.

Many fans on the other side say drug cheats -- suspected or otherwise -- should never be afforded the game's highest individual honour.

Either way, this election is baseball's newest hot button, generating the most fervent Hall arguments since Rose. The discussion about Rose was moot, however -- the game's career hits leader agreed to a lifetime ban in 1989 after an investigation concluded he bet on games while managing the Cincinnati Reds, and that barred him from the BBWAA ballot.

The BBWAA election rules allow voters to pick up to 10 candidates. As for criteria, this is the only instruction: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

That leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

"Everyone has their own way of dealing with the issue, and in the absence of hard and fast rules, there will continue to be a wide diversity of opinions," Stone said.

Clemens was acquitted this summer in federal court on six counts that he lied and obstructed Congress when he denied using performance-enhancing drugs.

Bonds was found guilty in 2011 by a federal court jury on one count of obstruction of justice, ruling he gave an evasive answer in 2003 to a grand jury looking into the distribution of illegal steroids. Bonds is appealing the verdict.

McGwire is 10th on the career home run list with 583, but has never received even 24 per cent in his six Hall tries. Big Mac has admitted to using steroids and human growth hormone.

Palmeiro is among only four players with 500 homers and 3,000 hits, yet has gotten a high of just 12.6 per cent in his two years on the ballot. He drew a 10-day suspension in 2005 after a positive test for PEDs, and said the result was due to a vitamin vial given to him by teammate Miguel Tejada.

Biggio topped the 3,000-hit mark -- which always has been considered an automatic credential for Cooperstown -- and spent his entire career with the Houston Astros.

"Hopefully, the writers feel strongly that they liked what they saw, and we'll see what happens," Biggio said last week.

Schilling was 216-146 and won three World Series championships, including his "bloody sock" performance for the Boston Red Sox in 2004.

[WestCoastJoe]

Well, I certainly hope that none of these three get voted in.

I expect Clemens will get a lot of favourable votes. I think the US Congress might vote him in. They were lined up for autographs when he had to testify there.

Pete Rose bet on his team when he was managing. Not sure that should affect his status as a player. Nowadays Ty Cobb would never get in to the Hall of Fame. Media and internet just exposes everything about public personalities.

Not particularly a fan of Pete Rose, but it seems to me an argument could be made for his inclusion in the Hall.

McGuire and Palmeiro, with great stats, are not in the Hall. Steroid users. I think the same banishment should apply to this years' Steroid Three.

[notahomer]

And it means so much to Rose too. I'm sure the HallofFame means a lot to most players (even Bonds?) but 'charlie hustle'? I admire the tough stance MLB took on gambling and what Rose did was wrong, IMO but he's served his time.

[cromartie]

There are three pictures of Pete Rose prominently displayed in the Hall of Fame in the records section. Two of them are of him as an Expo, which I'm sure is someone's idea of a joke.

Frankly, I never understood the holier than thou attitude with steroids. They do nothing to improve hand eye coordination, or pitch location, the two most critical traits of hitters and pitchers respectively. The hubub over steroids is nothing more than baby boomer hand wringing over the "sanctity" of their game, a game full of alcoholics who walked into day games after night games hopped up on amphetamines and other uppers.

It doesn't help Bonds' case that he was a gigantic a**hole to fans, teammates and media members alike.

The Rose matter is somewhat different. If he bet against his team, he shouldn't be in the hall. Betting for your team is another matter entirely. Still debatable, but at least it wasn't a Black Sox situation.

[South Pender]

Frankly, I never understood the holier than thou attitude with steroids. They do nothing to improve hand eye coordination, or pitch location, the two most critical traits of hitters and pitchers respectively. The hubub over steroids is nothing more than baby boomer hand wringing over the "sanctity" of their game, a game full of alcoholics who walked into day games after night games hopped up on amphetamines and other uppers.

I couldn't disagree more. Steroids do enhance strength, which could certainly enable a player unable to hit the ball out of the park normally to do so on juice. Or to add a little zip to a pitcher's fastball. Furthermore, research has found steroid use to be related to many serious physical problems both during and after use, including, in some cases, early death. Overlooking use of these ultimately-harmful substances and what can only be seen as cheating in considering players for the HOF would signal its acceptability to new generations of players and athletes in general coming up now and would prolong the problem. Lance Armstrong was treated appropriately for his cheating. In my opinion these baseball players should receive exactly the same censure.

[Toppy Vann]

To put any of the 'roid users in would be going against the grain of the rest of the world who are stripping medals.

The idea that 'roids don't help a home runner hitter is wrong. It sure does as body strength and hitting are a key part of getting it out of the ball park.

Betting is betting. It is not to be done. Feel bad for Rose. Yes, maybe he has done his time and it is time to forgive him. He has paid hugely.

[cromartie]

For as long as there has been athletic competition, there have been people who were looking for an advantage over others in said competition. Drugs, whether taken for psychological effect or for actual physical benefit, have been a part of this for as long as competition has gone one. It's Radar Detector Theory ad infinitum and it's past time that we got off our respective high horses and stop moralizing about it, stripping medals and pretending we're doing things "for the athlete's own good." Athletic competitions are not egalitarian, they're done to produce revenue for the owners, salaries for the participants and entertainment for the ticket buyers.

Steroids don't do the work of making you stronger for you. You have to put in the work with the reduced recovery time they give you. They do nothing to improve hand eye coordination or your ability to correctly determine the pitch coming your way. They don't help with pitch placement and the psychology of pitching to a batter. They're a means. Not the end. Stop blaming them for the world's problems.

Major League Baseball, which has been a disgrace almost continually since firing Fay Vincent, didn't complain when the money was rolling in during the Steroid Era. The players didn't complain when they were raking in contracts. The fans didn't complain when they were being entertained with 9-8 slugfests. The sportswriters didn't complain about anything but the length of games throughout the entire 1990s. The fact that all of these parties are hand wringing now about the evils of steroids and shrieking about role models and long term damage is just so much Chicken Little bullsh*t, frankly.

And I have news for you. The means to which people will go to to enhance their bodies to improve their performance only get more drastic from here. I'd recommend Joel Garreau's 'Radical Evolution', in particular about what's on the horizon.

But if it bothers you that much, do what bodybuilding has done, and split your game into drug free and no testing competitions and let the free market decide.

[sj-roc]

Major League Baseball, which has been a disgrace almost continually since firing Fay Vincent, didn't complain when the money was rolling in during the Steroid Era. The players didn't complain when they were raking in contracts. The fans didn't complain when they were being entertained with 9-8 slugfests. The sportswriters didn't complain about anything but the length of games throughout the entire 1990s. The fact that all of these parties are hand wringing now about the evils of steroids and shrieking about role models and long term damage is just so much Chicken Little bullsh*t, frankly.

Indeed. Easy to hang the players out to dry by denying them HOF entry while conveniently forgetting that the owners, media and fans pretty much all looked the other way at the time. Perhaps it's more fitting just to have them inducted as a scarlet letter of sorts.

[South Pender]

For as long as there has been athletic competition, there have been people who were looking for an advantage over others in said competition.

Well, for as long as there's been money, there have been people looking for a way to gain an advantage over others by stealing it from them. I don't think that the "it's always been done" argument comes close to cutting it here.

Athletic competitions are not egalitarian...."

Of course not. The better athletes win.

they're done to produce revenue for the owners, salaries for the participants and entertainment for the ticket buyers.

Owners gain revenue, participants get salaries, and ticket buyers get entertainment from honest competition just as much as from unfair competition arising from cheating.

Steroids don't do the work of making you stronger for you.

Well, the steroids may not "do the work," but they certainly expand the limits of strength you can develop by work, well beyond those limits that exist without steroids. They do let you get stronger than you would otherwise through your workout efforts.

They're a means. Not the end. Stop blaming them for the world's problems.

Who the heck is "blaming [steroids] for the world's problems"? To say that cheating shouldn't be rewarded by honours is hardly addressing any of the world's problems!

Major League Baseball, which has been a disgrace almost continually since firing Fay Vincent, didn't complain when the money was rolling in during the Steroid Era. The players didn't complain when they were raking in contracts. The fans didn't complain when they were being entertained with 9-8 slugfests. The sportswriters didn't complain about anything but the length of games throughout the entire 1990s. The fact that all of these parties are hand wringing now about the evils of steroids and shrieking about role models and long term damage is just so much Chicken Little bullsh*t, frankly.

Nobody's either hand-wringing or shrieking. The issue of HOF admission will be decided by an anonymous vote (what could be quieter?) based on the voters' true feelings about artificial performance enhancement. There's no "chicken little bullsh*t" that I can see. No one is claiming that disaster is upon us, but many are claiming that they don't think excellent performance achieved this way is worthy of honouring. I don't think it's relevant whether or not the players, fans, owners, or sportswriters complained at the time. You make it sound as if PED use was common knowledge and tacitly accepted when it wasn't--except, of course, among the cheaters. These guys got their rewards in bigger salaries; their cheating paid off monetarily. In a way that's a shame, but it's done. In my opinion, we shouldn't now be asked to enrich them further by, in effect, honouring them for their cheating and inducting them into the HOF.

[South Pender]

Indeed. Easy to hang the players out to dry by denying them HOF entry while conveniently forgetting that the owners, media and fans pretty much all looked the other way at the time. Perhaps it's more fitting just to have them inducted as a scarlet letter of sorts.

I don't believe that owners, media, and fans knew about the extent of this and looked the other way. There was suspicion surrounding a few players, but nothing definitively established, and, in my opinion, most fans just hoped that steroid use was not widespread and that they wouldn't have to stop admiring their favourite players and cheering for their teams. I wouldn't characterize this as "looking the other way" (while in full knowledge of cheating), but rather hoping that it was isolated and not a part of their team's success--more of a "tell us it ain't so, Joe" sentiment.

In addition, I wouldn't exactly call denying a few players entry to the HOF "hanging them out to dry." These guys did, after all, make millions of dollars as players and undoubtedly more than they would have had they not cheated and enhanced their performance that way. They've been rewarded financially, and denial into the HOF should, in my opinion, be seen as the price they paid for their decision to cheat.

[cromartie]

Indeed. Easy to hang the players out to dry by denying them HOF entry while conveniently forgetting that the owners, media and fans pretty much all looked the other way at the time. Perhaps it's more fitting just to have them inducted as a scarlet letter of sorts.

I don't believe that owners, media, and fans knew about the extent of this and looked the other way. There was suspicion surrounding a few players, but nothing definitively established, and, in my opinion, most fans just hoped that steroid use was not widespread and that they wouldn't have to stop admiring their favourite players and cheering for their teams. I wouldn't characterize this as "looking the other way" (while in full knowledge of cheating), but rather hoping that it was isolated and not a part of their team's success--more of a "tell us it ain't so, Joe" sentiment.

In addition, I wouldn't exactly call denying a few players entry to the HOF "hanging them out to dry." These guys did, after all, make millions of dollars as players and undoubtedly more than they would have had they not cheated and enhanced their performance that way. They've been rewarded financially, and denial into the HOF should, in my opinion, be seen as the price they paid for their decision to cheat.

Nonsense. Tom Boswell of the Washington Post started writing about this as a problem in 1989. MLB didn't even implement testing for minor league players, let alone major league players until 2001. We were gifted with canards about "juiced balls" and "short porches". It was obvious what was going on as early as 1990 and MLB gleefully turned a blind eye. They used McGwire's pursuit of Roger Maris to paper over the goodwill they ruined when the cancelled the 1994 World Series. Everyone, except Montreal, spent the 1990s raking in money hand over fist because of the offensive nature of the game. The owners were complicit in it, ESPN, which raked in revenue from owning MLB rights during the latter half of the decade, did no reporting on it, and MLB did nothing about it until the US Federal government started busting the players suppliers and the fans flocked to new stadiums to watch the fireworks that resulted.

But here we are, 12 years later, and no one's offering to give back money. Instead, what we have are players being dragged before Congress because people are shocked, shocked! that steroids were being used.

It's garbage. Total, complete garbage and to hold it against the players now while letting the people who profited the most from it get off without any sort of fraud at all is absurd. The hand-wringing hypocracy from fans like you, and the idiotic Senators that wasted government time and money dragging players before Congress because they were shocked, shocked! that steroids were being used is equally absurd.

Nearly everyone was juicing. Cop to it and put these guys in the hall.

[Toppy Vann]

Indeed. Easy to hang the players out to dry by denying them HOF entry while conveniently forgetting that the owners, media and fans pretty much all looked the other way at the time. Perhaps it's more fitting just to have them inducted as a scarlet letter of sorts.

I don't believe that owners, media, and fans knew about the extent of this and looked the other way. There was suspicion surrounding a few players, but nothing definitively established, and, in my opinion, most fans just hoped that steroid use was not widespread and that they wouldn't have to stop admiring their favourite players and cheering for their teams. I wouldn't characterize this as "looking the other way" (while in full knowledge of cheating), but rather hoping that it was isolated and not a part of their team's success--more of a "tell us it ain't so, Joe" sentiment.

In addition, I wouldn't exactly call denying a few players entry to the HOF "hanging them out to dry." These guys did, after all, make millions of dollars as players and undoubtedly more than they would have had they not cheated and enhanced their performance that way. They've been rewarded financially, and denial into the HOF should, in my opinion, be seen as the price they paid for their decision to cheat.

To me the legal principle that the courts apply to cases is that the person "knew or ought to have known" as any "reasonable" person would know.

The question then is what should have they done back then as the cromaster notes writers were writing on it.

[South Pender]

Indeed. Easy to hang the players out to dry by denying them HOF entry while conveniently forgetting that the owners, media and fans pretty much all looked the other way at the time. Perhaps it's more fitting just to have them inducted as a scarlet letter of sorts.

I don't believe that owners, media, and fans knew about the extent of this and looked the other way. There was suspicion surrounding a few players, but nothing definitively established, and, in my opinion, most fans just hoped that steroid use was not widespread and that they wouldn't have to stop admiring their favourite players and cheering for their teams. I wouldn't characterize this as "looking the other way" (while in full knowledge of cheating), but rather hoping that it was isolated and not a part of their team's success--more of a "tell us it ain't so, Joe" sentiment.

In addition, I wouldn't exactly call denying a few players entry to the HOF "hanging them out to dry." These guys did, after all, make millions of dollars as players and undoubtedly more than they would have had they not cheated and enhanced their performance that way. They've been rewarded financially, and denial into the HOF should, in my opinion, be seen as the price they paid for their decision to cheat.

Nonsense. Tom Boswell of the Washington Post started writing about this as a problem in 1989. MLB didn't even implement testing for minor league players, let alone major league players until 2001. We were gifted with canards about "juiced balls" and "short porches". It was obvious what was going on as early as 1990 and MLB gleefully turned a blind eye. They used McGwire's pursuit of Roger Maris to paper over the goodwill they ruined when the cancelled the 1994 World Series. Everyone, except Montreal, spent the 1990s raking in money hand over fist because of the offensive nature of the game. The owners were complicit in it, ESPN, which raked in revenue from owning MLB rights during the latter half of the decade, did no reporting on it, and MLB did nothing about it until the US Federal government started busting the players suppliers and the fans flocked to new stadiums to watch the fireworks that resulted.

But here we are, 12 years later, and no one's offering to give back money. Instead, what we have are players being dragged before Congress because people are shocked, shocked! that steroids were being used.

It's garbage. Total, complete garbage and to hold it against the players now while letting the people who profited the most from it get off without any sort of fraud at all is absurd. The hand-wringing hypocracy from fans like you, and the idiotic Senators that wasted government time and money dragging players before Congress because they were shocked, shocked! that steroids were being used is equally absurd.

Nearly everyone was juicing. Cop to it and put these guys in the hall.

Wow..."hand-wringing hypocrisy." Is that worse than bloviating apologism?

Who exactly are the hypocrites? You've mentioned the owners? Whether they all knew the extent of PED use is unclear, but, even if they did, they're not the ones now arguing for banning certain cheaters from the HOF. So I guess they aren't hypocrites. What about the media? They'd be hypocrites only if they once approved of juicing, but now are arguing against it. The problem here is that I don't recall anyone in the media ever supporting this kind of cheating. Maybe they didn't expose it, but that doesn't mean for a minute that they believed that it was good. So how about the fans? Since doping wasn't really exposed even close to definitively, the fans didn't know for sure that it was going on, and, even if they suspected it, they certainly didn't know just who was juicing. But...and this is important...even if they knew, we don't know that many approved of it, and I suspect than the vast majority didn't. So, now, with many fans supporting a ban to the HOF for these three cheaters, this too can be hardly be seen as hypocrisy

If, as you say, juicing was tested for (and, thus, outlawed) in 2001, the 2001-2010 period (or 2001-present) pretty much takes in most of the careers of both Bonds and Clemens. Thus, they broke the rules of the day. In my view, whether others were doing it or not (and lots weren't) is pretty much irrelevant. (And I must strenuously disagree with your assertion that "Nearly everyone was juicing." Simply not true.) These guys broke the rules, but now want that not to matter. You seem to suggest that the morally-challenged owners and league officials should be penalized if the players are to be kept out of the hall, but that, of course, is impractical. Nonetheless, the fact that no mechanism exists to punish these others shouldn't mean that we don't use the one mechanism we do have to prevent further glorification of these cheaters.

Whatever mistakes were made in the past, the problem is not solved by making another now. We don't have to be condemned to repeat our mistakes in the interests of a foolish consistency (which we all know is the hobgoblin of little minds). Putting these cheaters in the HOF is saying that their accomplishments were equivalent to those of the other HOF members who achieved their status without the help of drugs. That would be just wrong.

[cromartie]

Whatever mistakes were made in the past, the problem is not solved by making another now.

Taking steroids was not "a mistake." PED usage has been a staple of baseball culture since the end of WWII. Teams have had various PEDs available to the players in the clubhouse since the 1960s. Willie Mays was an open user. Willie Stargell dealt them on the "we are family" Pirates (both Hall of Famers). Mike Schmidt was an open user, as was Dale Berra. And this is before we get into the Pittsburgh trials of the 1980s on the number of players who used cocaine, including Tim Raines, who will make the HOF eventually. Crack open Ball Four , as just one example and read all about PED use in the early 1970s. Would anyone like to argue that amphetamines and cocaine, which have a much longer history of use and abuse in MLB than steroids, are less damaging to the human body than steroids and HGH?

the 2001-2010 period (or 2001-present) pretty much takes in most of the careers of both Bonds and Clemens.

False. These are Barry Bonds' numbers from 1986 -1999

Runs: 1455
Hits: 2010
HR: 445
RBI: 1299
SB: 460
BB: 1430
BA: .288

ROY - 1
MVP - 3
AS - 8

That's a first ballot worthy HOF member right there.

Clemens, from 1984-1999, is 233-124 with a 2.95 ERA, with a Rookie of the Year, MYP and 5 Cy Young Awards . Also HOF numbers.

These guys broke the rules, but now want that not to matter

No, they didn't. Distribution of steroids and HGH was criminalized under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Use of it was not. Nor should it be (at least, in the U.S., Canada is a different story).

In 1991, Fay Vincent sent a memo to the clubs that said "this is wrong, don't do it, but we aren't going to test for it." Neither MLB nor the players association took any action on enforcing any rules relating to steroid use until the players' suppliers started getting busted in the late 1990s under the ADAA, and testing wasn't instituted until August 20th, 2002. If this doesn't qualify as the definition of "turning a blind eye" to you, I don't know what does. MLB treated steroids in the 1990s like it treated amphetamines and cocaine use in the 1960s and 1970s. Winked, nudged and counted the money, which the fans, who, like you now cry about how awful these roided up monsters sullying the game were, willingly continued to fork over in greater numbers than they had previously as if nothing had changed.

The real problem is, the guys who took steroids broke the records of the heroes of the people who reported on the game and ruined their childhood as a result. They changed the game statistically and the Bob Costases of the world wouldn't stand for that. It's one thing for Keith Hernandez, Dale Berra and Tim Raines to do cocaine, but when Home Run and Pitching records start falling, then there are problems. We can't have the romanticism of the 1960s (when players were doing amphetamines at will, but we'll pretend that didn't happen) overshadowed by these musclebound behemoths. That is the real travesty. /sarcasm It's the same stuff Roger Maris went through writ large.

And it doesn't help, to be quite frank, that Bonds and Clemens are very unlikable people. Bonds might be one of the largest jerks walking the face of the planet. (And I'll also concede this, his head is a size 8.5, easily. I was a size 8 at one point, and his head is easily half a size bigger).

But to sit here today and kvetch about "cheaters" like Bonds, Clemens and the like is absurd. And this Captain Renault act you're pulling on the issue is an embarrassment. You paid your ticket to the show. The show entertained you. It's been the same show for 50 years, just the characters and drugs have changed. Don't walk around now like it's all the sudden been sullied and these guys need to be punished for it.

[South Pender]

There are a number of flaws in that argument. Cocaine use could hardly be considered performance-enhancing (more like performance-degrading), and should perhaps be seen more like Babe Ruth's boozing. Although destructive (with the possibility of arrest), coke can hardly be seen as helping a player perform at a HOF level. Steroids and HGH can and did. After Fay Vincent's memo in 1991 that steroids were against the rules, the line was drawn; so I'd reiterate that taking them was a mistake. Any claim that "everyone was juiced" is patently false. Estimates that I've seen range from about 25% to 40% of pro baseball players. No one is advocating punishment for these cheats--just not further rewards and glorification. Big difference. Too bad that Clemens and Bonds weren't content to rest their case for immortality by continuing their careers off juice, although I guess in the Bonds case at least, he wouldn't have nailed those huge salaries. He got swept up in the desire to reap the glory McGwire was getting on juice, and he got his reward--temporary glory and huge dollars. But who knows what damage he's done to his body and how many years he has left in his life. Just a really terrible example to kids aspiring to athletic excellence. From all I've read, neither is likely to get the 75% needed to get into the hall, and that, in my opinion, is exactly the way it should be.

Let's just agree to disagree about this, cromartie. Reasonable people can differ....