Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

McGwire admits using steroids


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
229 replies to this topic

#1 bsj


  • Renegade Crazed Genius


  • 15,488 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:09 PM

QUOTE
APNewsBreak: McGwire admits using steroids

RONALD BLUM | January 11, 2010 03:03 PM EST | AP

NEW YORK Mark McGwire finally came clean Monday, admitting he used steroids when he broke baseball's home run record in 1998.

McGwire says in a statement sent to The Associated Press on Monday that he used steroids on and off for nearly a decade and he apologizes for his actions.

He says: "I wish I had never touched steroids. It was foolish and it was a mistake. I truly apologize. Looking back, I wish I had never played during the steroid era."


http://www.huffingto...eroids-mcgwire/

#2 bsj


  • Renegade Crazed Genius


  • 15,488 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:12 PM

Another link: http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=4816607

#3 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 10,972 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:15 PM

No surprise there at all.

#4 bsj


  • Renegade Crazed Genius


  • 15,488 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:16 PM

Nope. The only surprise is the timing, IMO. Why now?

Maybe he realized after seeing another year's worth of HOF returns that the denial act was not going to work, and that perhaps full disclosure was his only shot?



#5 SemperFidelisSox


  • suzyn


  • 10,734 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:18 PM

You're next Sammy.

#6 Return of the Dewey

  • 1,530 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:20 PM

QUOTE (bsj @ Jan 11 2010, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nope. The only surprise is the timing, IMO. Why now?

Maybe he realized after seeing another year's worth of HOF returns that the denial act was not going to work, and that perhaps full disclosure was his only shot?


It's b/c he's now a part of STL coaching staff, and, if he didn't come clean, as soon as spring training starts, it would be a major distraction. I wouldn't be surprised if him coming clean was not a condition that LaRussa and STL put on his hiring.

Edit: It's basically what the AP article and his statement insinuate

Edited by Return of the Dewey, 11 January 2010 - 03:24 PM.


#7 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,836 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:20 PM

QUOTE (bsj @ Jan 11 2010, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nope. The only surprise is the timing, IMO. Why now?

Maybe he realized after seeing another year's worth of HOF returns that the denial act was not going to work, and that perhaps full disclosure was his only shot?

I think it probably has more to do with his being the hitting coach for St Louis this year. He'll be with the team all year long; better to tell all now during the offseason so that he and the team aren't distracted by PED questions during the season in 2010.

#8 Dionysus


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,643 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:21 PM

Funny he should admit this so soon after getting virtually shut out of the HOF voting again. This is clearly an attempt to cleanse his reputation in the eyes of the BBWA so he can get in. Pretty transparent ploy. Debate about whether he SHOULD get in or not aside, I doubt this changes more than a few votes.

#9 Comfortably Lomb


  • Koko the Monkey


  • 6,913 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:22 PM

QUOTE (SemperFidelisSox @ Jan 11 2010, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You're next Sammy.


I look forward to being told more things that I already know.

Hopefully Sammy can also confirm the sky was blue and the grass was green.

#10 glennhoffmania


  • Rudy of P&G


  • 8,384,819 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:25 PM

QUOTE (Dionysus @ Jan 11 2010, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Funny he should admit this so soon after getting virtually shut out of the HOF voting again. This is clearly an attempt to cleanse his reputation in the eyes of the BBWA so he can get in. Pretty transparent ploy. Debate about whether he SHOULD get in or not aside, I doubt this changes more than a few votes.


Yup. I can't imagine that many writers didn't vote for him solely because he hadn't come clean. This won't change a thing.

#11 bsj


  • Renegade Crazed Genius


  • 15,488 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:25 PM

QUOTE
"I never knew when, but I always knew this day would come," McGwire said. "It's time for me to talk about the past and to confirm what people have suspected."


This line made me chuckle. Few years too late for Congress.

Edited by bsj, 11 January 2010 - 03:25 PM.


#12 ifmanis5


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,702 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:25 PM

Will this be a key tipping point? Will others come clean in his wake?

#13 phrenile


  • SoSH Member


  • 6,091 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:28 PM

QUOTE
McGwire's decision to admit using steroids was prompted by his decision to become hitting coach of the St. Louis Cardinals, his final big league team. Tony La Russa, McGwire's manager in Oakland and St. Louis, has been among McGwire's biggest supporters and thinks returning to the field can restore the former slugger's reputation.

(AP)

#14 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38,590 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:29 PM

QUOTE (bsj @ Jan 11 2010, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nope. The only surprise is the timing, IMO. Why now?

Maybe he realized after seeing another year's worth of HOF returns that the denial act was not going to work, and that perhaps full disclosure was his only shot?

Well, the primary reason he took the "I don't want to talk about the past" route before Congress was because the feds refused to grant any such witnesses immunity from future prosecution. It wasn't just a matter of him being too embarrassed and prideful to admit wrongdoing, the guy was a divorced father of a teenage son and scared shitless of going to jail.

I'm betting he's received assurances that the government vendetta is now over.

Edited by mabrowndog, 11 January 2010 - 03:31 PM.


#15 Roast Beef

  • 203 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:29 PM

If you read the full statement, there's a good deal of equivocating: he says that he started taking steroids to recover from injuries (the Pettitte defense), makes a point of saying that he wishes he hadn't played during the "steroid era" (implicitly blaming the culture at the time, which I'm not unsympathetic to), and tries to downplay the effect on his numbers by insisting that he had good seasons off the juice and bad seasons on it. On the bright side, he admits juicing during the '98 season, presumably because he knew that question would be asked if he didn't address it.

#16 ifmanis5


  • SoSH Member


  • 12,702 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:33 PM

So, with this official admission, will MLB roll out one of their dreaded asterisks? Will his records be wiped? What happens, if anything?

#17 Catcher Block

  • 1,294 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:38 PM

Costas will interview McGwire on MLB Network tonight at 7:00pm eastern.

#18 barbed wire Bob


  • crippled by fear


  • 3,364 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:40 PM

QUOTE (ifmanis5 @ Jan 11 2010, 01:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So, with this official admission, will MLB roll out one of their dreaded asterisks? Will his records be wiped? What happens, if anything?


At this point it's a tempest in a teapot. I doubt that MLB will do anything.

#19 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38,590 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:42 PM

I highly doubt we'll ever see asterisks, certainly not as an official posture from MLB. There's no way in hell they're going to admit an entire 7 to 10 year stretch (highlighted by a rewriting of one of the most renowned records in the game) was just a big lie, even if most fans know the truth. This will simply be pawned off as yet another era where certain advantages were held, just like spitballs, emery boards, raised pitching mounds, freeze spray to numb sprained ankles, and bullpens being added to favor your best home run hitter.

Edited by mabrowndog, 11 January 2010 - 03:45 PM.


#20 TheYaz67

  • 3,692 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:44 PM

QUOTE (bsj @ Jan 11 2010, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nope. The only surprise is the timing, IMO. Why now?


Um, a cold monday in January when most sports fans are concentrating on everything and anything but baseball? (That and yeah, not wanting to be harassed all next season on the road for interviews to discuss just this)


#21 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,050 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:48 PM

QUOTE (Return of the Dewey @ Jan 11 2010, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's b/c he's now a part of STL coaching staff, and, if he didn't come clean, as soon as spring training starts, it would be a major distraction. I wouldn't be surprised if him coming clean was not a condition that LaRussa and STL put on his hiring.

Edit: It's basically what the AP article and his statement insinuate


LaRussa truly believed he didn't do it. I don't think TLR gives two shits about it.

#22 glennhoffmania


  • Rudy of P&G


  • 8,384,819 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:49 PM

QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Jan 11 2010, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, the primary reason he took the "I don't want to talk about the past" route before Congress was because the feds refused to grant any such witnesses immunity from future prosecution. It wasn't just a matter of him being too embarrassed and prideful to admit wrongdoing, the guy was a divorced father of a teenage son and scared shitless of going to jail.

I'm betting he's received assurances that the government vendetta is now over.


I admit that I didn't pay too much attention to this nonsense at the time because it was such a joke. Did he ever make any statements that were false? Is this possibly a statute of limitations issue so they can't touch him now no matter what he says? Or am I being overly cynical?

#23 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38,590 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:54 PM

QUOTE (glennhoffmania @ Jan 11 2010, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I admit that I didn't pay too much attention to this nonsense at the time because it was such a joke. Did he ever make any statements that were false? Is this possibly a statute of limitations issue so they can't touch him now no matter what he says? Or am I being overly cynical?

A) I don't believe he ever did.
B) I'm no attorney, but that's a good question.
C) Not at all.

#24 Rocco Graziosa


  • owns the lcd soundsystem


  • 11,339 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:54 PM

Well knock me over with a feather. Did he also announce that earth was round? Another chapter of profiles in courage here.

#25 Danny_Darwin

  • 561 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:58 PM

QUOTE (Dionysus @ Jan 11 2010, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Funny he should admit this so soon after getting virtually shut out of the HOF voting again. This is clearly an attempt to cleanse his reputation in the eyes of the BBWA so he can get in. Pretty transparent ploy. Debate about whether he SHOULD get in or not aside, I doubt this changes more than a few votes.


I actually wouldn't be surprised if it did, given how self-important the HoF-voting members of the BBWAA are. I think a couple of voting writers have even said as much.

#26 jacklamabe65


  • A New Frontier butt boy


  • 6,118 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:03 PM

QUOTE (SemperFidelisSox @ Jan 11 2010, 08:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You're next Sammy.


Sammy will have to do it in Spanish as he can't speak English. smile.gif

#27 xpisblack

  • 2,658 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:04 PM

I believe the statute of limitations on a majority of non-capital US crimes is 5 years, as per USC title 18 sec. 3282. I further believe that his "not here to talk about the past" bit was around 17 March 2005. So he's still within the federal perjury-charge range by about two months.

This leads me to believe that a) his attorney(s) has/have deemed his original statements sufficiently obfuscatory to preclude charges and b) his publicist(s) has/have suggested that waiting until after the perjury window closed could be seen as the move of a weaselish, conniving, self-serving bastard who elected to save his own ass rather than jeopardise his team's 2010 season with talks of scandal. They might could even spin this to be self-sacrificing, if they think we're all morons.

EDIT: Link

Edited by xpisblack, 11 January 2010 - 04:05 PM.


#28 Jnai


  • is not worried about sex with goats


  • 9,802 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:06 PM

*


just sayin'

#29 SemperFidelisSox


  • suzyn


  • 10,734 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:09 PM

I'll be curious to see how much more McGwire is willing to admit, or if he will make it clear in spring training that he's ready to move on and won't be addressing the issue again. Who did he get the steroids from? Did he ever see any teammates taking them? How frequently did he take them in '98?

#30 Buzzkill Pauley


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,280 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:12 PM

QUOTE (Danny_Darwin @ Jan 11 2010, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I actually wouldn't be surprised if it did, given how self-important the HoF-voting members of the BBWAA are. I think a couple of voting writers have even said as much.


Well it certainly greases the skids for Barry Bonds to get after his 1st ballot wrist-slap. A-Rod, Manny, and McGuire have now all been implicated within the last year. At some point in time (probably after Junior gets in) there won't be any HOF talents left who the BBWA shouldn't have raised concerns about (and that's not to say the silence around Griffey is justified, either).

Put me in the "who cares" camp, as I firmly believe 95%+ of the elite talents since 1995 were/still are taking illegal PEDs.

#31 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10,794 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:16 PM

QUOTE (Dionysus @ Jan 11 2010, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Funny he should admit this so soon after getting virtually shut out of the HOF voting again. This is clearly an attempt to cleanse his reputation in the eyes of the BBWA so he can get in. Pretty transparent ploy. Debate about whether he SHOULD get in or not aside, I doubt this changes more than a few votes.


I'll join Danny Darwin in saying that my guess is that it will actually make a significant difference.

It probably shouldn't, but as we learned last week, the BBWAA acts according to their own standards of logic. And I'm guessing that there are more than a few voters who were witholding their votes simply because they were waiting for an admission and will now switch. (Kind of like Jay Marriotti making whatever point he was trying to make by voting for no one and then announcing it.) And once voters see his total increase, others like that fat buffoon Bill Conlin will perceive that it's finally safe to jon the bandwagon.

Next year's voting will be interesting.

#32 Return of the Dewey

  • 1,530 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:22 PM

QUOTE (xpisblack @ Jan 11 2010, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I believe the statute of limitations on a majority of non-capital US crimes is 5 years, as per USC title 18 sec. 3282. I further believe that his "not here to talk about the past" bit was around 17 March 2005. So he's still within the federal perjury-charge range by about two months.

This leads me to believe that a) his attorney(s) has/have deemed his original statements sufficiently obfuscatory to preclude charges and b) his publicist(s) has/have suggested that waiting until after the perjury window closed could be seen as the move of a weaselish, conniving, self-serving bastard who elected to save his own ass rather than jeopardise his team's 2010 season with talks of scandal. They might could even spin this to be self-sacrificing, if they think we're all morons.


IMO, he didn't say anything that would rise to perjury charges. He never made any untrue statements, but just refused to answer them.


#33 xpisblack

  • 2,658 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:28 PM

QUOTE (Return of the Dewey @ Jan 11 2010, 09:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
IMO, he didn't say anything that would rise to perjury charges. He never made any untrue statements, but just refused to answer them.

Agreed. I was trying to clear up the earlier question about statute of limitations issues (see above by glenhoffmania & mabrowndog). As I recall, a healthy chunk of us believed at the time of his appalling testimony that he had deliberately avoided answering questions because of Congress's refusal to guarantee immunity for truthful admissions of malfeasance gleaned during those sessions. Seems like a smart move now, but we'll see...

#34 Fred not Lynn


  • Dick Button Jr.


  • 3,796 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:30 PM

QUOTE (ifmanis5 @ Jan 11 2010, 01:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So, with this official admission, will MLB roll out one of their dreaded asterisks? Will his records be wiped? What happens, if anything?

Don't forget that the guys 60'-6" away had access to the same stuff, and more reason to use it throughout the so-called "steroid era" too.

#35 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16,955 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:39 PM

QUOTE (Fred not Lynn @ Jan 11 2010, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Don't forget that the guys 60'-6" away had access to the same stuff, and more reason to use it throughout the so-called "steroid era" too.

Exactly. Bizarrely enough, it was a pretty level playing field.

#36 Razor Shines

  • 3,486 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE (Rough Carrigan @ Jan 11 2010, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Exactly. Bizarrely enough, it was a pretty level playing field.

Only if you assume that PED usage helps the average pitcher excel to the same degree that it helps the average hitter. That might be the case, but I don't think it's a certainty.

#37 czar


  • fanboy


  • 3,620 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:55 PM

QUOTE (Fred not Lynn @ Jan 11 2010, 05:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Don't forget that the guys 60'-6" away had access to the same stuff, and more reason to use it throughout the so-called "steroid era" too.


But even if you assumed that the net benefit from steroid use was the same for a hitter as it was a pitcher then EVERY pitcher that threw a pitch to McGwire would have to be on steroids for him not to get an incremental benefit.

If 75% of the pitchers are on PED's but 25% are clean, McGwire on steriods is still better than McGwire not on steroids facing pitchers who are all 100% clean.

Edited by czar, 11 January 2010 - 04:56 PM.


#38 EdRalphRomero


  • wooderson


  • 2,439 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:56 PM

QUOTE (Razor Shines @ Jan 11 2010, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Only if you assume that PED usage helps the average pitcher excel to the same degree that it helps the average hitter. That might be the case, but I don't think it's a certainty.



Exactly it obviously had a disproportionate effect on homeruns. That's the reason that the single season record which had stood for so long was surpassed so easily by more than one player. McGwire was a homerun hitter ergo PED's presumably drove his success more than others'.

I wouldn't stop to piss on McGwire if he was on fire and I had consumed a Mega-gulp an hour ago and had to pee really badly and the only nearby restroom was a port-a-potty where some homeless guy had taken a dump on the seat.

#39 OilCanShotTupac


  • Not Clowning Around


  • 8,670 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 04:59 PM

I don't get why the Cards would hire him as hitting coach. I know he was a great hitter, steroids or no steroids, but that doesn't necessarily make him a good teacher and coach. I would have to think that there are more qualified guys for the job, and I don't know why the Cards would want to subject their team to this shitstorm all year long.

If it really is a matter of LaRussa wanting to rehab McGwire's reputation, then my already low opinion of LaRussa has sunk even lower. He's not doing his team any favors by exposing them to this circus. No need to do this when McGwire is an unproven commodity as a hitting coach.

#40 TwoDownInTheNinth

  • 82 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 05:01 PM

QUOTE (bsj @ Jan 11 2010, 03:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nope. The only surprise is the timing, IMO. Why now?

Maybe he realized after seeing another year's worth of HOF returns that the denial act was not going to work, and that perhaps full disclosure was his only shot?


I've heard that argument a lot. It might help in some cases, but in McGwire's case I really don't think so. Not only did he admit he used them in the record breaking season, but also throughout his career. If you ask me, that pretty much destroys any chance he may have had to get in. I certainly wouldn't vote for him. We'll see what happens, but he may have been screwed either way.

#41 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,182 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 05:04 PM

What's next? Will Snoop Dogg admit he smoked pot in the '90s?

McGwire had to speak. The moment he chose was optimal, because it (1) came after this writers cast their HOF votes; (2) did not overshadow other baseball news (such as HOF voting results, or the Cards re-signing Holliday); and (3) came at the earliest date that (1) and (2) will allow, giving the story maximum time to blow over before Spring Training.

#42 Grunherz54

  • 1,352 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 05:11 PM

QUOTE
Mark McGwire: I remember trying steroids very briefly in the 1989/1990 off season and then after I was injured in 1993, I used steroids again. I used them on occasion throughout the '90s, including during the 1998 season.


Intentional or not the implication is that his 1987 AL Rookie of the Year Award and the 1989 Oakland A's World Championship (excepting Canseco) are clean.

Meanwhile, on the MLB Network Matt Vasgersian put on his 'Oakland A's fan hat' and stated something to the effect that he remembers Bob Welch winning 27 games and a Cy Young and that nobody accused him or Dave Stewart or Mike Moore using steroids.

#43 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38,590 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 05:17 PM

I just love how all the moronic media pundits are issuing declaration after declaration that this admission will never allow McGwire election to the HOF.

So long as he never falls below the 5% mark, the man will have 11 more years on the ballot. That's exactly how much time has elapsed since he hit #70. A lot will change in the interim, and I have zero doubts he and any other suspected PED user who takes the mea culpa approach will ultimately gain entrance to the hall.

Edited by mabrowndog, 11 January 2010 - 07:01 PM.


#44 cannonball 1729

  • 2,034 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 05:19 PM

QUOTE (OilCanShotTupac @ Jan 11 2010, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I would have to think that there are more qualified guys for the job, and I don't know why the Cards would want to subject their team to this shitstorm all year long.

If it really is a matter of LaRussa wanting to rehab McGwire's reputation, then my already low opinion of LaRussa has sunk even lower. He's not doing his team any favors by exposing them to this circus.

How long do you think this media storm will last, though? A-Rod's media circus blew over in about a week, and he's the one of the best players in the game. I bet the media gets bored of this story long before pitchers and catchers report.

#45 EdRalphRomero


  • wooderson


  • 2,439 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 05:26 PM

QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Jan 11 2010, 05:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I just love how all the moronic media pundits are issuing absolution after absolution that this admission will never allow McGwire election to the HOF.



I don't think that means what you think that means.

#46 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38,590 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 05:27 PM

QUOTE (EdRalphRomero @ Jan 11 2010, 05:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't think that means what you think that means.

You're "absolutely" right, and I was just about to edit.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

#47 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,182 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 05:55 PM

QUOTE (mabrowndog @ Jan 11 2010, 05:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I just love how all the moronic media pundits are issuing declaration after declaration that this admission will never allow McGwire election to the HOF.

So long as he never falls below the 5% mark, the man will have 11 more years on the ballot. That's exactly how much time has elapsed since he hit #72. A lot will change in the interim, and I have zero doubts he and any other suspected PED user who takes the mea culpa approach will ultimately gain entrance to the hall.


I disagree. I've thought about this a bit, and this is how I see it going down:

The BBWAA has enough puritanical (read: older) scribes as members to keep any known PED user out of the Hall until A*Rod becomes eligible. If there are no new revelations about A*Rod by then, he'll get in on the first ballot. A*Rod's induction will trigger a reconsideration of the so-called Steroid Era, and the obvious HOFers (Bonds, Clemens, Manny) will get elected. More borderline cases (Sheffield) will probably be left on the outside looking in.

This reconsideration will come too late for Mark McGwire and Raffy Palmeiro, both of whom will be off the ballot by the time A*Rod becomes eligible. The Vets Committee, as currently constructed, will never elect a known PED user, but the VC has changed composition over the years. If the VC's composition changes again to give living HOFers a smaller role, McGwire and Palmeiro may eventually get in.

For rumored users, I think the BBWAA will vote in the obvious HOFers (Sosa) and stiff the borderline guys (Bagwell).

A few deserving hitters may end up on the outside looking in, but a historic assessment of the Steroid Era will generate new respect for the pitchers who excelled in that era. In addition to the big four (Maddux, Johnson, Pedro, and eventually Clemens), I think Smoltz, Schilling and Mussina will all get voted in, with four or five (Maddux, RJ, Pedro, Smoltz, and maybe G38) making it on the first ballot.

Edit: Another possibility is that conclusive evidence of PED use emerges after a player already is voted in. It's hard to predict what impact that would have; it would depend on the specific allegations, and also who the player is (i.e., the impact is much different if it's someone like Craig Biggio, who everyone assumes is clean, than if it's someone like Sammy Sosa, who was the subject of rumors but will probably get elected anyway).

Edited by maufman, 11 January 2010 - 06:04 PM.


#48 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38,590 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 06:06 PM

ESPN's airing a taped phone interview with McGwire where (as expected) he cited the threat of prosecution as the reason for his avoidance of the topic.

Paraphrasing: "If that happened, or if I got called in front of a grand jury, I'd have been throwing my family and many close friends into a situation that I created and didn't involve them."

Direct quote: "If I had gotten immunity, I would've come clean 5 years ago."

His voice cracked and he got choked up numerous times. Anyone who doesn't think this will ultimately sell well with HOF voters down the line is kidding themselves.

EDIT - And this is exactly where the Feds and MLB fucked up. They absolutely should have offered immunity to any players that came forward back then.

Edited by mabrowndog, 11 January 2010 - 06:09 PM.


#49 pedros hairstylist


  • Allison?


  • PipPipPip
  • 5,577 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 06:32 PM

Wow, this was the lead story on NBC Nightly News. I'm surprised. How can anyone be shocked by this?

#50 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16,955 posts

Posted 11 January 2010 - 06:44 PM

QUOTE (Grunherz54 @ Jan 11 2010, 05:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Intentional or not the implication is that his 1987 AL Rookie of the Year Award and the 1989 Oakland A's World Championship (excepting Canseco) are clean.

Meanwhile, on the MLB Network Matt Vasgersian put on his 'Oakland A's fan hat' and stated something to the effect that he remembers Bob Welch winning 27 games and a Cy Young and that nobody accused him or Dave Stewart or Mike Moore using steroids.

Well, Bob Welch looked the way Bob Welch always looked. He didn't throw faster or any more innings. And his 27 win season and Cy Young was a complete fraud and one of the prime arguments against taking the "win" stat too seriously with respect to pitchers. He pitched in a pitcher's park with a terrific defense, excellent offense and awesome bullpen behind him and STILL had an ERA just short of a run higher than Roger Clemens but got the Cy Young instead of him.

The same thing went for Stewart and Moore. They didn't change.