Taken from this link, and of course Granville picks the only 2 paragraphs that further his agenda. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/columns/story?id=5963276
I picked the 2 paragraphs that shed light on a reason voters may have an issue with Bagwell and the HOF. HOF voters have a problem with steroid use in baseball. If Bagwell doesn't have an issue with rampant cheating which has negatively affected innocent players (like his is claiming to be) then he is contributing to that issue by condoning cheating.
How is that relevant? Is there any real evidence that Bagwell did steroids? If we are going to penalize guys like Bonds and Clemens, then we need to take Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Frank Robinson out of the Hall of Fame for using greenies. I worked for the Astros during the peak of the PED era and I can tell you there was a reason few players that complained about PED users..... nearly all the players either used some form of PED's, recreational drugs, greenies or cheated in some other way. There is NO evidence that Bagwell used steroids and it isn't fair to just assume.
I was going to post the exact same thing; this is literally how the article starts: If you're going to use Bagwell as your source, you can't arbitrarily pick and choose when you think he's being truthful, and when he's lying. He denies using steroids up and down the article; he makes his case. To rip two quotes, out of context, from the article is every bit as disingenuous as any member of BBWAA standing on a soapbox and lobbing baseless accusations at him while denying him his earned spot in Cooperstown.
FWIW I can tell you that what Bagwell said in the article about being a religious lifter. Bagwell was almost always the first player at the stadium (Biggio and later Kent were others) and he was the last to leave. Unlike Lance Berkman, Bagwell busted his ass.
Well that would make sense, he's a baseball player after all. Most of the players in the HOF had no problem with cheating either.
Just because Bagwell didn't get on the same holier-than-thou soapbox that you are, that doesn't mean that he's a cheater. I think he's made some points that a lot of guys have made about the use of performance enhancing drugs to enable guys like Pettite to get back on the field. That's cheating, but we've got spit ballers and corked bat hitters, and entire eras of players using "greenies" all in the Hall of Fame. Why is surgery OK if it makes you a "better pitcher then pre-surgery" but not hormones? I think that players should be judged based on their on-the-field merits within the era that they played in, and nothing else. I have far less problem with a guy like McGwire in the Hall than, say, Ty Cobb, who was a thug and a bigot. Does that make me a cheater, too?
The issue is that first it's a health concern, so they are banned, and because they are banned anyone using ends up having a short term competitive advantage over those who are not. Yes. They may die. But while using, they have added advantage. If everyone could use then I think it would be ok, nobody would complain, but that is not the case. So players are unfairly gaining a competitive advantage over the others, and that comes with all kinds of complications in how the rules are set, how players play, how big the stadiums are, monetary rewards. ect.. Goes on and on. So I don't think you can compare to Surgery in the same way. Everyone right now has the right to a surgery. If they want to add an extra finger they are allowed to do it. I do believe that in the future Steroids will be approved in a healthy version, agreeing with Canseco on that point, and that we won't care anymore. In which case the mental part of all sports will become the difference maker, until such time that we develop drugs for the intelligence of humans too. At that point all sports become muted as their is no point. But until Steroids are approved, they do indeed give an unfair advantage and should by all means be considered cheating because other player are not allowed to use them because of the health crisis surrounding them.
I don't disagree with that statement. But aren't amphetamines a performance enhancing drug? Where's the outrage about players who took those? In the mean time, I don't see how you can keep people out of the Hall because they're suspected of steroids without any proof. It's all a witch hunt.
Why is that not the case? There was no testing - any player could have taken steroids. In terms of unfair competitive advantage, sports, at its most basic, inherently promotes and thrives on an unfair competitive advantage: these athletes are not all cut from the same block. Some are more physically gifted than others. To suggest Bagwell wouldn't have been a top 50 hitter all-time in a clean environment is preposterous. And that's why the steroid witch hunt is so silly; it ignorantly assumes PEDs made average players great and good players Hall of Famers and that, too, is fundamentally silly. They unquestionably assaulted the record books - that you could argue. But these same guys would have still been the era's best players without steroids.
I keep seeing people point to Bagwell's religious lifting habits... but it is well known that steroids can and will allow athletes to train longer/harder and their bodies bounce back faster. Hearing how hard Bagwell lifted/trained as a reason why he was "not" a user wouldn't really sway the ones who suspect that he, at one point, used something.
Never claimed to be holier tan thou and have stated that I'd let him in. Not sure why you got emotional on me. Hormone therapy perhaps? If so, I don't think you're a cheater. I said he condoned cheating. Prove that statement wrong.
If you don't complain about or condemn a huge problem for the era that you played in. Don't cry later when that era and you by association get a black eye.
Another thing to consider is that while steroids help muscles recover faster. They do nothing to help the strain and stress put on joints, tendons and ligaments from excessively working out. IIRC, Bagwell had a torn labrum which could occur from heavy weightlifting. Steroids allow you to increase the frequency in which you can lift weights which can increase your chances of injury. http://drmirkin.com/fitness/1146.html
It's relevant because the HOF voters obviously suspect him of being a cheater. Since those voters have a polar opposite view of steroid use within baseball than Bagwell does , him condoning cheating doesn't really help his case, does it?
The HOF is filled with cheaters, even if Bagwell was a cheater (which there's no proof of), or condoned cheating....what relevance would that have to him being inducted into the HOF?
I just told you why it might be relevant to voters who are obviously suspicious of him. Maybe the voters thought Bagwell was lying about his own use and said that to appease his buddies that were also using. What does matter is Bagwell was wrong about what he said. Using PED's to gain a competitive advantage is wrong, dangerous and illegal to boot. HOF voters have taken a strong stand and dumb comments like Bagwell made hurt not help his case. Bagwell can't get in if enough people don't vote for him. Not interested in going back and forward with you on this.
Ah, so you are supporting the writers who have made a mockery of the HOF with their self-righteous witch hunt born out of ignorance about the history of the game? Gotcha. That's not a good look though.
Nowhere did I say that I supported the HOF writers. I just told you the relevance of a prominent power hitter condoning cheating based on the situation at hand where in real life we have voters with an axe to grind . I could stomp my feet and jump up and down and maybe just maybe every HOF voter with a vendetta against anyone suspected of PED use changes course. But that's not going to happen, now is it? What's not a good look is you arguing for the sake of arguing. Find someone else to try to pointlessly debate.....
