That’s the thing that really irks me: These are baseball *writers*; not baseball scientists or baseball researchers or baseball doctors. They’re WRITERS. Who in h-e-double hockey sticks appointed them experts on steroids and the effects they may have on performance? The idea that more muscles + better power = steroids is so simplistically naïve. If you’re going to suspect some players from this era, you have to suspect ALL players from this era; you can’t arbitrarily pick and choose who’s guilty and you can’t apply non-sensical standards that are based on nothing more than a very rudimentary grasp of a subject that is anything but rudimentary. Greg Maddux pitched until he was 42. FORTY-TWO! IMO, that’s every bit as suspicious as a guy bulking up and hitting more HRs. Are these writers going to cast their nets far enough to snare Maddux? Oh, no – he’ll go in first ballot with likely the highest voting percentage in history. You either universally apply your suspicions to ALL of baseball during that era or you bury those suspicions and vote on the individual player’s merits only.
You're an absolute idiot. Do you even know what your own words mean? WHERE IN THAT ARTICLE DOES ANYONE STATE THAT THEY PERSONALLY GAVE HIM STEROIDS? Please, DO show us all where someone said that THEY THEMSELVES gave steroids to Jeff Bagwell. Nobody says that...some "mystery source" claims that the guy said that HE said that he gave him steroids. Do you know what "hearsay" is? I don't think you do.
Blair allegedly stated that he gave them to Clemens, Pettite, and Bagwell. Do you know what "there are no accusers" means? It means that there are no accusers - it does not mean "there are no non-hearsay accusers" or "there is no accusation that I have vetted and found credible".
You said yourself: "you should say something like 'well people have said they gave him steroids but I don't believe them, since they're not credible'" Again, WHERE do "people say they gave him steroids"? Blair doesn't STATE it! He says the exact opposite! Are you really that dense? And someone saying that they heard someone else say that they gave him steroids IS NOT accusing HIM. Wow. Your pathetic grasp of the English language is sad.
Thanks, msn. BTW, you might appreciate this: Do you read Joe Posnanski? He's SI's lead writer but he also has a blog (Joe Blogs, I believe) which is a true must-read, IMO. Anyhoo, I emailed him my theory on Bagwell being the NL's best-ever first baseman (pre-Pujols) - a theory I'm pretty sure I created (not to brag - stay with me). I told him I thought such a hook might be the kind of thing Bagwell needed to get over the hump and wondered if agreed. Sure enough, Joe referenced it in his HoF voting recap article (http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/01/hall-of-fame-recap.html#more) only... he attributed the idea to a "brilliant reader named Barry." I'm not Barry, obviously. So he either a) got the names mixed up (Joe's blog, while highly entertaining, is always littered with grammatical errors. He had previously discussed Barry Larkin so it's possible he had “Barry” on his mind); or b) someone else is as independently brilliant as me and wrote very nearly the exact same email (right down to calling it a bit of a trick question); or c) the theory - again, which I've been touting for YEARS, mostly in Houston-area forums - is starting to seep out there and get some traction, which would be really cool. The Best National League First Baseman of All-Time is a compelling argument in Bagwell’s favor. Regardless of credit (Joe, BTW, is a BIG-time pro-Bagwell supporter), it’s cool to see it out there beyond these forums. Here’s hoping it continues to spread.
(SamFisher furiously "reading" through article again to try and find where Blair states that he himself gave Bagwell steroids) lol
I hate to break this to you, but hearsay can be used as an adjective preceding a noun, see, e.g. "hearsay witness" "hearsay testimony" etc. I do enjoy a good round of grammar smack...given that you can't spell "hearsay," I'd say you're on shaky ground. Anyway, a nerve appears to have been struck given the Quadri-post furious rampage that just 'sploded, so I'm probably asking for it, but here goes: The fact remains that there is a story out there linking him to steroid use, despite your implications to the contrary. Couple that with his "I just used andro!" cover story (where have we heard that before) and there's a bit of smoke there. I don't really care about the silly baseball hall of fame, or even particularly care about steroid users in baseball, but your whitewashing of the situation is obvious. Note: please limit any reply to one post only, it's too complicated with you firing off spittle-flecked salvoes.
Again, you can't answer up for your own statements and you have to edit your posts in a pathetic attempt to look less stupid. Yes, in ONE instance I put a space between "hear" and "say"...looking at the other multiple instances where I spelled the word correctly BEFOREHAND, I'd say that falls into the "typo" category. I'd say "nice try"...but it wasn't. It was a pathetic attempt on your part to draw attention from the stupid, baseless statements you are making. Statements that you won't even back up with further comment. ADDED: AGAIN, a "hearsay witness" is not accusing the person in question. A "hearsay witness" is stating that they heard someone else state something along those lines. THAT is not an accusation. THAT is hearsay. Sad that I have to spell this out for you.
My only comment as to the facts is that there's a published news story out there where a guy does claim to have given Bagwell steroids. I have no insider knowledge of its credibility, and never claimed so. My speculation, if i had to bet money on it, would be that there is likely some substance to these rumors, given the totality of circumstances. Again, that's my opinion which obviously you don't share. It doesn't really matter. Unless you disagree that that story exists, and that I fabricated the New York Daily News story from 2008 about Bagwell's steroid use in an elaborate, Inception-like plan to bamboozle and bewilder, then we have no quarrel, my grammatically-impaired comrade. EDIT: I would like to thank you for editing your post rather than responding multiple times. I would also like to thank you for your confusion of a layman's interpretation of FRE 802 and basic sentence structure, as it has added some levity to an otherwise dull noontime. Should we go onto the famous example of the Chief illiniwek mug later?
The story does not link him to steroid use. It says one guy heard a braggart name-dropping one time, then immediately cowed with "but I'm not sure he wasn't telling tall tales". That's all you Bagwell witch-hunters have to hang your pathetic hats on. Give it up. Generally, Sam, your takes are far smarter than that.
i, for one, am appalled that rockets934life didn't remember a claim from a discredited source. i will never vote for him for induction into the clutchfans hall of fame. i'm sure he appreciates the lecture he's received from sam fisher, though.
So where does it say that he gave Baggy PEDs? The only time he supposedly says it, it DIRECTLY contradicts what he told ESPN. Even the "source" isn't even sure he was telling the truth? Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...blair_made_boasts_about_ju.html#ixzz1AHJU46WS
I don't think the problem here is so much the writers as it is the system. No one appointed them experts on steroids, but no one appointed them experts on baseball either. There are a lot of stupid writers out there. But whoever decided to let writers decide who gets into the HoF and then also gave them no real solid set of criteria to decide is who's responsible for this. As it is, the writers are given broad discretion over who gets into the hall for whatever reasons they want. There is no set standard; as such, "I think he used steroids" seems as valid a reason as "eh, he pissed me off" or anything else they use. The Hall should have a standard of what is and isn't looked at. I especially think the whole first-ballot / multiple-ballot thing is stupid. So you vote on who should in the HoF, and you decide "eh, he doesn't deserve it this year. But next, definitely!" doesn't even make any sense. The player didn't do anything in the interim year. If he was deserving in year 2, he was deserving in yr 1. Even if we accept there's something "special" about the 1st ballot, why are guys getting in after 7 or 8 tries? What on earth happened in those 7 years to make people think a guy is worthy when he wasn't 5 years earlier? The whole system is messed up. The steroids thing is just a symptom of a much larger problem of arbitrary voting.
He's been linked to one of the guys who supplied steroids to Clemens and Pettite - maybe he was lying, but he has been linked to them; I mean that story hasn't been retracted, has it? I don't see Craig Biggio/Bert Blyleven/Roberto Alomar linked to this guy, do you? I don't particularly care about his steroids use or non-use either, **** as far as I'm concerned put McGwire in the HOF too. But pretending that the Androstenedione-fueled-exception has never been tainted by anything other than by circumstance is false, regardless of if you believe it or not.
