no one disputes this. however, using zits as supportive proof of steroid use is faulty logic. * I have zits. So do several other 40-somethings I know. * Palmeiro, ARod, and Bonds do not have zits. So this factor is far too variable to stand upon as logical proof.
This is actually an awful analogy. First being a communist sympathizer, which was McCarthy's crusade, is by definition a subjective judgment. I probably once felt sorry for a communist - does that make me a communist sypathizer? I don't know. Whether or not I used anabolic steroids or HGH (I have not, to my knowledge) is relatively objective in comparison. Second, you should actually read up on McCarthy and what he really did, and what actually happened- despite all his bluster, bullying, and machinations, the sum total of communists he was able to produce at the end of the day was basically 0. Finally, it's indisputable that circumstantial evidence exists indicates that Bagwell is a player whom we should be suspicious of. You're not, and that's fine but it doesn't make one into a modern day McCarthy to acknowledge this.
I'm assuming you don't know how to properly use the term, actually i'm accusing. for it to be a witchhunt, you would have to ASSume that i think this somehow stains bagwell's career. I don't, why, because its no telling who used during this period, there still has been no proven on what the actual on field results are you bring up palmeiro, mcguire, bonds. steroids have very different affects on all these guys numbers, so bottom line, I can't tell what clear advantage if any is gained. there are a lot of factor for increased production in baseball during the nineties, smaller stadiums, waterdown pitching, etc, juiced up balls, etc. point is, if bagwell used, it doesn't stain his career for me or make his accomplishments any less significant. but that doesn't mean i'm going to ignore obvious signs that I don't feel like arguing about anymore.
Good. You're wrong. Again. How incredibly disingenuous of you to ignore the court of public opinion. It's a witch hunt in the court of public opinion, whether you guys like it or not. No. It only means you're going to ignore the even more obvious signs that would argue in his favor. Disingenuous. But it's perfectly in your realm of rights.
that statement is incredibly inaccurate. in this very thread are several people who don't want to see steroid users in the hall of fame. are these people media members?
You said, "the only people who care are the media" and I found two instantly without even trying hard. Turn on sports radio, and you'll find dozens more calling in. Take a poll, and you'll find more. Now you're just being petty.
I'm being petty, you're the one who took my words to mean that no one in the universe cares? public opinion/popular opinion, we can use this thread instead of poll, most people either don't think he did or care. how about that
All I have to go on is your printed word. With all the backlash and hubbub over the last 8 or so years concerning steroids, it is beyond disingenuous to pretend there is no court of public opinion.
It's one thing to express a baseless opinion. It's another to think such baseless opinions should be used or would be used in a serious evaluation such as Hall of Fame voting. I'm a journalist, and there are plenty of suspicions I have about some of the subjects I write about. But as long as they're suspicions, of course I'm not going to let them influence what I publish. It would be irresponsible of me and completely unfair to them. There's nothing wrong with expressing a baseless opinion on a message board, but it's something else to suggest that such random, baseless opinions will, or should, influence a serious evaluation of a player. By the way, I definitely have a lot of MLB contacts, and I'll assure you that the only place I've even heard the paranoid, steroid witchhunt talk over Bagwell is here in Houston. Everywhere else, the perception is that he's one of the absolute good guys, in addition to having one of the most impressive resumes of any 1B in the history of the game. I'll bet anyone on this board anything that they want -- tip jar, outside, whatever -- that Bagwell is a first ballot, assuming no actual evidence of steroids or anything like that. Done deal, and feel free to quote me on that.
two things, feel free to provide evidence of witch hunt talk from the media about bagwell tia and secondly here in lies the problem, roger clemens is a great guy, no way he is suspected, oops. too much of all the speculation is based on personality. all these guys are competitive, and that should be the only aspect of personality that comes in play when dicussing this subject
I don't remember hearing that. I remember them calling him "roid rage" when he tossed the bat at Piazza. I remember something coming out years ago, and Rocket throwing this big pious fit. As far as I've heard, he's generally been regarded as a pompous blowhard for years before the Mitchell Report. There we go. Dismiss everything except that which lends itself to incriminating. That's witch hunt reasoning.
That's just dumb. Just because a "nice guy" (debatable, different story... talk to the Toronto front office, the Boston fans, etc.) actually used steroids..or very likely did...or whatever you wanna say about Roger.. regardless, because of him, you're gonna say that the rest of a guy's personality doesn't matter? That competitiveness is the only thing that counts? Ummm, no. I'm pretty damn competitive. I'd like to think that isn't the only thing that would come into play if I were a major leaguer and under suspicion of PEDs. Of course you consider a guy's personality. You look at history. You have to make a judgment based on likelihood of an occurrence, and all of these things come into play
edit: so a guy is nice, he couldn't use steroids, is that what you guys are saying, you're agreeing with cat
Actually, you don't even have to make a judgment. I have no opinion as to whether Bagwell did steroids. I don't have enough real information to make a reasonable, informed judgment. I just will not tolerate people dogmatically stating he did, is all. Say you wouldn't be surprised. Say it's possible. Say you think he might have. Say you think he probably did. I'll argue with you on that last one, but at least it's reasonable. As opposed to those who would come on here saying, "you're ignoring the obvious signs" while they ignore plenty of obvious things themselves. Or that idiot a couple years back that was calling everyone "homer" who wasn't ready to immediately lynch Bagwell as a roider.
what msn said above. i'm saying a guy is nice (and it's more than just "nice".. it's just what he's done, who he's been, and the type of clubhouse guy he's been since he came in the league)--and you should allow that to count for SOMEthing when you're trying to make a judgment call on whether he cheated or not. Basically, this doesn't work:
