re: Barry Larkin says no one associated with PEDs will be elected to HOF

Yes, by dodging the question. If your standard is "He broke the law, he shouldn't get in", that is perfectly fair. But if there are literally NO players getting arrested, why is this a standrad to keep them out? I'm a huge fan of due process, and this seems that the mere allegation of wrongdoing is enough to invalidate a HoF case, without a conviction, a trial, or even an arrest. I think "this guy broke the law" can be a persuasive argument if the guy indeed broke the law. But who did? Who do we know beyond a reasonable doubt? Or even by a proponderance of the evidence?


Anyway, Poz just had a timely article:

LINK

quote:

---

On and on, the Hall of Fame filled countless empty hours for baseball fans. And it was fun. So much fun. It was even fun talking about Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson, the outcasts who were banned for life (and, in Jackson’s case, an outcast in death too). There has been spirited debate about Rose’s crime against the game -- betting on baseball while managing the Cincinnati Reds -- and whether or not it should permanently disqualify him from the Hall of Fame. I can tell you from experience: Everyone has an opinion on it. Almost everyone loves talking about it.

But, now, talking about the Baseball Hall of Fame isn’t any fun at all.

---

quote:

---

But, despite all that gloom, Maddux will get elected. That seems certain.

After that? Nothing seems certain. The ballot is a mall parking lot at Christmastime. You know all the players who are left over from last year: Barry Bonds; Roger Clemens; Jeff Bagwell; Craig Biggio; Mike Piazza; Sammy Sosa; Mark McGwire; Rafael Palmeiro; Curt Schilling, all of them no-doubt Hall of Famers based on Hall of Fame standards before the Steroid Era began. That’s, what, nine players?

And that doesn’t even include Tim Raines and Larry Walker and Edgar Martinez and Alan Trammell, all who have compelling Hall of Fame cases when you compare them with players who are actually in the Hall. So we are up to 13. And it also doesn’t include Jack Morris, who has been on the ballot for 14 years, has gotten so close, and is coming up on his final chance.

So that’s, what, fourteen players who, by the numbers, have a strong Hall of Fame case? And remember: The voters are not allowed to vote in more than 10. Now, you add Greg Maddux. That makes fifteen.

You can see the logjam Frank Thomas faces. He was one of the best hitters of all time by any measure you choose. He’s added to this oversaturated ballot.

---

Poz makes two important points here.

ONE. The joy is being sucked out of the debate. Using the HOF as a hammer to further pound the table about PED is just an effin drag. I'm a big fan of fun and enjoying things. And it's turning one of my favorite topics (the HOF) into drudgery.

TWO. Lots of people are going to be kept out because there's too many great players o the ballot. You can only vote for 10, and with the backlog, it's just going to be hard for a player to muscle their way to the top. I think all borderline cases are completely screwed (that means you, Mike Mussina). Even should be slam dunks like Thomas could have trouble getting in. And he's widely considered to be one of the clean players.

quote:

---

My standard has been crystal clear: if you cheat by taking illegal performance enhancing drugs, you shouldn't get in. The argument that steroids weren't illegal in baseball until a decade ago is preposterous. Why would baseball need to make against its own rules what is already against its country's laws?

---

That hasn't been rebuttal. My rebuttal is how do we know who used? And you've been anything but crystal clear on that. You said we just know. And that's not good enough for me.

quote:

---

Blaming those for wanting rules enforced rather than blaming those who broke the rules in the first place is insane.

---

But this isn't about enforcing the rules. Bonds clearly does not give two shits about the Hall. Which is kind of beautiful, BTW. This isn't enforcement, as this is all retroactive. This is about punishing people who "got away with something". And I want no part of that. And you're still glossing over that these players were downright encouraged to use, so why are the players to bear the burden of punishment? If drugs are so bad, they will have the cancer and die early. They already bear the weight of their decisions. And how was it "selfish contempt for the game"? If anything, sacrificing your long term health for people's enjoyment is the ultimate sacrifice. and if there is no health risk, then why do we care?

This is just an ex post facto law and the invention of retroactive sanctions to unproven and untried allegations. I do think there's a difference between a guy like Raffy and others, as he actually failed a drug test. But I'd keep him out anyway because his numbers, adjusted for context, aren't Hall-worthy anyway. But I'm a big fan of due process, and keeping everybody out because we know they all cheated and inventing a rule to be applied to a crime retroactively just makes my skin crawl. That's inherently wrong.