Does "Cheating" apply to pitchers also?

[Appling]

This forum has beaten up on Barry Bonds quite a bit lately. Whether or not use of PEDs was outlawed by the rules of baseball, most of us seem to be disturbed that Barry used these unfair and illegal means to appear better than he really was as a ballplayer.

Do these "integrity" standards apply only to hitters, or does the same thinking apply to pitchers as well? Gaylord Perry was known for using illegal substances (Vasaline?) on the ball to give it special movement. (Or was it his brother Jim?)

Tommy John was accused of cutting the ball with a sharp object, to get a similar movement on his pitch. These methods were against the rules of baseball at the time, but somehow these players "got away with it" and won a lot of games as a result.

Do you oppose the admission of pitchers into the Hall of Fame if it is proven that they "habitually" used methods outlawed by baseball, to get special advantage over their peers?

[vasprtsfn]

Yes. I remember Joe Niekro got caught doctoring the ball once. Hitters who use steroids are more likley to do it over and over again. Pitchers who cheat, like doctoring the ball one night, that itself isnt so bad, but pitchers who do it continually, and are proven to have done so, should be out as well. That falls into the character issue on this board.

[Brad Harris]

Baseball has always had a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" kind of blind eye towards any kind of cheating. Players who cheat are irrascible, but not necessarily of poor character. One doesn't have to go far to find examples; baseball history is replete with them. Whitey Ford's ball scuffing, Gaylord Perry's spitball, Brett's pine tar incident, corked bats by Sammy Sosa and Albert Belle, Graig Nettles' "superballs," Mike Kelly's exploits on the basepaths, the "legally" grandfathered spitballers in the 1920's, Cobb's well-documented tactics on the base paths, the Orioles and Beaneater teams of the 1890's, etc.

How are steroids different from any of these other forms of cheating? In every case, Baseball had rules, players tried to get around them in order to help their teams win. Some got caught, many didn't. Some were so successful at "bending" the rules, that the rules were changed. Prior to 2003, Major League Baseball didn't have an anti-steroid policy.

In addition to the inconsistency of pointing out one kind of cheating as permissible and one kind as punishable, there is the great difficulty (nigh, impossibility) of trying to determine who did what and how much it affected their performance.

The great problem with the Punish-the-Steroid-Users Crowd is that they aren't inconsistent about any of it and those who are have such draconian points of view that no practicable solution can be accomodated.

Either apply the same standards of conduct to all players throughout history equally, or don't apply them at all. Just like every player from every era, he separated himself from the pack to the extent that he did through actions taken that were designed to perform better and win more. From an on-field standpoint, it's difficult to punish any of these people more than MLB did. If a guy cheated and got caught, baseball punished him. He lost playing time and, presumably cost his team a few wins with his absence. How much playing time have steroid users cost themselves? When there bodies do crash, how much steeper is the decline? It all balances out.

People who want to "asterisk" the modern era are ignorant of the evolvement of the game and the ever changing standards of performance over time. These same people can't understand the concept behind park factors or era-adjustments.

From a moral standpoint, sure the records of this generation of players has been "tainted" and, of course, their behavior is not praiseworthy, but honoring the greatest players of this generation carries the same responsibilities and difficulties that honoring the greatest players of any other era bring with it.

Frankly...I'll look at what we know occurred on the field and make my decision based on how much better than performance was from the average hitter/pitcher of that era. May not be a perfect system, but at least it's consistent.

[Tigerfan1974]

I fail to see how you can equate a scuffed ball to PED's?

A ball is only going to be used for a few pitches and/or a pitcher plays only every third or fourth day.

PEDs enhance strength for every swing, every throw, every running stride.

I know cheating is cheating, but the level and intent needs to be considered, IMO.

[Appling]

How many wins would these pitchers have without cheating?
Would they still be viable candidates for the Hall of Fame?

[jpenrod]

How many wins would these pitchers have without cheating?
Would they still be viable candidates for the Hall of Fame?

They would probably have had less wins and would possibly not be in the Hall of Fame (those that are). That is not my issue with Bonds. I believe he was a hall of famer prior to the PED hub-bub and I believe he remains a HOFer. My issue is his rewriting the history books. The HOF is VOTED on by BBWA, there are players that get in that some feel do not belong and players left out that others feel do belong. there will always be debates about who belongs and who doesn't. Records however are not open to interpretation (or at least they shouldn't be) Either Hank Aaron hit more Home runs than Babe Ruth or he didn't. Sure there are arguments made that Aaron did it over a longer period or that he played more games in a season than Ruth, but no one will dispute that when it is all said and done Hank Aaron hit 755 HR and Babe Ruth hit 715. THEY hit them. By Bonds using steroids (as it seems he may have) you begin to question whether all of those home runs were simply him hitting thenm or how many would have been doubles off the top of the wall, or even fly ball outs. How many fewer would he have hit if he had to rely on his body to repair itself. Better question, how many more would Ruth and Aaron hit if they had used PED's?

My issue with Bonds is not whether or not he belongs in the Hall of Fame, but whether he is worthy of the title "Homerun King". Back to the original question, I think if Neikro would have approached Cy Youngs 511 W's there would have been a lot made of his illegal pitches.

[Brad Harris]

If Bonds passes Aaron on the all-time list, he'll have earned the "home run king" monicker by virtue of the fact that he will have hit more home runs than Aaron.

There's no way to know how many of Bonds' home runs were aided by steroids. There's no way to know how many of Aaron's were aided by the greenies he was probably taking in the 1960's and 1970's. So far as this goes, I don't view steroids any differently than I do any other "strength-training program." How many different substances have players put in their bodies, over the years, to "get them up for the game," to reduce fatigue, to dull pain, etc.?

I would argue that the difference between steroids and other supplements is merely one of the degree to which they help a player's game, rather than how they help a player's game.

A pitcher could scuff the ball (illegally) as often as he wanted. One who scuffed a ball, or threw an illegal pitch, didn't have to do it every pitch in order to be effective, either. Cheating is cheating. Frankly, I don't think steroids were "cheating" until baseball had a rule against their use.

If someone wants to give Bonds' numbers a personal discount because of steroids, fine. I would just because the era he hit in was a hitters' era and Aaron's era was (largely) a pitcher's era. What Bonds is doing in no way diminishes the accomplishments of Hank Aaron. The "fact" that he has used steroids to help accomplish them does "taint" the numbers, but no amount of tinkering with the record books, or separating or asterisking the numbers is either proper or necessary to set them aside in the minds of fans.

Those who know about how the game was played will simply understand that the context in which Bonds accomplished his 700 HRs was a different context than the one in which Aaron pursued the record.

Steroids don't hit home runs. Players do.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Steroids don't hit home runs. Players do.

Great post until you ended it with an over simplistic statement such as this.

[jpenrod]

Yes, if Bonds hits 756 home runs he will have hit more home runs than Aaron. What an obvious statement; however, if he did indeed use steroids then I do not think you can say "earned" eveyone of them. Yes players hit home runs and steroids do not; however, steroids allow players to recover from injuries quicker and stronger allowing them to hit more home runs that they would "naturally". Steroids also allow players to increase thier strength, that is not to say that steroids increase the strength of player, but that it allows players to work out harder, longer and more often thereby increasing their strength beyond their natural abilities. That is not to say that homeruns are a bases of strength, but that the increased strength would allow the player to muscle balls out of the park that normal would be caught on the warning track or be a double off the top of the wall. On one last note, I would like to know what your basis is for saying Aaron probably used greenies? I have never heard any allegations like that and to me that is like saying any player in the last 10 years that had any success probably used steroids.

[Brad Harris]

Greenies were prevalent during Aaron's career. Therefore, there is a not-insignificant chance that Aaron used them to. (I doubt Aaron would ever admit to doing so, if that were the case.) I'm not saying he did use them, I'm just saying they were there for the using and that Aaron had the opportunity. I'd love if some reporter were to ask him about that, however.

I'm not arguing that steroids don't improve player performance, or add to the number of games a healthy player can participate in. I'm questioning whether something is "cheating" if it's not against the rules. Your post does nothing to distinguish steroids from any other kind of (permissible) supplement or work regimen. So far as I'm concerned, a player can do/take anything to help improve his chances of playing often and playing well. If baseball has a problem with it, they'll ban the substance/behavior. They have (since 2003) and there are punishments that accompany a "conviction" of guilt. Rafael Palmeiro suffered those consequences last year. Other players will in the future.

Steroid users should be ineligible for the Hall of Fame only if they are placed on baseball's ineligible list, in which case they failed three separate tests, ostensibly over a period of years. I don't believe any other forms of cheating are punishable by expulsion from the game, hence, "cheaters" - be they pitchers or hitters - shouldn't be banned from the Hall of Fame.

[leecemark]

--I don't believe baseball should have to have its own rules against illegal behavior. There are some general prohibitions against players behaving in a reprehensable fashion that would have covered steroid users. MLB was very slow in testing for it, but to say it was okay before testing and specific penalties were introduced is a position I reject.

[cavalier1968]

If Bonds passes Aaron on the all-time list, he'll have earned the "home run king" monicker by virtue of the fact that he will have hit more home runs than Aaron.

There's no way to know how many of Bonds' home runs were aided by steroids. There's no way to know how many of Aaron's were aided by the greenies he was probably taking in the 1960's and 1970's. So far as this goes, I don't view steroids any differently than I do any other "strength-training program." How many different substances have players put in their bodies, over the years, to "get them up for the game," to reduce fatigue, to dull pain, etc.?

I would argue that the difference between steroids and other supplements is merely one of the degree to which they help a player's game, rather than how they help a player's game.

A pitcher could scuff the ball (illegally) as often as he wanted. One who scuffed a ball, or threw an illegal pitch, didn't have to do it every pitch in order to be effective, either. Cheating is cheating. Frankly, I don't think steroids were "cheating" until baseball had a rule against their use.

If someone wants to give Bonds' numbers a personal discount because of steroids, fine. I would just because the era he hit in was a hitters' era and Aaron's era was (largely) a pitcher's era. What Bonds is doing in no way diminishes the accomplishments of Hank Aaron. The "fact" that he has used steroids to help accomplish them does "taint" the numbers, but no amount of tinkering with the record books, or separating or asterisking the numbers is either proper or necessary to set them aside in the minds of fans.

Those who know about how the game was played will simply understand that the context in which Bonds accomplished his 700 HRs was a different context than the one in which Aaron pursued the record.

Steroids don't hit home runs. Players do.


I guess running out of the baseline is the same as steroids? Or how about swaying too far right to knock down the ss during a dp? Yeah, steriods dont help home run hitters.......lets ask Brady Andersen....

Cav

[GnomeansGno]

I guess running out of the baseline is the same as steroids? Or how about swaying too far right to knock down the ss during a dp? Yeah, steriods dont help home run hitters.......lets ask Brady Andersen....

Cav

That's a terrible arguement. There's about as much evidence that brady anderson took steroids as there is roger maris.

[GnomeansGno]

Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that pitchers tend to get a free pass when it comes to cheating, certainly more than hitters.

Stark wrote a good article about this once, here it is - http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5rjMWydEFqMAdxxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2dTV2aDZ oBGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANCVlRDX zEx/SIG=12eb57egg/EXP=1143516492/**http%3a//abcnews.go.com/Sports/ESPNSports/story%3fid=1026088

[DoubleX]

In "Ball Four" Jim Bouton talks about how Whitey Ford would doctor the ball and how Elston Howard would help by cutting the ball against his catcher guards before tossing it back to Ford.

[jpenrod]

I'm not arguing that steroids don't improve player performance, or add to the number of games a healthy player can participate in. I'm questioning whether something is "cheating" if it's not against the rules.

The substances Barry Bonds is accused of taking were/are illegal. In my opinion if something is illegal in the U.S. than it is not something baseball should have to regulate. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't there several players that served suspensions for using cocaine in the 80's and early 90's? Was it against the rules of baseball to use cocaine or was it just that cocaine was an illegal drug and there for "against the rules of baseball. To me the fact that these substances that Bonds is accused of taking were/are illegal seperates his case from cases of players taking legal supplements. A perfect example is McGwire. He has admitted to using Andro at a time that it was a legal substance and not banned by baseball, because it was legal and not banned, while I may not like the fact he took it, he did nothing "wrong". If Aaron did in fact take Greenies at a time that they were legal and not banned bay baseball, hed did nothing "wrong", if if I might not agree with the choice.

[WhiteSoxSteve]

Of course pitchers who doctor the ball are cheaters. The people who thinks Bonds records should be erased should also think that Perry's records should be erased or you are a hypocrite.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Who here at Fever has come out and said they were in favor of Bonds' records being erased? Even those at the extreme opposite end from the apologists haven't mentioned that. Not that I've read on here.

[Brad Harris]

There is a very distinct difference between a moral and legal reasoning. What is illegal is not always immoral. What is immoral is not always illegal.

Furthermore, there are a great many illegal things that have no bearing on the game of baseball. Baseball tends to turn a blind eye to all kinds of illegal behavior. The "recreational drug" cases - well known enough not to need recounting here - are a perfect example of how baseball has chosen to deal with these things haphazardly at best and inconsistently at worst.

Baseball has its own rules prohibiting certain forms of behavior - just ask Pete Rose - because those behaviors affect the integrity of the game. Speeding tickets, murder trials, cocaine habits, etc. do not. Gambling certainly does. And while steroids certainly do, too, baseball had no rules against it prior to 2003.

There is absolutely no justification for refusing to admit an otherwise qualified Hall-of-Famer on the basis that he used steroids during his career.

Brady Anderson was mentioned earlier. Anderson was very much assisted by steroids but he was not a "home run hitter." (Not, at least, outside of the affects of his steroid usage.) No one in their right mind would consider Anderson remotely close to a Hall-of-Famer. Ken Caminiti, who's very bleak case was based almost entirely on his MVP season pretty much torched his Hall resume by his steroids admission, but Caminiti wasn't an otherwise qualified Hall-of-Famer.

Pitchers. Hitters. No player should be kept out of the Hall of Fame for "cheating." If Baseball wants to "get tough" with cheaters, then they need to consistently enforce some rational prohibitions on all forms of cheating at the game, team and season level. Fines and suspensions need to be worked out. Let the penalties for the consequences of cheating be stated, in advance, and be proportional to the "crime". And for the love of God, let Baseball enforce them!

You don't start this process by placing cheaters on the ineligible list. That's where you end it.

[jpenrod]

A couple of points here:

1. I never said that any of Bonds records should be erased, modified, or in any other way seperatedfrom other records. Whatever records he currently holds are the records and should/will remain the records until someone breaks them.

2. I never said Bonds should not be admitted to the Hall of Fame. On the contrary, I believe Bonds is a worthy Hall of Famer despite the alleged steroid use.

3. I only said, if he did in fact use steroids (I personally believe he did), I do not want him to hold the title of Home Run King. That is not to say baseball should do anything to prevent him from doing it or adjust his homerun totals or put an asterick next to his name if he does break Aarons record. I simply hope he falls just short and decides to retire.

If you can find anything that I posted that does not support these three points please let me know, because I have never intended to indicate otherwise.

[Brad Harris]

jpenrod,

I have no problem with anything you said in that last post. Nice summary of your position.

I think we'll find an overwhelming majority of people are going to be rooting against Bonds' pursuit of 756.

[Appling]

... if he did in fact use steroids (I personally believe he did), I do not want him to hold the title of Home Run King. That is not to say baseball should do anything to prevent him from doing it or adjust his homerun totals or put an asterick next to his name if he does break Aarons record. I simply hope he falls just short and decides to retire.

This seems to be an ideal solution to this delema.
And just ignore his breaking the "Ruth record" of 714 career homeruns, because that number is now only the American League record. As a career NL player, Bonds cannot break an AL record.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

How many wins would these pitchers have without cheating?
Would they still be viable candidates for the Hall of Fame?

Not going to let these guys off scott free but I think the illegal pitches thrown by Perry is greatly over stated. If he threw one illegal pitch in his whole career that was enough, he broke a rule. The point, I doubt he threw as many as some believe. Here we have a pitcher whose every pitch, because of his rep is watched by the opposing bench, first and third base coaches and the umps and I don't think he was ejected for rule breaking more than a couple of times (might only be one time) in all those years. How did he wet up or Vaseline a ball with all those eyes on him and never get caught more than a couple of times.

When a hitter is on steroids, it's a built in performance enhancer, with him all the time and at times undetectable or covered by masking agents.

All the talking in the world about previous rule breakers won't lessen the dark cloud over Barry, even when he retires, he takes that cloud with him. Rule breakers of the past do get a pass in my book, but this is our time, steroids is the issue that is up front today.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that pitchers tend to get a free pass when it comes to cheating, certainly more than hitters.
]
No one is giving pitchers a free pass but the offensive explosion in the 1990s and some of what we have learned about steroid use is a more compelling story and it's the issue on the front burner today.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Suppose Barry just came out and says, OK I did use steroids but here was no rule against the use of them at that time. Of course I doubt that will ever happen but how would that play out with the public if he did.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Of course pitchers who doctor the ball are cheaters. The people who thinks Bonds records should be erased should also think that Perry's records should be erased or you are a hypocrite.

I don't think past records of some rule breakers should be erased and neither should Barry's even if he did use steroids after the ban, nothing can be done about either. If you want to call it a "mental asterisk" I think that best describes the public's view. They will hold some numbers in doubt and it may cause them to lower the rank of some that they believed broke rules.

[GnomeansGno]

When a hitter is on steroids, it's a built in performance enhancer, with him all the time and at times undetectable or covered by masking agents.

Not Necessarily true actually, just injecting steroids in ones buttox won't " enhance " your performance right away, it isnt amphetamines or ritalin. Steroids are a process, long workouts, better eating, and stacking them properly and carefully to recieve the best benefits. If Mcgwire and canseco were injecting eachother in stalls before eachgame, that was doing more harm than good, which probably explains why both of them spent so much time on the DL throughout their careers.


[QUOTE]All the talking in the world about previous rule breakers won't lessen the dark cloud over Barry, even when he retires, he takes that cloud with him. Rule breakers of the past do get a pass in my book, but this is our time, steroids is the issue that is up front today. [QUOTE]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not giving anyone a free pass, or condoning their actions. I'm just not appalled or surprised by players trying to get an edge, it's happened for years in ALL sports, and it will never stop.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Whitey Ford's ball scuffing, Gaylord Perry's spitball, Brett's pine tar incident, corked bats by Sammy Sosa and Albert Belle, Graig Nettles' "superballs," Mike Kelly's exploits on the basepaths, the "legally" grandfathered spitballers in the 1920's, Cobb's well-documented tactics on the base paths, the Orioles and Beaneater teams of the 1890's, etc.


There were rules against what Ford and Perry did, what could be done about their rule breaking now, does that mean we now look the other way with steroids. That past rule breaking was no better but now it's in the past, steroids is the big story, the issue that is up front today.

Whats with Cobb on the basepaths, coming in high with spikes, running over an infielder, judgement calls by the umps. I don't even compare Cobb's style of play to illegal pitches, that was real rule breaking. How were 17 pitchers who were allowed to finish their careers throwing spitballs rule breaking.

Were going to beat this one to death, " what about past cheating", well what about it. What do we do about it, it was wrong but it won't take away that stain on Barry if he did use steroids after the ban and not only him, there were others.

[GnomeansGno]

No one is giving pitchers a free pass but the offensive explosion in the 1990s and some of what we have learned about steroid use is a more compelling story and it's the issue on the front burner today.

Comeon man, pitchers are getting off easy, even in the " steroid era ".

There's about as much evidence that sosa took steroids as there is clemens, and yet sosa is lumped in with Bonds and company, while clemens gets a free pass from the majority.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Not Necessarily true actually, just injecting steroids in ones buttox won't " enhance " your performance right away, it isnt amphetamines or ritalin. Steroids are a process, long workouts, better eating, and stacking them properly and carefully to recieve the best benefits. If Mcgwire and canseco were injecting eachother in stalls before eachgame, that was doing more harm than good, which probably explains why both of them spent so much time on the DL throughout their careers.

.

That was my point, perhaps wy wording gave you the wrong read on it.I understand you don't just inject and immediately benefit. I was speaking of one who used a steroid program over a period of time having that "built in" advantage as compared to a spit baller or corked bat user taking a chance on occassions.

[GnomeansGno]

That was my point, perhaps wy wording gave you the wrong read on it.I understand you don't just inject and immediately benefit. I was speaking of one who used a steroid program over a period of time having that "built in" advantage as compared to a spit baller or corked bat user taking a chance on occassions.

I guess you can say that, though turk wendall stated that TONS of players cork their bats, he calls it a " huge problem ".

According to the former Cubs reliever, Wrigley Field is not the only stadium that has seen its share of corked bats in the last decade.

“That’s the big scandal nobody’s talking about,’’ Wendell said. “It’s getting pretty prevalent. There’s a guy in Tampa that players are sending their bats to and getting them filled there.

“It’s a huge problem, and everyone’s closing their eyes to that, too. I can’t believe nobody’s looked into it because the players sure know about it.’’

That might explain, in part, why there’s been such an increase in the number of pitchers getting drilled — some in the head — by batted balls.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/rozner.asp?id=168644

So getting away with corking your bat may happen more frequently than you think.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Comeon man, pitchers are getting off easy, even in the " steroid era ".

There's about as much evidence that sosa took steroids as there is clemens, and yet sosa is lumped in with Bonds and company, while clemens gets a free pass from the majority.

Do you know for certain that Roger did use steroids. It may be but we can't just say for sure he did. You can go back on my posts over the last three years and you will see the following theme. I have said many times that I believed Barry did steroids but my post always ended the same way, that as of that time he had to be considered innocent. What I thought meant nothing at that time there was no proof that Barry used steroids, he was innocent.

So why say we're easy on pitchers and Clemens gets a free pass, what pass, did he use steroids.

If it comes about that he did I won't be any easier on him.

[GnomeansGno]

Do you know for certain that Roger did use steroids. It may be but we can't just say for sure he did. You can go back on my posts over the last three years and youy will see the following theme. I have said many times that I believed Barry did steroids but my post always ended the same way, that as of that time he had to be considered innocent.

So why say we're easy on pitchers and Clemens gets a free pass, what pass, did he use steroids.

If it comes about that he did I won't be any easier on him.

Whoa man, I'm not accusing clemens of anything, I'm just saying it's obvious that pitchers get a free pass when it comes to steroids over position players.

Answer me this, why do players like sammy sosa and brett boone get lumped in with the " steroid crew ", while clemens gets a free pass ?

I mean, what evidence do people have that sosa and boone juiced up that they don't have on clemens ?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I guess you can say that, though turk wendall stated that TONS of players cork their bats, he calls it a " huge problem ".

According to the former Cubs reliever, Wrigley Field is not the only stadium that has seen its share of corked bats in the last decade.

“That’s the big scandal nobody’s talking about,’’ Wendell said. “It’s getting pretty prevalent. There’s a guy in Tampa that players are sending their bats to and getting them filled there.

“It’s a huge problem, and everyone’s closing their eyes to that, too. I can’t believe nobody’s looked into it because the players sure know about it.’’

That might explain, in part, why there’s been such an increase in the number of pitchers getting drilled — some in the head — by batted balls.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/rozner.asp?id=168644

So getting away with corking your bat may happen more frequently than you think.

I don't doubt there are corked bats out there, they have to be caught in the act. What do they look into, check each bat, use instruments that can peer inside the bat.

I find it hard to believe that a number of players would trust an outsider to cork their bats and not worry that he may leak out some info about that.That would be risky.

I do agree it's out there, they have to be caught.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Whoa man, I'm not accusing clemens of anything, I'm just saying it's obvious that pitchers get a free pass when it comes to steroids over position players.

Anwser me this, why do players like sammy sosa and brett boone get lumped in with the " steroid crew ", while clemens gets a free pass ?

I mean, what evidence do people have that sosa and boone juiced up that they don't have on clemens ?

I don't know if they do have evidence that Sammy and Boone used steroids, other than some who have said they did. I don't think either have ever tested positive. I will say about Sammy what I've said about Barry over the last few years. I think he used steroids but thats only my thoughts If one asked me if he was guilty, I have to say no, until proven.

[GnomeansGno]

I don't doubt there are corked bats out there, they have to be caught in the act. What do they look into, check each bat, use instruments that can peer inside the bat.

I find it hard to believe that a number of players would trust an outsider to cork their bats and not worry that he may leak out some info about that.That would be risky.

I do agree it's out there, they have to be caught.

Well that's my point, they don't check for corkedbats like they test for steroids or amphetamines.

Before testing, it was undoubtedly easier to take steroids or amphetamines, hell multiple players have joked about it.

But now, it's different, IMO.

[Rennie Stennett]

I think one thing everyone agrees on is that Bonds is a complete jerk, including the writers. Is it possible that when Bonds becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame, that he won't be voted in on the first ballet ? Second ? Third ?
Will the voters take their power of the jury and say:

"Hell No !"

[Appling]

I am thankful that the writers have at least six more years before they get to vote on Barry in the Hall of Fame. I think we will know much better then, how Barry compares with other candidates.

One report I heard this week estimates that 50% of the MLB players in the past five or six years have used PED's. If that is true, how can that be handled fairly? Put in a separate wing of the HOF just for the "steroid years"?

[Taco De Muerte]

I am thankful that the writers have at least six more years before they get to vote on Barry in the Hall of Fame. I think we will know much better then, how Barry compares with other candidates.

One report I heard this week estimates that 50% of the MLB players in the past five or six years have used PED's. If that is true, how can that be handled fairly? Put in a separate wing of the HOF just for the "steroid years"?

It shouldnt be handled differently, the best players of each ERA deserve to go in. It's as simple as that. If they were going to start singling out different types of " cheating " like an amphetamines group, or the spitball club, then I'd agree that steroid users should have their own " spot ".

If not, then nothing should be different when voting the best players of this era into the HOF.

[jpenrod]

There's no way to know how many of Aaron's were aided by the greenies he was probably taking in the 1960's and 1970's.

Greenies were prevalent during Aaron's career. Therefore, there is a not-insignificant chance that Aaron used them to. (I doubt Aaron would ever admit to doing so, if that were the case.) I'm not saying he did use them, I'm just saying they were there for the using and that Aaron had the opportunity. I'd love if some reporter were to ask him about that, however.


It seems you are right, Aaron did use greenies.

From I Had A hammer: The Hank Aaron Story by Hank Aaron with Lonnie Wheeler

Actually the 1968 season wasn't the best time to present my case. It was the first time since my rookie year that I didn't drive in or scored 100 runs. I was so frustrated that at one point I tried using a pep pill-a greenie-that one of my teamates gave me. When that thing took hold, I thought I was having a heart attack. It was a stupid thing to do, and besides that, I shouldn't have been so concerned about my hittin in the first place. Nobody was hitting in 1968. That was the year of the pitcher - Drysdale's streak of scoreless innings and Bob Gibson's 1.12 earned run average.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It seems you are right, Aaron did use greenies.

From I Had A hammer: The Hank Aaron Story by Hank Aaron with Lonnie Wheeler

So he tried it, and couldn't play well on them, and he never took them again? Or do think he might have made that up as a smokescreen to a larger problem?

[jpenrod]

So he tried it, and couldn't play well on them, and he never took them again? Or do think he might have made that up as a smokescreen to a larger problem?

From reading his book, I really do not think he ever tried them again.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

From reading his book, I really do not think he ever tried them again.

There seems to be a widely held notion that he did them a lot. Hmm, that's weird. Would he really write the truth in the book if that was the case? Maybe, he probably wouldn't care since so many others were doing them. Who knows.

It's clear that not everyone plays better on greenies. Some just don't like how it makes them feel. Steroids on the other hand, the results are 100% positive and the benefits at least 10 fold over greenies imo, since certain steroids already cover the benefits of greenies.

[jpenrod]

There seems to be a widely held notion that he did them a lot. Hmm, that's weird. Would he really write the truth in the book if that was the case? Maybe, he probably wouldn't care since so many others were doing them. Who knows.

It's clear that not everyone plays better on greenies. Some just don't like how it makes them feel. Steroids on the other hand, the results are 100% positive and the benefits at least 10 fold over greenies imo, since certain steroids already cover the benefits of greenies.


If you read the book it seems that Aaron has the opinion (and I tend to agree) that at the time he was playing, black players had to be better and cleaner than white players or they would not be kept around. I am not going to go into it beyond that, but from many of the things he says in his book in many different subjects, I think he disagrees with the use of greenies and I am actually surprised he took them once, but I do believe that was probably the only time he took them.

Back onto the subject at hand, he also tells about hitting his 600th HR against perry and this as a very proud thing for him, because of perry's reputation as a spit baller. He goes on to express his opinion that spit balls are cheating and as such he does not believe perry belongs in the HOF.