Would you vote for him or not. (If you could)
Would you vote for him or not. (If you could)
I'm curious as to why you actually would.
When we start electing cheaters to the HoF, we set a dangerous precedent.
Should have made a poll. I'd vote for him. The steroid issue is a cloud hanging over all of baseball for a 30-year period. I don't think there's a single player you can take from that time and say with any certainty that he wasn't using something. McGuire got a lot of pub over the deal but there sure were a bunch of others. You keep him out based on that and you're also keeping out Barry Bonds and Roger Clements when their names come up.
My thoughts exactly.
The entire era is tainted. Sure big Mac was probably roided up, but its more than likely that a lot of the pitchers throwing to him.
No one is safe from suspicion in this era. Just because there isn't evidence on some big stars doesn't mean that they weren't using. It might just mean that they were damn good at covering it up (and didn't have witch hunts after them).
He was elected to the hall in 1991.
Cheating has been a part of baseball since the game began. Steroids are merely a more scientifically enhanced version of cheating, but their impact on an actual game is no worse IMO than a pitcher doctoring balls. Both give someone an unfair advantage.
You say that, like it's a BAD thing.
Pete Rose isn't even in the HoF, and he never bet on baseball until he was a manager, and still claims he never bet against the Reds.
How in the hell is he never allowed in, yet they are. And as far as Gaylord Perry, he shouldn't be in as well. That's like saying that if Lance Armstrong is proven that he doped during all his Tour wins, that he should be able to keep them, or that Marion Jones should be able to keep her medals.
If you get caught cheating, then you shouldn't able to reap the rewards of it, PERIOD. I don't care if there's an entire cloud over the era. Just because there is doesn't mean you turn a blind eye. Once you've been caught, you lose your eligibility. If you've already been voted in, and then it gets proven you cheated, then you're thrown out.
If you're going to allow steroid users in to the Hall, then you might as well make them legal because you're saying that it's okay to cheat. You got caught taking a PERFORMANCE enhancer, and you are able to get considered at the top of the list as the best ever?
It would be like finding out the reason Dale Earnhardt was so good at driving in restrictor plate races, was because he was driving cars without it, and then letting him keep his wins.
I have all intentions of this being my only post on the subject, because it's been covered before, and I will never change my position.
The HOF is a joke with him in or out of it, so who cares.
Did baseball really want to stop the steroid use or did they rather like the homerun derby and increased exposure?
It's hard to knock players for doing something that baseball didn't exactly go out of their way to stop and arguably intentionally looked the other way (which in fact encouraged it).
Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."
Which just adds to the LONG list of why Bud Selig is an absolute joke.
That '98 season was something special between him and Sammy. I will never forget it. Steroids or no steroids, it was awesome. I still remember where I was when he hit #61.
That being said, I don't know if I would vote for him. I know I wouldn't vote for Bonds so why would I vote for McGuire?
And IF MLB throws out his stats then I'd say they're declaring that what he did was because of performance enhancers and he shouldn't be in.
If MLB leaves his stats in the record books which, AFAIK they have, then those are his numbers for professional baseball and he should be voted in or out of the HOF on that basis.
He's never been convicted of steroid use.
He wasn't mentioned in the Mitchell report.
Did his testimony suck? Yeah. Did he use them? Probably. Has MLB done anything - one single thing - to sanction him for what he may have done?
Nope. I'd vote for him.
If there is proof that McGuire cheated, absolutely not. And they should remove anyone from the HOF that has gotten caught cheating in any way, too.
I am on the fence. I grew up a life long Cincinati Reds fan and was very upset about the strike in the 1990's. I swore I never would watch baseball again. Then the McGuire and Sosa race happened and I got back to watching baseball.
I can't say they should throw them out, like he never existed. But they should put an asterisk beside anyone's stats that was caught or was proven they cheated and they shouldn't be able for any awards and should have awards they won taken back.
Those named sports handle the situation correctly. Baseball is a joke, and they will continue to be a joke until they dig their whole body out of the sand and not just their head.
I don't dispute the fact that they atleast secretly condoned what Mark did, because it did reignite somewhat of a passion for the game, but that doesn't make it right. It's either cheating, and should be treated as such, or it should be openly allowed. They're playing both sides of the fence, and it just doesn't work that way.
Yes. There is no proof that McGwire cheated. Besides, when one considers that Baseball has elected people to the HOF that have done far worse offenses than taking a little andro for Injuries when it was legal. Pete Rose should also be in the HOF.
Last edited by DrBadd01; 01-12-2009 at 05:08 PM.
Mark McGuire is mentioned 10 times in The Mitchell Report. Eight of those times are in connection with them finding Andro in his locker in 1998. Keep in mind that at the time Andro was a legal supplement, available all over the US, over the counter without a prescription. One other time was an interview with Jose Canseco where he said he thought Big Mac might have been using, but had no first hand knowledge. The other time was when the A's told the Report that they never considred testing him. So, there you have the one definitive document that has ever been produced on the subject and there's not a SHRED of proof in that Mark ever did anything. I say yes, he should be in the HoF until someone PROVES that he took steroids. Same with Clemens and Bonds. Prove it first, then I'll change my mind.
Well, his brother has admitted to injecting him now.
It's still not proof. I should clarify. I do believe that McGwire used, BUT, I still think unless you have undeniable proof he belongs in the hall. His estranged brother is saying these things in the hopes of optioning a multi million dollar book deal. The stuff he says might be true, but the fact that he'd stay quiet unless there was money on the table doesn't lend a whole lot of credibility to it.
His bro has a book deal that = cash for him.