Hall of Fame?
My first thought after reading the Mitchell Report is that Barry Bonds just got in the Hall of Fame.
Most sportswriters aren't going to keep Roger Clemens out of the Hall of Fame, which means they lose their reason to keep Bonds out.
And when all is said and done, there really is no other option.
We either put these players and others of that era into the Hall of Fame or we close the doors.
Testing is always behind what the athletes can do to mask whatever they are taking.
Bonds and Clemens will go into the hall as the best hitter and best pitcher in the Steroids Era.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Given both Bonds' and Clemens' superior performances as they aged, out of curiosity, why hasn't anybody wondered about Brett Favre? I mean, in-between media worship of the guy, the same way the media had worshipped Clemens. Just wondering.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
This is a hall of fame, we're not cannonizing saints here. I don't know where the sportswriters get the idea that they are the judge and jury on all things. If that were the case, let's stick them on the supreme court. Don't worry - we'll make sure there's food in the press room. In the future, if there is a dominant player from Colorado, is he not eligible for the hall of fame based on the altitude? Are we going to start qualifying everything? "Well, that field has a short porch" "He's not eligible because its a weak division"
December 17th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Great points Elizabeth.
Baseball writers are a wierd sort anyway, but it's a joke how they do all this handwringing now when it was plain as day by the late '80s that some players were using steroids. Really, they've got as much gall as Rafael Palmiero.