PDA

View Full Version : Clemens dreams of Cooperstown


Fenway
01-29-2012, 01:32 PM
:?:

http://www.nesn.com/2012/01/roger-clemens-throws-perfect-inning-in-alumni-game-against-texas-longhorns-video.html


The only way he getting in is buying a ticket
http://baseballhall.org/plan-your-visit/entering-hall/hours-amp-admission

Hendu
01-30-2012, 02:44 PM
In the short-term he's not going to get in. But in the long-term it's going to be tough to justify keeping guys like Clemens and Bonds out. Maybe with a sentence about steroid allegations on their plaques...but how do you keep players who accumulated those numbers over decades out of the HOF?

A few years ago I was more emotional about this, and would have been the first to say "never" when it comes to these guys. However, the more I think about it, the more I think the steroid era can't just be swept under a carpet.

sox1970
01-30-2012, 03:05 PM
In the short-term he's not going to get in. But in the long-term it's going to be tough to justify keeping guys like Clemens and Bonds out. Maybe with a sentence about steroid allegations on their plaques...but how do you keep players who accumulated those numbers over decades out of the HOF?

A few years ago I was more emotional about this, and would have been the first to say "never" when it comes to these guys. However, the more I think about it, the more I think the steroid era can't just be swept under a carpet.

I feel the same way, but for guys like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, I would never let them in because I think PEDs were their only way to get to those numbers.

It's going to be interesting if a player gets in, and then afterwards the list of 104 who failed the test comes out and a HOF player is on there. At that point, do you kick guys out or just put everyone in and make a note of the era they played in?

The one thing I would like to see is the Hall take over the vote, and not let the BBWAA have anything to do with it anymore. Overall, they did a good job for 75 years or whatever, but the PED era is going to make it such a negative subject over the next 15 years (more than it is now).

For the mostpart we know what a Hall of Fame player is now. I would have a smaller panel of people in the industry make the call.

johnnyg83
01-30-2012, 04:22 PM
I dream of it too. I fly there on a winged horse and when I land Marissa Miller holds me down and tickles me. That's a good dream.

Nellie_Fox
01-30-2012, 04:30 PM
I dream of it too. I fly there on a winged horse and when I land Marissa Miller holds me down and tickles me. That's a good dream.I had to go look up who Marissa Miller is. :geezer:

DSpivack
01-30-2012, 04:42 PM
I dream of it too. I fly there on a winged horse and when I land Marissa Miller holds me down and tickles me. That's a good dream.

My dreams are more modest.

I watch Frank Thomas getting inducted, and I go to Ommegang Brewery. That's my Cooperstown dream.

And nary a barrel was made.

russ99
01-30-2012, 04:51 PM
I feel the same way, but for guys like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, I would never let them in because I think PEDs were their only way to get to those numbers.

It's going to be interesting if a player gets in, and then afterwards the list of 104 who failed the test comes out and a HOF player is on there. At that point, do you kick guys out or just put everyone in and make a note of the era they played in?

The one thing I would like to see is the Hall take over the vote, and not let the BBWAA have anything to do with it anymore. Overall, they did a good job for 75 years or whatever, but the PED era is going to make it such a negative subject over the next 15 years (more than it is now).

For the mostpart we know what a Hall of Fame player is now. I would have a smaller panel of people in the industry make the call.

It should be really interesting how BBWAA voters in the far future address this.

In the era of 1900-1920, baseball was overrun with drunks, gamblers and racists. Yet many of those players are in the Hall now. Same goes for the speed-poppers of the late 60s and 70s, if you want to equate it on a PED level...

I just hope they don't let these players in a special wing of cheaters, since that would degrade the Hall.

DumpJerry
01-30-2012, 04:56 PM
Putting the the 'roid aside for a minute, he has a Ron Santo problem. He was a jag-off to everyone not named "Pettitte." Santo was the same way (sans Pettitte)-he made no friends among the voters. Writers remember that stuff.

SI1020
01-30-2012, 05:08 PM
It should be really interesting how BBWAA voters in the far future address this.

In the era of 1900-1920, baseball was overrun with drunks, gamblers and racists. Yet many of those players are in the Hall now. Same goes for the speed-poppers of the late 60s and 70s, if you want to equate it on a PED level...

I just hope they don't let these players in a special wing of cheaters, since that would degrade the Hall. Once again I don't know how anyone can compare the "greenies" and other amphetamines with powerful designer steroids. If anything, amphetamine use over time will diminish just about any kind of physical or mental performance level. As for degrading the Hall, voting in players like Sosa, McGwire, Canseco, et al would not only degrade, it would for all practical purposes make it meaningless.

Hendu
01-30-2012, 05:22 PM
Once again I don't know how anyone can compare the "greenies" and other amphetamines with powerful designer steroids. If anything, amphetamine use over time will diminish just about any kind of physical or mental performance level. As for degrading the Hall, voting in players like Sosa, McGwire, Canseco, et al would not only degrade, it would for all practical purposes make it meaningless.

Well, I can understand an argument against McGwire and Consenco since they were purely one-dimensional players...though I think Sosa's numbers are too good to keep out. I just can't see how BBWA writers can or should be making judgments based on who they think was clean or dirty. Either you let nobody from the pre-testing steroids era in, or you let everyone in who has numbers worthy of the HOF.

Daver
01-30-2012, 05:27 PM
I just hope they don't let these players in a special wing of cheaters, since that would degrade the Hall.

How much further can it get degraded?

The baseball HOF is a sad joke of what was once a noble idea.

thomas35forever
01-30-2012, 05:28 PM
txlXcJDtDwM

Hendu
01-30-2012, 05:33 PM
How much further can it get degraded?

The baseball HOF is a sad joke of what was once a noble idea.

And that's true as well. How can a player's career not be good enough for the HOF for 10 years of eligibility (for example), then on the 11th year suddenly be good enough? Too much politicking involved when it comes to borderline candidates.

PalehosePlanet
01-30-2012, 05:51 PM
Well, I can understand an argument against McGwire and Consenco since they were purely one-dimensional players...though I think Sosa's numbers are too good to keep out. I just can't see how BBWA writers can or should be making judgments based on who they think was clean or dirty. Either you let nobody from the pre-testing steroids era in, or you let everyone in who has numbers worthy of the HOF.

What do you mean, who they think were dirty? There is already proof on Sosa, Palmeiro, McGuire, Bonds, Clemens, etc...

Hendu
01-30-2012, 06:08 PM
What do you mean, who they think were dirty? There is already proof on Sosa, Palmeiro, McGuire, Bonds, Clemens, etc...

Because they're making a judgment on everyone else and for all we know they're electing people who will be found do be dirty at some later date (or keeping out a guy like Bagwell because of suspicions). So like I said, elect players based 100% on their numbers and careers and take out any of the BBWA judgment. Including known juicers who were doing it before MLB started testing.

This era in baseball happened, and it needs to be part of the HOF...MLB was just as guilty in turning a blind eye and reaping the rewards.

IMO, some of these players won't get in right away but they will eventually, after all of the controversy and emotion has died down.

Paulwny
01-30-2012, 06:25 PM
It should be really interesting how BBWAA voters in the far future address this.

In the era of 1900-1920, baseball was overrun with drunks, gamblers and racists. Yet many of those players are in the Hall now. Same goes for the speed-poppers of the late 60s and 70s, if you want to equate it on a PED level...

I just hope they don't let these players in a special wing of cheaters, since that would degrade the Hall.


If they created a "special wing", I wonder how many ex-players would be agreeable to being inducted into this area. I'd imagine some would not attend the ceremony creating an embarassing situation for the HOF.

Lip Man 1
01-30-2012, 06:37 PM
"Clemens dreams of Cooperstown..."

and I can dream about winning the lottery, the odds are about the same for both.

Lip

PalehosePlanet
01-30-2012, 06:52 PM
Because they're making a judgment on everyone else and for all we know they're electing people who will be found do be dirty at some later date (or keeping out a guy like Bagwell because of suspicions). So like I said, elect players based 100% on their numbers and careers and take out any of the BBWA judgment. Including known juicers who were doing it before MLB started testing.

This era in baseball happened, and it needs to be part of the HOF...MLB was just as guilty in turning a blind eye and reaping the rewards.

IMO, some of these players won't get in right away but they will eventually, after all of the controversy and emotion has died down.

I disagree; and I absolutely despise the term "steroid era." Let's take the 2003 test as an example where 104 positives emerged out of 1000+ players tested. We're talking about 10%, or less, cheating yet we'll just toss the 90% who are clean and playing the game the right way in with the cheaters? Just dismiss all of the cheating under the umbrella of "the steroid era"? Bull****.

They don't belong in the HOF; they broke the law to inflate their stats.

Fenway
01-30-2012, 07:01 PM
I disagree; and I absolutely despise the term "steroid era." Let's take the 2003 test as an example where 104 positives emerged out of 1000+ players tested. We're talking about 10%, or less, cheating yet we'll just toss the 90% who are clean and playing the game the right way in with the cheaters? Just dismiss all of the cheating under the umbrella of "the steroid era"? Bull****.

They don't belong in the HOF; they broke the law to inflate their stats.

There are many in baseball that feel that the reason Clemens went to Toronto in 1997 was to be able to legally obtain drugs that he could not in the US and MLB still had not banned them.

IF Clemens beats his case that he did not lie to Congress then the writers have to really take a hard look. However Bob Ryan says Roger's problem is not getting 75% of the vote, it is that it is almost certain more than 25% will NEVER vote for him.

mzh
01-30-2012, 07:24 PM
There are many in baseball that feel that the reason Clemens went to Toronto in 1997 was to be able to legally obtain drugs that he could not in the US and MLB still had not banned them.

IF Clemens beats his case that he did not lie to Congress then the writers have to really take a hard look. However Bob Ryan says Roger's problem is not getting 75% of the vote, it is that it is almost certain more than 25% will NEVER vote for him.
Why would they have to take a hard look? PEDs are PEDs, legal or not. He's still a cheating scumbag.

Fenway
01-30-2012, 07:36 PM
Why would they have to take a hard look? PEDs are PEDs, legal or not. He's still a cheating scumbag.

He has NEVER tested positive. Believe me if he was on that 2003 list - we would have known about it by now.

Hendu
01-30-2012, 07:41 PM
I disagree; and I absolutely despise the term "steroid era." Let's take the 2003 test as an example where 104 positives emerged out of 1000+ players tested. We're talking about 10%, or less, cheating yet we'll just toss the 90% who are clean and playing the game the right way in with the cheaters? Just dismiss all of the cheating under the umbrella of "the steroid era"? Bull****.

They don't belong in the HOF; they broke the law to inflate their stats.

Look, despise the term all you want but when you have players demolishing some of the biggest records during the era, nobody 100 years from now is going to be talking about the clean players. Whatever clean means...A-Rod was supposedly above suspicion until suddenly he wasn't. Nothing would surprise me anymore. Then what do you do when some player gets in the HOF releases a book saying he took steroids? Throw him out of the hall?

I know my opinion is in the minority now, but at some point in the future I'm betting it won't be. Time heals all wounds and there will be people saying how can you not have the all-time HR leader and one of the best pitchers ever in the HOF? Perhaps it will take some major mea culpas and ass kissing from those guys, but it will happen eventually. Probably sooner for the likable guys like A-Rod than the jerks like Clemens and Bonds.

Now going forward with players juicing is a different thing, imo. The rules are clear and there are no longer any excuses or a feeling that MLB turns a blind eye towards it. And that eventually (when we get to the point in the future) will bring up other controversies and special circumstance arguments.

Bucky F. Dent
01-30-2012, 07:45 PM
txlXcJDtDwM

You beat me to it, Thomas.

mzh
01-30-2012, 07:50 PM
He has NEVER tested positive. Believe me if he was on that 2003 list - we would have known about it by now.
Bonds and McGwire never tested positive, but is it really a question? Cansesco, Giambi, Pettitte, even Jason Grimsley all pointed fingers at him. He was named 82 times in the Mitchell report. Andy Pettitte testified that Clemens took HGH, and Andy Pettitte sure as hell isn't getting tried for perjury. This is as damning circumstantial evidence as there is. Do you think Clemens was clean? Serious question.

Fenway
01-30-2012, 08:06 PM
Bonds and McGwire never tested positive, but is it really a question? Cansesco, Giambi, Pettitte, even Jason Grimsley all pointed fingers at him. He was named 82 times in the Mitchell report. Andy Pettitte testified that Clemens took HGH, and Andy Pettitte sure as hell isn't getting tried for perjury. This is as damning circumstantial evidence as there is. Do you think Clemens was clean? Serious question.

No I don't.

I can't fathom why he took the road he did - if he had just said he tried them and didn't like them it would have blown over.

On top of that he admitted his wife used PED's. :?:

mzh
01-30-2012, 08:09 PM
No I don't.

I can't fathom why he took the road he did - if he had just said he tried them and didn't like them it would have blown over.

On top of that he admitted his wife used PED's. :?:
I'd like to think that it wouldn't have, but I have to agree with you. That route seems to have worked for A-Rod and Ortiz, who in my book are still just as bad. But I also don't feel like I can judge them until we really get full disclosure from Selig about the last 10-15 years. It's a totally different story if we find out that half of the all star teams of the last 20 years was juiced :(:.

DSpivack
01-30-2012, 08:59 PM
I'd like to think that it wouldn't have, but I have to agree with you. That route seems to have worked for A-Rod and Ortiz, who in my book are still just as bad. But I also don't feel like I can judge them until we really get full disclosure from Selig about the last 10-15 years. It's a totally different story if we find out that half of the all star teams of the last 20 years was juiced :(:.

Bonds is the most interesting case to me. It seems he grew jealous of the attention that McGwire and Sosa were getting in 1998, so he roided up and threw away what was already a HOF career.

WhiteSox5187
01-30-2012, 09:09 PM
Bonds is the most interesting case to me. It seems he grew jealous of the attention that McGwire and Sosa were getting in 1998, so he roided up and threw away what was already a HOF career.

I think that Bonds was the only one of the steroid guys (that we know about now) who was an absolute sure fire first ballot hall of Famer before he took steroids (assume he started in 1999). Clemens is close but when he left Boston it looked like his best years were behind him.

PalehosePlanet
01-30-2012, 10:03 PM
Look, despise the term all you want but when you have players demolishing some of the biggest records during the era, nobody 100 years from now is going to be talking about the clean players. Whatever clean means...A-Rod was supposedly above suspicion until suddenly he wasn't. Nothing would surprise me anymore. Then what do you do when some player gets in the HOF releases a book saying he took steroids? Throw him out of the hall?

I know my opinion is in the minority now, but at some point in the future I'm betting it won't be. Time heals all wounds and there will be people saying how can you not have the all-time HR leader and one of the best pitchers ever in the HOF? Perhaps it will take some major mea culpas and ass kissing from those guys, but it will happen eventually. Probably sooner for the likable guys like A-Rod than the jerks like Clemens and Bonds.

Now going forward with players juicing is a different thing, imo. The rules are clear and there are no longer any excuses or a feeling that MLB turns a blind eye towards it. And that eventually (when we get to the point in the future) will bring up other controversies and special circumstance arguments.

It's been 26 years since Pete Rose played, are people really wondering why the all time hits leader is not in the hall?

It's been 92 years since a lifetime .356 hitter (3rd all-time) and one of the best all-around players of his era was forced out of baseball. Has time healed the wounds of Shoeless Joe?

Everyone will know why the aforementioned players are not in the hall; there will be no wondering.

Hendu
01-30-2012, 11:06 PM
It's been 26 years since Pete Rose played, are people really wondering why the all time hits leader is not in the hall?

It's been 92 years since a lifetime .356 hitter (3rd all-time) and one of the best all-around players of his era was forced out of baseball. Has time healed the wounds of Shoeless Joe?

Everyone will know why the aforementioned players are not in the hall; there will be no wondering.

Apples & oranges. Those players are on the permanently ineligible list. The steroids users (whether proven or alleged) are not.

In fact, none of the PED hall-worthy players were even suspended or disciplined by MLB (besides Manny), so the only thing that would keep them out of the HOF are hypocritical writers who drooled over the home run chases when MLB looked the other way.

Now there's always the small chance that Selig could give the writers an out by adding some of these players to the permanently ineligible list, but don't hold your breath on that one.

Fenway
01-30-2012, 11:10 PM
It's been 26 years since Pete Rose played, are people really wondering why the all time hits leader is not in the hall?

It's been 92 years since a lifetime .356 hitter (3rd all-time) and one of the best all-around players of his era was forced out of baseball. Has time healed the wounds of Shoeless Joe?

Everyone will know why the aforementioned players are not in the hall; there will be no wondering.

The Rose situation is pretty straight forward. Every MLB clubhouse had Rule 21 posted in the locker room which in part says..

(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Jackson didn't break any rules - as none really existed - but Landis wanted to make an example. Landis was a true czar as he could not be fired by the owners and had a lifetime contract.

MLB should have stepped up on PED's around 1998 after Ben Johnson was banned from the Olympics. Thomas Boswell wrote a column just before the 88 ALCS about it which the Boston Globe ran and many of you remember how the fans at Fenway taunted Jose.

Truth is Fay Vincent wanted to get testing in and that was one of the reasons he was fired.

There were NO sanctions in place against the players if they used. Bonds got fed up with the McGwire/Sosa circus and joined the club.

Hendu
01-30-2012, 11:28 PM
There were NO sanctions in place against the players if they used.

Yup, and I think that's what it comes down to. If MLB didn't even punish these players, how can the BBWA justify doling out the punishment? If so, it's going to get messy because you may have the BBWA, for example, voting in Alex Rodriguez before Bonds just because A-Rod apologized and Bonds didn't. As if the HOF isn't enough of a popularity contest already...

Fenway
01-30-2012, 11:46 PM
Read this from 1988 - when Jose DENIED taking steroids

Boswell's source apparently was LaRussa

Irishsox1
01-31-2012, 09:46 AM
Just look at the HOF voting for McGuire, none of these steroid guys are getting in the regular way. McGuire is 10th on the all time home run list, yet he only received 19.5% of the 2012 vote.

Thome is 8th on the all time HR list and I bet he'll get in by the third vote with a good chance to make it on the first.

Wsoxmike59
02-01-2012, 03:53 PM
If they created a "special wing", I wonder how many ex-players would be agreeable to being inducted into this area. I'd imagine some would not attend the ceremony creating an embarassing situation for the HOF.

I don't know why but I read the first line like Crow T Robot in MST3K.

"I envision a cheating wing."

http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=596239761&colorNo=6&pr=F

Fenway
02-01-2012, 04:08 PM
Gammons figures Roger will get in but it will take at least 8 years.


http://www.nesn.com/2012/01/roger-clemens-likely-wont-get-into-hall-of-fame-on-first-ballot-but-its-hard-to-imagine-cooperstown-.html

A. Cavatica
02-01-2012, 07:43 PM
When PED use (during the era when they were banned) is proven or admitted , the player should be added to the permanently ineligible list. There should be no debate.

balke
02-01-2012, 08:13 PM
Gammons figures Roger will get in but it will take at least 8 years.


http://www.nesn.com/2012/01/roger-clemens-likely-wont-get-into-hall-of-fame-on-first-ballot-but-its-hard-to-imagine-cooperstown-.html

Gammons is a dope. You open the flood gates for HOF entry, disrespect everyone that got in without PEDs, and take away all honor associated with entry into the Hall of Fame.

MLB needs to take a stand and say no to drugs.

SI1020
02-01-2012, 09:14 PM
Gammons is a dope. He's pretty insufferable too.

guillensdisciple
02-01-2012, 09:49 PM
From a numbers standpoint, there is ZERO way he does not get in.

Also, I have been a pitcher my entire life and have found that muscle mass does relatively nothing to improve pitching. As a matter of fact, it reduces flexibility and takes a bit off your fastball and overall command.

If steroids are pivotal in terms of recovery, then ye, I get why this is a big deal. Something tells me that one could be injured the same on steroids as one would be off- the only place I can see it helping is in terms of age ala Bonds.

He does not get in on the first try, but probably in the next 5 years he does.

balke
02-01-2012, 10:31 PM
From a numbers standpoint, there is ZERO way he does not get in.

Also, I have been a pitcher my entire life and have found that muscle mass does relatively nothing to improve pitching. As a matter of fact, it reduces flexibility and takes a bit off your fastball and overall command.

If steroids are pivotal in terms of recovery, then ye, I get why this is a big deal. Something tells me that one could be injured the same on steroids as one would be off- the only place I can see it helping is in terms of age ala Bonds.

He does not get in on the first try, but probably in the next 5 years he does.

For all players it is about the recovery. Not only can steroids help increase muscle mass, they also can accelerate recovery after games and workouts.

I think the point of not making the Hall is that they knowingly cheated. Go look at pictures of Giambi/McGwire/Sosa/Canseco.

His former trainer told investigators that he provided Clemens with anabolic steroids and human growth hormone and personally injected Clemens at least 8 to 10 times.

So what if the numbers are there? Brady Anderson hit 50 homeruns. Is he a pure 50 HR club member, or did he just juice in juiced ball era?

Roger probably didn't need steroids - but he used them. He's in the same boat as Bonds - sorry America.

TaylorStSox
02-06-2012, 02:50 PM
Another reason there needs to be a zero tolerance policy is to try to deter players in the future. These guys knew what they were doing was wrong. I don't feel the least bit of pity for any of them. They've already ruined the prestige of some of the records. Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you the season and lifetime home run records anymore. Why? They don't really matter anymore.

Frontman
02-06-2012, 08:57 PM
In the short-term he's not going to get in. But in the long-term it's going to be tough to justify keeping guys like Clemens and Bonds out. Maybe with a sentence about steroid allegations on their plaques...but how do you keep players who accumulated those numbers over decades out of the HOF?

A few years ago I was more emotional about this, and would have been the first to say "never" when it comes to these guys. However, the more I think about it, the more I think the steroid era can't just be swept under a carpet.

The steroid era will have players that enter the hall, ie Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, etc. The 'roided morons in the Mitchell report ruined their chances with a hypodermic needle. Clemens ruined his with his actions, as well as his arrogance.

He ain't getting in. None of the suspected ones will.

Noneck
02-06-2012, 09:15 PM
The steroid era will have players that enter the hall, ie Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, etc. The 'roided morons in the Mitchell report ruined their chances with a hypodermic needle. Clemens ruined his with his actions, as well as his arrogance.

He ain't getting in. None of the suspected ones will.

One should never say never, that is a very long time.

My opinion is that this whole situation will become very interesting when its time for Alex Rodriguez to get in.

Frontman
02-07-2012, 04:29 PM
One should never say never, that is a very long time.

My opinion is that this whole situation will become very interesting when its time for Alex Rodriguez to get in.

I thought the same thing; but Pete Rose is still kept from the Hall of Fame. I have a feeling sports reporters/Cooperstown will stand as firm with guys like Bonds, Clemens, etc; ie the arrogant jerks of the game.

Time will only tell.

Fenway
02-07-2012, 04:48 PM
I thought the same thing; but Pete Rose is still kept from the Hall of Fame. I have a feeling sports reporters/Cooperstown will stand as firm with guys like Bonds, Clemens, etc; ie the arrogant jerks of the game.

Time will only tell.

The writers never got a chance to vote on Rose as he was never on the ballot.

To this day we don't know exactly what Giamatti had on Rose except that Pete stopped fighting it when Bart had his meeting. There have been whispers that Rose may have been doing more than just betting on games. There were reports that Rose may have been bringing items through customs in Montreal as baseball teams then were pretty much waved through in both directions.

Clemens never failed a test and if he was on the 2003 list that would have leaked by now.

If Clemens beats the perjury rap that will just make it more murky. If he is convicted then he will never get in.

Lip Man 1
02-07-2012, 07:14 PM
Well the direct evidence is lacking as of right now but the circumstantial evidence (like with Sosa) is absolutely overwhelming.

Where there's smoke there's fire...he's never getting in. Period.

Lip

StillMissOzzie
02-07-2012, 08:13 PM
The writers never got a chance to vote on Rose as he was never on the ballot.

To this day we don't know exactly what Giamatti had on Rose except that Pete stopped fighting it when Bart had his meeting. There have been whispers that Rose may have been doing more than just betting on games. There were reports that Rose may have been bringing items through customs in Montreal as baseball teams then were pretty much waved through in both directions.

Clemens never failed a test and if he was on the 2003 list that would have leaked by now.

If Clemens beats the perjury rap that will just make it more murky. If he is convicted then he will never get in.

Even if every leaked name I have heard were truly on that list, there are still 90-100 whose names never came out. I would not assume that just because his name has not leaked out yet, that he is not on the list.

The way he threw his wife under the bus in a craven cowardly effort to keep his own name clean is enough for me.

SMO
:gulp:

Hendu
02-07-2012, 08:24 PM
One should never say never, that is a very long time.

My opinion is that this whole situation will become very interesting when its time for Alex Rodriguez to get in.

Exactly, and it would be kind of ridiculous if Rodriguez gets in just because he said sorry while players with circumstantial and not smoking gun evidence are blacklisted. Yet I could see that happening.

I agree never say never. 50 years from now it could be accepted practice to for MLB players to use HGH for quicker recovery. But more probable - as long as the road for these guys exist, there are going to be people arguing for their candidacy and slowly building momentum as the controversy fades. Hell, there are plenty of people clamoring for Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson to get in if their permanent bans were lifted.