John Fay Abstains from HOF Voting to Avoid Casting Votes for Bonds and Clemens

Edabbs44 has me convinced, let them all in. Disregard the steroid allegations. Just vote based on the records....

It's too much of a slippery slope. Without proof, and without strict rules that were enforced by MLB, we will never know who used and who didn't. Sure, there is pretty good evidence against some of them, but really, so what? Much of the evidence is ancedotal and random. There was no fair system set up to seperate the guilty from the innocent. It's unfair to impugn everyone without proof when many didn't use roids. There is no way for those falsely accused of steroid use to appeal.

It's all just wrong. It's ex post facto. People are applying today's rules and standards to people that were allowed by their teams and MLB to do what they wanted to do. In my opinion, If I were voting, I would have to just toss out the allegations, rumors, and innuendo, and vote based on each player's on the field performance. I know, it's not a trial, and people can use whatever evidence of bad character they think they have, but if I had a vote, I wouldn't start down that slippery slope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edabbs44

That 58 inning sample? If the painkillers were solely behind that, I wonder why he wasn't posting similar numbers his whole career.

---

It enabled him to do it that year coupled with the state of the game (low offense, heightened pitching) Just like steroids enabled others (coupled with smaller parks, possible juiced ball) to make their numbers.

And they all ended up in the record book, so I ask are they equally tainted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westofyou

Hal Morris used how'd that work for him?

Seems to me you are the one who only wants to see it one way, and that's too bad

---

I can't claim to be a doctor or to know how and what everyone used, their workout routines, etc. I know that shooting something into your arm and sitting around isn't going to make you into an all star. My assumption is that there has to be some other contributors added to usage to make a difference. Maybe Hal didn't have the same drive at the age of 34 as others did. Your guess is likely as good as mine.

WOY, what's the blurry scoreboard source? Every time I google that the only source I see saying anythingn about that is you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edabbs44

WOY, what's the blurry scoreboard source? Every time I google that the only source I see saying anythingn about that is you.

---

From a book, I'll try and dig it up tonight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westofyou

From a book, I'll try and dig it up tonight

---

Thx, appreciate it. Don't sweat it if too difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edabbs44

That 58 inning sample? If the painkillers were solely behind that, I wonder why he wasn't posting similar numbers his whole career.

---

Would he have had those 58 innings without "help"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Thx, appreciate it. Don't sweat it if too difficult.

---

Still digging, found this for tonight

Koufax

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...10/5/index.htm

Quote:

---

Palliatives were all that medicine had to offer: cortisone shots in the joint, Empirin with codeine for the pain (which he took every night and sometimes during the fifth inning) and Butazolidin, an anti-inflammatory prescribed for broken-down thoroughbreds, so poisonous to humans that it was taken off the market in the '70s. It had one major side effect. "It killed a few people," Jobe says.

---

Dodgers in 1966

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...9027/index.htm

Quote:

---

Look at the Dodgers in the clubhouse. See the boxes of baseballs and the players signing them. See the endless supplies of bubble gum, both normal and sugarless, the cases of soda pop and beer. See the bandages, hypodermics and bright-colored pills.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jojo

Would he have had those 58 innings without "help"?

---

No idea. No idea what he took, when he took them, whatever. Was it Advil? Tylenol? Something stronger?

But this makes no sense...to compare steroids to painkillers is ridiculous.

OK, So this thread about Fay came back to being about steroids, the HOF and Clemens and Bonds. I’ll put in my 2 cents once again. (I’m up to several dollars already).

Bonds and Clemens are the poster boys of the so-called steroid era. The consensus is that they were already really good, but juiced themselves to get even better. So much better that they were still dominating the sport in an unprecedented manner well beyond what should have been their primes. SEVEN MVPs for Bonds. SEVEN Cy Youngs for Clemens. Both records. Both dominant into their 40s.

The problem is that they (along with all the other users) distorted themselves and the sport so far beyond “normalcy” that the statistics and the comparisons became absolutely meaningless. These two headed a “me-first” stampede, which trampled the careers of hundreds of potential major leaguers who decided not to go down that road. Bonds and Clemens made a Faustian pact using the sport’s soul as collateral.

For that, they made millions of dollars in wages and endorsements. They were admired by the masses and the media. Their families are set for generations.

Once it was obvious that they had cheated egregiously, attempts were made to make them pay somehow with some deprivation of freedom. They bought their way of that with expensive lawyers.

Now the HOF issue comes up. On all accounts, induction into the HOF is an HONOR. It’s the place where the toughest competitors break down crying with emotion, recognizing how fortunate they were to have accomplished what they did and have it recognized. Sure, the HOF is a museum and a record-hall and what not. But induction is all about the honor.

Sorry (and I know its not my call), but I can’t agree with honoring these two despicable human beings who have cheated and lied at every opportunity and not only gotten away with it, but were rewarded enormously for it. No, no…a hundred times NO.

Bonds and Clemens have no honor and deserve none from baseball.

If other cheaters manage to wiggle their way in or players in the past bended the rules.. Well can’t help that, can we? That has nothing to do about this. People get away with crimes all the time. We don’t honor them for it (or at least I don’t think we should) and we certainly don’t dismiss future criminal activity because of it.

Fay being a wuss and using a lack of logic is the least-surprising thing I've ever heard. Anyone who follows his work and follows him on Twitter knows this to be true: Nice guy, but not a whole lot there. Not much depth as far as his baseball knowledge and just a dry personality all-around.

"I'm not voting because I don't know what to do!!!" Stop taking yourself so damn seriously. If Fay would put this much thought into his articles I might actually learn something from reading them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oneupper

OK, So this thread about Fay came back to being about steroids, the HOF and Clemens and Bonds. I’ll put in my 2 cents once again. (I’m up to several dollars already).

Bonds and Clemens are the poster boys of the so-called steroid era. The consensus is that they were already really good, but juiced themselves to get even better. So much better that they were still dominating the sport in an unprecedented manner well beyond what should have been their primes. SEVEN MVPs for Bonds. SEVEN Cy Youngs for Clemens. Both records. Both dominant into their 40s.

The problem is that they (along with all the other users) distorted themselves and the sport so far beyond “normalcy” that the statistics and the comparisons became absolutely meaningless. These two headed a “me-first” stampede, which trampled the careers of hundreds of potential major leaguers who decided not to go down that road. Bonds and Clemens made a Faustian pact using the sport’s soul as collateral.

For that, they made millions of dollars in wages and endorsements. They were admired by the masses and the media. Their families are set for generations.

Once it was obvious that they had cheated egregiously, attempts were made to make them pay somehow with some deprivation of freedom. They bought their way of that with expensive lawyers.

Now the HOF issue comes up. On all accounts, induction into the HOF is an HONOR. It’s the place where the toughest competitors break down crying with emotion, recognizing how fortunate they were to have accomplished what they did and have it recognized. Sure, the HOF is a museum and a record-hall and what not. But induction is all about the honor.

Sorry (and I know its not my call), but I can’t agree with honoring these two despicable human beings who have cheated and lied at every opportunity and not only gotten away with it, but were rewarded enormously for it. No, no…a hundred times NO.

Bonds and Clemens have no honor and deserve none from baseball.

If other cheaters manage to wiggle their way in or players in the past bended the rules.. Well can’t help that, can we? That has nothing to do about this. People get away with crimes all the time. We don’t honor them for it (or at least I don’t think we should) and we certainly don’t dismiss future criminal activity because of it.

---

Man you've got me all FIRED up and agreeing with you!

My concern with this premise is where to draw the line--how do we decide about the guys closer to the fringe below Bonds and Clemens?

Why is it national sports writers cannot write as compelling of a set of words as this RZ poster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

Fay being a wuss and using a lack of logic is the least-surprising thing I've ever heard. Anyone who follows his work and follows him on Twitter knows this to be true: Nice guy, but not a whole lot there. Not much depth as far as his baseball knowledge and just a dry personality all-around.

"I'm not voting because I don't know what to do!!!" Stop taking yourself so damn seriously. If Fay would put this much thought into his articles I might actually learn something from reading them.

---

Yeah. If he wants to abstain for voting because he's torn over whether to vote for Bonds and Clemens, that's fine. But doing that and then getting up on a soapbox and telling everybody what he's doing and why he's doing it is self-serving and an easy way to get a story in the paper when there's little baseball going on. By doing this he makes it all about him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

Man you've got me all FIRED up and agreeing with you!

My concern with this premise is where to draw the line--how do we decide about the guys closer to the fringe below Bonds and Clemens?

---

Thanks.

I just think, that like everything in life, the voters should weigh what they know and believe and decide. Very little in life in clear cut and totally objective.
Seriously, we judge things like "beauty" and "art" and we even put numbers on those.

Information vs. Set of Beliefs/Preferences = decision.

There's a spanish saying that "every head is world". You can't expect everyone to think like you do. So don't.

Here on the board, for example, jojo expresses a view on the HOF issue that is totally opposite from mine. But he explains it well and consistently. So you have to respect that. No problem, we agree on other stuff.

And back to Fay, I think he should have at least been able to make a decision he could defend to himself.

But then again "cada cabeza es un mundo".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edabbs44

No idea. No idea what he took, when he took them, whatever. Was it Advil? Tylenol? Something stronger?

But this makes no sense...to compare steroids to painkillers is ridiculous.

---

The dude was doped and dazed to improve and enable his performance.