Originally Posted by edabbs44
There is a difference between "nothing that implicates him" and evidence.
Fair enough (though I said "nothing that implicates him more than"), his name came up in a discredited story purporting to out those who failed the anonymous 2003 test.
So there is a vague implication, and while he very well might be guilty of juicing (wouldn't shock me), his guilt is assumed while Piazza and Bagwell (both of whom have found themselves squarely in Jeff Pearlman's sites) are eventually getting into the Hall.
I'm not saying Sosa is innocent. My point is that he's getting screwed by a patently uneven set of voting standards.