Originally Posted by M2
Fair enough, 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, who are no more innocent or guilty based on available evidence, 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.
Discredited is another strong term. This is the same test which forced ARod to come clean. There is some credit to the report. Which, to me, makes the case stronger against him that the other 2. Even though I have my own view of some others.