Tony LaRussa summed it up pretty well when he said "Mark told us all along he was not doing anything illegal, I dont know why he wouldnt come clean when he had his chance on the stand"
2006-12-20 02:14:12 · 37 answers · asked by rumrunnerdoug 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
They all use some kind of drugs, so why shouldn't Mark.... like it or not professional sports has become all about money and people will do anything to make more money.
2006-12-20 02:16:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Let's see.
1. Did Mark McGwire use steroids with Jose Canseco in Oakland? Yes! If not why has McGwire not sued Canseco for defamation of character? I would if someone lied about me to that degree.
2. In1998 and 99 did McGwire use androstendione? Yes. Androstendione is a banned substance in all other major sports including the Olympics. It was not a banned substance in baseball during 1998 and 1999. Mark and several other players took advantage of this loop hole baseball provided for them and took androstendione. Once baseball found out androstendione was banned in every other sport due to it's effect, MLB banned it as well. Too little, too late, Mark has the record now.
Mark is guilty as sin on both counts. He shot up with Canseco and he juiced up in 1998 and 1999 to get the record.
Sorry Cardinal fans. No man that does this to America's Pastime deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
2006-12-20 03:46:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes he should. Heres why. We have no solid proof he was using any illegal or banned substance. We also know that MLB didn't have any hard set policies in place against the use of steroids and other similar drugs. We single out Mark McGuire because he was in the spotlight, but we ignore the fact that there were plenty of other players (including pitchers!) that were probably using just like he probably was. It was the steroid era. Most were using, so his stats were still legit cause he was facing players that were mostly using.
2006-12-20 02:34:34 · answer #3 · answered by VanMan_30 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In order to be fair, you would have to exclude all players implicated in drug use, which is a lot of them. You would have to include all players who ever cheated, even if their methods weren't illegal at that time. As Bernie Miklasz said, you shouldn't praise a player and treat him like a traitor a few years later. How do we know that McGwire used steroids and other players on the ballot didn't? Were they each tested on a regular basis? No. What about players in the past who've cheated? Should spitballers be excluded for playing when spitballs were legal? No. I'm not saying he didn't use steroids, but what I am saying is should we exclude him when there's a good chance that other players used steroids also?
2006-12-20 18:59:02 · answer #4 · answered by jesus_mysuperhero 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He deserves to be in there. While it appears he took 'roids, nothing has been proven. Plus, how many current Hall of Famers took them? No one will ever know. As a rule of thumb, no player should be kept out of the Hall unless it has been proven that they took illegal substances. In addition, roids make people stonger, they don't help see the ball better or improve hand-eye coordination. He still had to put a good swing on the ball to hit a homerun in the first place.
2006-12-20 05:59:30 · answer #5 · answered by Brad342 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a much tougher call than Pete Rose. But dope and gambling both ruin sports. I just think of the 1997 home run race with McGuire and Sosa and the thrill it gave us all. It's a shame and heartbreaking to think it was tainted by steroids. Keep him out for a while, at least.
2006-12-20 02:20:17 · answer #6 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As stated earlier 1626 hits of which 583 where Homers. This man was a power hitter not a pure hitter. Meaning all or nothing. Not worthy of the hall. The Babe could hit anything he wanted, he also could pitch. Mac isn't even a top glove man at first. Not worthy of the HOF.
2006-12-20 11:31:37 · answer #7 · answered by Michael N 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would say yes due to the fact that in his rookie season he mashed like 48 homers a record at that time so that proved he had the power coming into baseball all he did was take the stuff to recover from back surgery that cut like a good 3 season total out of his career so just think how many he would have hit if he was playing the better part of those 3 seasons only the babe had a better homer per at bat ratio than he did
2006-12-20 08:12:58 · answer #8 · answered by bretmaverick91969 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If 500 home runs is the standard, it has been up until now, then he should be in. There are a guys who were a whole lot more unsavory in their life in the hall. At the time of his playing there were no rules against what he may have taken. Yes he should go in.
2006-12-20 05:34:33 · answer #9 · answered by Travis W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He shouldn't be voted in but not for steroids he shouldn't be voted in because he was so one dimensional, the guy didn't even get 2000 hits in 16 seasons now thats not Hall of Fame worthy.
2006-12-20 10:39:26 · answer #10 · answered by bobby413458 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no longer maximum surprising away -- no longer until there's a sea substitute interior the opinion of the voters, as different "roids era" applicants stand until now them, Bonds in specific. Mac have been given 128 votes returned this 365 days, so in result no longer a single view replaced approximately him -- of course no longer the only-time rebuke that 2007 would have been. So I anticipate he will cling around that comparable 23.x proportion for a minimum of yet another six, seven years until now showing any shift.
2016-12-11 12:47:48 · answer #11 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋