Gammons: Manny Ramirez NOT a Hall of Famer

[EmpireWF]

On MLB Network's HOF show, Gammons said that Ramirez won't make it into the HOF because of his positive steroid test.

At the same time, Gammons has hated on Manny since leaving Boston, but he does have a point.


Gammons himself, has a black and white method he uses to vote on guys in the steroid talks for the HOF. If they test positive (Palmeiro), he won't vote for them. He voted for McGwire b/c he never broke any baseball rules. That's a fine method, but McGwire won't be getting into the Hall anytime soon, if ever.

I wonder what Gammons will do in 10 years or whenever A-Rod is eligible. Can someone not vote for A-Rod?

[Senser81]

Gammons himself, has a black and white method he uses to vote on guys in the steroid talks for the HOF. If they test positive (Palmeiro), he won't vote for them. He voted for McGwire b/c he never broke any baseball rules. That's a fine method, but McGwire won't be getting into the Hall anytime soon, if ever.

His method sucks. Its hard to "test positive" when you aren't tested in the first place. It makes no sense that McGwire would get in and Palmeiro wouldn't because Palmeiro tested positive...you are rewarding McGwire for quitting the sport and avoiding testing altogether.

[EmpireWF]

Quitting? his knees were shot. Obviously he ran away from the media until returning this year.

His point is, McGwire did not break any baseball rules when guys like Palmiero, Ramirez clearly did. It's the we have no conclusive evidence vs. conclusive evidence saga.

[FirstTimer]

His method sucks. Its hard to "test positive" when you aren't tested in the first place. It makes no sense that McGwire would get in and Palmeiro wouldn't because Palmeiro tested positive...you are rewarding McGwire for quitting the sport and avoiding testing altogether.

Plus McGwire did break baseball rules by using steroids since banned in 1991.

[FirstTimer]

Quitting, his knees were shot.

His point is, McGwire did not break any baseball rules when guys like Palmiero, Ramairez clearly did. It's the we have no conclusive evidence vs. conclusive evidence saga.

Steroids were banned in 1991. McGwire was using steroids all during the 1990's.

Just because there was no testing doesn't mean they still weren't against the rules.

Again. Google Operation Equine.

[EmpireWF]

Plus McGwire did break baseball rules by using steroids since banned in 1991.

As fucked up as it sounds, while they were illegal, they were not illegal in MLB.

Andro, which McGwire was seen with, is a hormone. Wasn't placed on the MLB banned list until 2004.

[FirstTimer]

As fucked up as it sounds, while they were illegal, they were not illegal in MLB.

Yes they were. Since 1991 on the banned substance list and even so....

State and Federal Law>>>>>>>>>>baseball rules.

Guns aren't banned in my companies employee handbook but I still know I can't bring them into work because it's illegal to do.

Andro, which McGwire was seen with, is a hormone. Wasn't placed on the MLB banned list until 2004.

Google Operation Equine.

[EmpireWF]

Ok, steroids were added to MLBs banned substance list as they were made illegal by the govt. However, MLB did not test for steroids until 2003. So it's pretty open wide for over a decade since nobody has clear, undisputed evidence to say person A did steroids in 1998, besides looking at their bulging bodies and ridiculous stats.

That changes once MLB actually does testing as we can say Palmeiro, Ramirez, A-Rod, etc. failed drug tests.

Unless a voter goes about it as just picking and choosing based on who they THINK was on the gas, some people need something more concrete to judge.

[FirstTimer]

Ok, steroids were added to MLBs banned substance list as they were made illegal by the govt. However, MLB did not test for steroids until 2003.

So what? They were still banned and illegal. It doesn't matter if they never tested. The players never should have even been in possession of them...much less using them.

So it's pretty open wide for over a decade since nobody has clear, undisputed evidence to say person A did steroids in 1998, besides looking at their bulging bodies and ridiculous stats.

Then again we are talking here specifically about Mark McGwire and the FBI could show you documents that tell you the specific cycle and usage he was on. Yeah, no hard evidence there.

This McGwire argument is retarded. McGwire used steroids. It's well known. McGwire himself won't even deny it. He just says he won't talk about the past. So for people to make an argument for Mac they bury their heads in the sand come up with BS reasons that blwo up in their face then say "Well you can't prove everyone else wasn't doing it!" You have to assume half the league/everyone was etc. Ok. Let's assume that. They were banned and illegal. Fine I'll assume Cal Ripken Jr and Greg Maddux did. They played in that era. No HOF for them!

[EmpireWF]

Everyone KNOWS McGwire was on the gas.

The point is MLB did not care enough to test. I'd never vote for him for the HOF, but the people who do point to the fact he never failed a drug test.

Either way, do you think Ramirez and A-Rod get into the HOF? They both failed drug tests.

What about Bonds next year? Never failed a drug test, but obviously he was on a bunch of shit. Mr. HR King, is he a HOFer now?

[FirstTimer]

Everyone KNOWS McGwire was on the gas.

Ok he was on roids. They were banned and illegal. He cheated. No HOF.

End of discussion.

The point is MLB did not care enough to test.

Bad move by the MLB I guess but still doesn't excuse the players illegal and unethical activities.

Either way, do you think Ramirez and A-Rod get into the HOF? They both failed drug tests.

No.

What about Bonds next year? Never failed a drug test, but obviously he was on a bunch of shit. Mr. HR King, is he a HOFer now?

No HOF for Bonds.

Plus Bonds did fail a drug test. In November of 2000. Hence why he is being charged with perjury. He said he never took roids. Then the positive test came out as part of the BACLO investigation. Now his argument is that he never "knowingly" took steroids.....as if a control freak and egomaniac like Bonds didn't know what he was putting in his body.

[RainboUnicorn]

edit: posted in the mcgwire thread

[FirstTimer]

The evidence is there (certainly enough for a criminal case to not be foolhardy), so should these players not be punished?

Sure. If there is proof. Punish them. I don't care.

Why are these players not vilified? Why are they not stripped of their dignity and possible status as HOF members?

I don't know. Ask the authorities. I'm all for rounding them up.

[Senser81]

However, if the certain former players were interviewed and asked the right questions, and those interviews were given the proper spotlight, everyone would also KNOW that many players were snorting cocaine and taking amphetamines, sometimes right before games. They would have the eyewitness testimony from multiple sources and despite the lack of a positive test, everyone would know these players were taking illegal substances (illegal both in the context of federal and state law and the drug policy of the MLB, which outlined in 1971 that MLB personnel were to strictly follow federal and state drug laws, which at the time included the Controlled Substances Act of 1970).

The evidence is there (certainly enough for a criminal case to not be foolhardy), so should these players not be punished? There is no doubt in my mind that there is enough eyewitness testimony to put illegal substances in the hands of many current HOFers during their playing time, which would have been a clear violation of the MLB's drug policy as of 1971. Why are these players not vilified? Why are they not stripped of their dignity and possible status as HOF members?

If your answer is "lack of hard evidence", then your outrage with the players that were "caught" by positive tests is not based on the fact that those players were violating the league's drug policy, but rather that they were too dumb to not get caught.

Glad to see that you've come back to VSN with a resounding thud of a post.

I don't think anyone with a brain would say that McGwire should be kept out of the Hall of Fame because he broke the law by taking steroids...I think the point is that McGwire's baseball production was push to a HOF level solely because of his steroid use. The point isn't "McGwire violated the drug policy", the point is that "McGwire needed steroids to be a HOF player".

If your "argument" is that players in the 70's and 80's took cocaine, so we should let McGwire into the HOF, then you are even more stupid than I thought. First, your comment that cocaine users should have their HOF status stripped is somewhat inaccurate, because Fergie Jenkins cocaine use kept him out of the HOF for about 15 years. Second, you don't gain competitive advantage from taking cocaine. Guys like Jerry Martin and Willie Wilson weren't hitting 70+ HRs every year. Gimme a break!

[mcstl25]

On MLB Network's HOF show, Gammons said that Ramirez won't make it into the HOF because of his positive steroid test.

At the same time, Gammons has hated on Manny since leaving Boston, but he does have a point.


Gammons himself, has a black and white method he uses to vote on guys in the steroid talks for the HOF. If they test positive (Palmeiro), he won't vote for them. He voted for McGwire b/c he never broke any baseball rules. That's a fine method, but McGwire won't be getting into the Hall anytime soon, if ever.

I wonder what Gammons will do in 10 years or whenever A-Rod is eligible. Can someone not vote for A-Rod?

I'm wondering the same about A-Rod. Should A-Rod be given a pass because his positive test was released from a list that was supposed to remain anonymous?