Presumed steroid users and the baseball Hall of Fame

[JasonEvans]

Interesting that Clemens, Bonds and Sosa -- three clear cheaters go on next year's Hall of Fame ballot. It will be interesting to see how they do.

If Mcgwire is any indication, I don't think Sosa, Bonds, or Clemens ever get in. Rightly so, the journalists are against it.

I dunno. Bonds and Clemens seemed to have strong HOF cases before they supposedly started shooting up. They both won multiple MVP/CY Young awards when they were younger and not yet seeking to prolong their careers with artificial enhancements. Does the fact that their final years, where they did pile up ludicrous stats, were horribly tainted automatically disqualify them for inclusion when their earlier years would have gotten them into the Hall anyway?

Also, is it even worth noting that in an era where it appears a large number of players were using illegal drugs to enhance their game that Bonds and (to a lesser extent) Clemens were far and away the best of the users? Does that carry any weight? If Bonds on drugs is better than anyone else on drugs, does that say something about the quality of Bonds as a player?

Like I said, I dunno, but I think both Bonds and Clemens will get a lot more HOF votes than McGuire did. Will they get 75%? It may be close.

-Jason "I agree that Sosa has no chance... recall that he also was at the center of the corked bat scandal -- he's a cheater in every sense" Evans

[cf-62]

Jeter's in - given. But are you going to essentially void the ballot for 15 years? Because that's about how long rampant use went on, from the late 80's through ~2005.

If you ever watched Bonds in person, you would know he belongs in the HOF. I had the privilege of watching him play in 2000, 01, & 02. He would get 1 pitch a night - and it usually went over the right field fence. The patience - and discipline to take all those worm burners, throw-aways, and just plain old junk - all to take 1 swing a night - that would result in a thing of pure beauty. That kind of TALENT belongs in the hall.

But in reality, unless you flat out ban all the players that excelled in the 90s, then there's no reason to keep them out - oh, except that sportswriters think they're supposed to protect us. If that's their position, then the first time we find out they let somebody in that used, then their voting privileges are revoked.

[A-Tex Devil]

But in reality, unless you flat out ban all the players that excelled in the 90s, then there's no reason to keep them out - oh, except that sportswriters think they're supposed to protect us. If that's their position, then the first time we find out they let somebody in that used, then their voting privileges are revoked.

Agreed. But it's not going to happen. I don't like Roger Clemens, really. I know enough second hand stories about the guy from people I trust to know he's never going to win any person of the year awards among even his closest inner circles (other than his family, and that's questionable). I suspect he used PEDs, but I don't know. But with the recent verdict, I have a hard time justifying keeping him out of the HOF.

But the sportswriters will use their "knowledge" (which is based on nothing more than hearsay - often at least 3 degrees away) to keep him out. I am pretty sure it's going to happen. What's unquestionable is that guys like Clemens, Bonds, A-Rod, etc. are shoo-in hall of famers if not for the PED taint. So why not put the writers' votes up for proxy?

If the PED taint is what turns a vote form yes to no, that sportswriter puts his vote up for proxy to go to a "baseball style" independent arbitration tribunal to determine if there is enough evidence that a player used. (Set aside for my fantasy that a writer could disingenuously hold his vote back for other reasons). The "holier than thou" writers at issue could fund the prosecution if they want to keep the guy out of the HOF badly enough. If the player wants in badly enough, he can fund the defense. Obviously this won't happen, but it seems like a decent enough idea. Still, the BWA needs to get off its undeserved high horse, put its money where its mouth is, and come up with a solution, because "I think he used PEDs so he isn't going to get my vote" is tired. (farce-on) I think Derek Jeter's valtrex prescription helped his performance, and he was just luckier than Ryan Braun so he doesn't get my vote. There. (/farce)

[JasonEvans]

I think Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, and Clemens are different from ARod and others because those guys are seen as the embodiment and personification of the steroid era. There is little doubt in my mind that ARod will someday make the HOF. I have mild doubts about Clemens and Bonds. I am certain Sosa and McGwire never make it.

Just saw this NYTimes article that certainly seems to paint Clemens' chances of making the HOF as slim. All the writers interviewed for it, say they will not vote for him.

-Jason "some tremendously impressive career stats are going to be left out of the HOF if this hold up" Evans

[rasputin]

I dunno. Bonds and Clemens seemed to have strong HOF cases before they supposedly started shooting up. They both won multiple MVP/CY Young awards when they were younger and not yet seeking to prolong their careers with artificial enhancements. Does the fact that their final years, where they did pile up ludicrous stats, were horribly tainted automatically disqualify them for inclusion when their earlier years would have gotten them into the Hall anyway?

Also, is it even worth noting that in an era where it appears a large number of players were using illegal drugs to enhance their game that Bonds and (to a lesser extent) Clemens were far and away the best of the users? Does that carry any weight? If Bonds on drugs is better than anyone else on drugs, does that say something about the quality of Bonds as a player?

Like I said, I dunno, but I think both Bonds and Clemens will get a lot more HOF votes than McGuire did. Will they get 75%? It may be close.

-Jason "I agree that Sosa has no chance... recall that he also was at the center of the corked bat scandal -- he's a cheater in every sense" Evans

I think I agree with you, Jason, regarding the category "Woulda Gotten In Anyway," which may also include A-Rod. And also regarding Sosa and McGwire in the other direction (and add Rafael Palmeiro to that list). Interesting, too, that most of the individuals listed in these posts are also detestable for other reasons.

[kmspeaks]

While Bonds and Clemens have the "probably would have made it anyway without PED's" argument in their favor, they also have the "people don't tend to give the benefit of the doubt to those who act like jerks" factor working against them. We are talking about human beings voting here and right or wrong I think that second part is going to vastly outweigh the first.

[greybeard]

What about Greenies? They don't enhance performance? They're not illegal? They haven't been ubiquitous in club houses well before anyone ever heard of steroids?

It seems to me that an argument can be made that greenies have impacted the game and its winners and losers more than steroids possibly could have.

I don't get turning a blind eye to Greenies, and making such a fuss out of steroids. Both enhance performance. Greenies not only sharpen focus to a ridiculous degree (ask any honors student from high school through doctorial students) and allow players to play and perform when tiredness would impede both.

So, why the double standard? And why is not one talking head talking about this?

Me, baseball lost me when the Dodgers left Brooklyn. But, baseball fans who make a big deal about steroids seem to me more than a tad confused.

None of the stars mentioned make the Hall. None of them.

[Olympic Fan]

I don't buy the argument that "Bonds and Clemens would have gotten in without the steroids" therefore we should give them a pass.

Well, Shoeless Joe Jackson would have gotten in had he not taken $5,000 to throw the World Series ... Pete Rose would have gotten in had he not bet on baseball (after his playing days were over).

A cheater is a cheater and whether he would have been hall of fame or not, once you cheat, you forfeit your ticket to Cooperstown.

I also refuse to buy the "everybody did it" argument. In the first place, everybody DIDN'T do it. The best evidence, based on baseball's anonynmous tests (which is some of the evidence excluded in the Bonds and Clemens trials -- the courts ruling that because the players were promised anonymity that their positive tests couldn't be used against them) is that about 15 percent of the players tested positive for PEDs. 85 percent didn't cheat.

Even if the number of cheaters was larger, I wouldn't buy the "everybody did it" argument. That's the lamest excuse in the world -- it's the excuse Carolina fans use when evidence of their corrupt athletic/academic program is revealed. It's the evidence Nixon supporters used after Watergate.

You are welcome to believe what you want. But I have NO sympathy for cheaters -- if I voted, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Palmero, Manny, McGuire would NEVER get a vote. I am ahuge Yankee fan, but I would never vote for Pettitte or A-Roid.

That does not wipe out 15 years of baseball history. There were plenty of stars from the steroid era who were never linked to steroids -- Jeter and Chipper Jones, Frank Thomas, Albert Pujols, Greg Maddox, Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Wade Boggs ... they are all hall of famers in my book. John Smoltz. Mariano Rivera, Pudge Rodriguez -- clean Hall of Famers.

If I come across compelling evidence that any of those guys cheated, I'll cross them off my list of heroes. It would break my heart to learn that Jeter, Chipper or Maddox were doing PEDs. I don't believe they were. But if they were ...

[greybeard]

I don't buy the argument that "Bonds and Clemens would have gotten in without the steroids" therefore we should give them a pass.

Well, Shoeless Joe Jackson would have gotten in had he not taken $5,000 to throw the World Series ... Pete Rose would have gotten in had he not bet on baseball (after his playing days were over).

A cheater is a cheater and whether he would have been hall of fame or not, once you cheat, you forfeit your ticket to Cooperstown.

I also refuse to buy the "everybody did it" argument. In the first place, everybody DIDN'T do it. The best evidence, based on baseball's anonynmous tests (which is some of the evidence excluded in the Bonds and Clemens trials -- the courts ruling that because the players were promised anonymity that their positive tests couldn't be used against them) is that about 15 percent of the players tested positive for PEDs. 85 percent didn't cheat.

Even if the number of cheaters was larger, I wouldn't buy the "everybody did it" argument. That's the lamest excuse in the world -- it's the excuse Carolina fans use when evidence of their corrupt athletic/academic program is revealed. It's the evidence Nixon supporters used after Watergate.

You are welcome to believe what you want. But I have NO sympathy for cheaters -- if I voted, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Palmero, Manny, McGuire would NEVER get a vote. I am ahuge Yankee fan, but I would never vote for Pettitte or A-Roid.

That does not wipe out 15 years of baseball history. There were plenty of stars from the steroid era who were never linked to steroids -- Jeter and Chipper Jones, Frank Thomas, Albert Pujols, Greg Maddox, Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Wade Boggs ... they are all hall of famers in my book. John Smoltz. Mariano Rivera, Pudge Rodriguez -- clean Hall of Famers.

If I come across compelling evidence that any of those guys cheated, I'll cross them off my list of heroes. It would break my heart to learn that Jeter, Chipper or Maddox were doing PEDs. I don't believe they were. But if they were ...

There is evidence out there to be had that Selig and the other owners knew that steroid use was rampant in the league WAY BEFORE the stars mentioned got involved with them and not only suppressed what they knew but also tried to cover it up. They were also aware that Greenies were a much bigger health issue and much more prevalent than steroids ever were and disregarded advice to make that problem public and do something about it. The game was dirty not because some players took steroids but it was dirty because it was. The Top was dirty, dirty as sin, and the Top sets the culture for the organization and the norms below them.

Put the blame where it belongs, Sellig and the other owners, and, while you're at it, all those "fans" who gloried in the deads of the stars named, even while everybody knew that the dice were loaded and that the guys at the top not only condoned but forstered it. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves . . . ."

[A-Tex Devil]

You are welcome to believe what you want. But I have NO sympathy for cheaters -- if I voted, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Palmero, Manny, McGuire would NEVER get a vote. I am ahuge Yankee fan, but I would never vote for Pettitte or A-Roid.

But that's the thing --- you (and the baseball writers) are making this decision based on second, third and fourth-hand reports on some of these guys. I get A-Rod, Pettitte, etc. where they have admitted cheating or failed drug tests. But using Clemens as an example --- he was named in the Mitchell report, sued the guy that named him, lashed out at congress, was brought up on perjury charges, and won. I certainly have my doubts, but no one on this board, nor any of the baseball writers as far as I am aware, have anything tangible on Clemens other than unadmissable hearsay. All there is on Clemens is McNamee's evidence and accusations (which fairly quickly failed to hold up in court), and Pettitte's statements which he himself has backtracked on. I get that HOF entry is not the same standard as a criminal trial, but there are a lot of unqualified people proudly making proclamations that they'll never vote Clemens in because they *KNOW* he was a cheater.

[Olympic Fan]

But that's the thing --- you (and the baseball writers) are making this decision based on second, third and fourth-hand reports on some of these guys. I get A-Rod, Pettitte, etc. where they have admitted cheating or failed drug tests. But using Clemens as an example --- he was named in the Mitchell report, sued the guy that named him, lashed out at congress, was brought up on perjury charges, and won. I certainly have my doubts, but no one on this board, nor any of the baseball writers as far as I am aware, have anything tangible on Clemens other than unadmissable hearsay. All there is on Clemens is McNamee's evidence and accusations (which fairly quickly failed to hold up in court), and Pettitte's statements which he himself has backtracked on. I get that HOF entry is not the same standard as a criminal trial, but there are a lot of unqualified people proudly making proclamations that they'll never vote Clemens in because they *KNOW* he was a cheater.

I wrote about this in the Clemens found not guilt thread. I think there is a difference between the level of proof needed to convict in a court of law (beyond a reasonable doubt) and the evidence that is needed to convict in my (and many others') mind (a perponderance of the evidence). I agree that with the evidence that was presented in court, Clemens should have been found innocent. But there was evidence that was excluded from court -- and some of Clemens lies when Pettitte testified against him. To me, that was the evidence that tipped my perception of Clemens -- Petitte was his best friend in the baseball world ... and Pettitte admitted his own guilt, so he wasn't trying to use Clemens to cover his own crimes. To me, THAT was credible evidence.

I keep saying, the Black Sox were exonerated in court. Do we KNOW they threw the 1919 World Series? Of course we do, despite what a jury of White Sox fans decided.

As for the argument that Selig and company knew what was going on and covered it up until it blew up in their face -- I totally agree with that point, but I don't see where that should exonerate any players. Instead, it should condemn the commissioner and his circle of owners that run the game (and IMHO are running it into the ground). That's exactly what happened before the Black Sox scandal. Players were throwing games left and right and baseball's big wigs were ignoring it and even covering it up. When Hal Chase -- with John McGraw's help -- was whitewashed in 1919, that paved the way for the Black Sox a year later. Damn right, Selig should be condemned for this ... but that doesn't mean I don't condemn Bonds, Clemens, A-Roid and company.

As I see it, there are two questions in this debate:

-- Who did it? Obviously, we can debate the relative guilt of various players.
-- Was what they did so bad? I say, yes ... you may say no. We'll just have to disagree.

With Clemens now getting off for lying to Congress, it looks the only punishment for the cheaters is going to be denial for the Hall of Fame. I guess that's the third quuestion -- is that a proper punishment? I say yes.

As I said, you are free to believe whatever you want. You can be like the Chicago jury in 1920 and decide to look the other way. But I can't.

[A-Tex Devil]

But there was evidence that was excluded from court -- and some of Clemens lies when Pettitte testified against him. To me, that was the evidence that tipped my perception of Clemens -- Petitte was his best friend in the baseball world ... and Pettitte admitted his own guilt, so he wasn't trying to use Clemens to cover his own crimes. To me, THAT was credible evidence.

Fair enough, but these 2 statements are what I'm getting at. What were the Clemens lies? What was the evidence excluded from court? Do you know it's dispositive to show that he used? I completely get that it is your, and the BWA's, judgment call to make and each person can draw their own conclusions, so I'm not really trying to change minds here. But I do have a hard time when the baseball writers treat things they frankly don't have 100% knowledge of the facts on as dispositive. Do I think Clemens used PEDs? Probably. But I also think Lance did. And if I had a vote, I guess I'd just have a hard time letting my suppositions deny someone entry.

Clemens' personality won't do him any favors, but what about a less divisive figure like Ryan Braun? MLB would have you believe he cheated and got off on a technicality. If he hits 600 career homers with no more failed drug tests, does he get in? Clemens was never suspended and never failed a test that anyone has proof of.

I keep saying, the Black Sox were exonerated in court. Do we KNOW they threw the 1919 World Series? Of course we do, despite what a jury of White Sox fans decided.

Yes, but the Black Sox, and Pete Rose, were suspended from baseball for life. Clemens (and Bonds for that matter) was never suspended.

[cf-62]

I have to agree with A-Tex Devil here. You're keeping Clemens out of the hall because his name was on the Mitchell Report, a (not-so-thinly-veiled) 21st century version of the Un-American Activities List: "And Mr. CHEATER, who else do you know has used PEDs? Tell us now or we'll ban you from sports for life." "I saw Goodwife Merry speaking the devil's name, er taking Steroids, no - Human Growth Hormones - and I personally saw him inject them, even though that would have been absolutely crazy to do in front of other people - yeahhh, that's the ticket."

Clemens said "you're wrong." He went before congress and testified as such. The politicians didn't like looking like the idiots they are publishing this report, so they tried to prove he lied to congress - but they didn't. They COULDN'T. So at this point, you're keeping him out of the hall because of uncorroborated hearsay in a baseless report. Remember, one of the KEY KEY judicial decisions in the Clemens case was the government successfully fighting to keep the investigation notes non-public. Why try to keep the "most damning" of all the possible evidence you have - the actual investigator's notes - out of the trial, unless the investigation itself is tainted, which I am much more inclined to believe than Clemens using PEDs.

Fair enough, but these 2 statements are what I'm getting at. What were the Clemens lies? What was the evidence excluded from court? Do you know it's dispositive to show that he used? I completely get that it is your, and the BWA's, judgment call to make and each person can draw their own conclusions, so I'm not really trying to change minds here. But I do have a hard time when the baseball writers treat things they frankly don't have 100% knowledge of the facts on as dispositive. Do I think Clemens used PEDs? Probably. But I also think Lance did. And if I had a vote, I guess I'd just have a hard time letting my suppositions deny someone entry.

Clemens' personality won't do him any favors, but what about a less divisive figure like Ryan Braun? MLB would have you believe he cheated and got off on a technicality. If he hits 600 career homers with no more failed drug tests, does he get in? Clemens was never suspended and never failed a test that anyone has proof of.



Yes, but the Black Sox, and Pete Rose, were suspended from baseball for life. Clemens (and Bonds for that matter) was never suspended.

[Olympic Fan]

According to the defense attorney and to post trial interviews with the jurors, Clemens was acquitted not so much because they jurors believed him vs. McNamee and Pettitte, but because they believed that it was a stupid waste of the government's time and money to pusue this case. There's more, including the idiotic reasoning of one juror. Thus to follow this:

In her interview with the Daily News, Robinson-Paul said she and her fellow jurors felt that McNamee, a personal trainer, turned on Clemens, his millionaire employer, for nefarious motives. She said they became suspicious of McNamee for the way he turned against Clemens in January of 2008 after Clemens made public a taped phone conversation in which Clemens and McNamee discuss McNamee's son's illness.

"This after Clemens let him live in his house, after he did everything for him," Robinson-Paul said. "We felt there was something here, it was vengeance probably."

In fact, McNamee had been cooperating with the government at that point for nearly seven months. Robinson-Paul may have missed that point: Known as Juror 13 during the trial, she was the subject of courtroom conversations between the judge and lawyers about whether she had nodded off during some of the testimony.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-...icle-1.1098978

Just as an example of what evidence was excluded from court -- Andy Pettitte was allowed to testify that he used PEDs and he talked to Clemens about PEDs, but he was not allowed to say who supplied the PEDs. The judge decided it would be too prejudicial if he named McNamee as his supplier - since the jury might "connect the dots" and assume McNamee also supplied Clemens (as he claimed):

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/78...itte-testimony

The first Clemens trial was declared a mistrial because the jury heard evidence that the judge thought they should not have heard. Basically, Pettitte first claimed they Clemens confessed to using steroids back in 1999. Clemens claimed that Pettitte "misremembered" a 10-year-old conversation. But Pettitte's wife testified that he told her that damning news on the day Pettitte heard it from Clemens. The judge ruled that her testimoney was prejudicial. Maybe so (although it tends to weaken the "misremember" argument). There is also the 1998 Canseco pool party where McNamee claims he saw Canseco, Clemens and a steroid distributor locked in an intense conversation, just a few days before Clemens first asked McNamee to inject him with HGH. Clemens denied he was at the party -- until photographic evidence proved that he was lying.

And just to make the point, the reason Pettitte's testimony is so damning is that it had nothing to do with Pettitte beating a ban or a suspension. Pettitte was Clemens best friend -- he didn't get anything for throwing him under the bus ... he was just not willing to lie for him.

To sum up my POV, I cite a columnist who claims to be a big Clemens fan who cheered the acquittal:

But that doesn't mean I think Clemens is innocent of having used performance-enhancing drugs. And it doesn't mean I think he didn't lie to federal officials.

I feel certain he did both.

Here's the thing -- I, and lots of other people, live in the real world, where personal opinion and the court of public opinion (sometimes the same thing) carry as much weight as decisions made by judges and juries.

We can agree to disagree, in other words, because we are permitted to have a different standard of proof.

Remember one thing -- being found "not guilty" is not necessarily the same as being innocent. It just means there wasn't enough evidence in Clemens' case to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

OK, I can live with that. That's the way the system works. And it should.

However, it surely does not mean Clemens never used performance-enhancing drugs while pitching in the major leagues. I have no proof that he did. And I certainly don't believe he was the only player who did -- we know there were many, some even admitted doing it.

And I'm not inclined to believe Clemens' former trainer and chief accuser, Brian McNamee, who testified he injected the pitcher with performance-enhancing drugs in 1998, 2000 and 2001, plus an HGH injection in 2000, any more than I believe Clemens.

But I do believe Andy Pettitte, Clemens' New York Yankees teammate and training partner who says Clemens admitted to him that he used human growth hormone in 2000. And, Pettitte admitted, he'd done the same thing, taking HGH injections in 2002 and 2004.

Clemens says "No" to using steroids or any performance-enhancing drugs. Pettitte says "Yes." I believe Pettitte. To me, he's the more believable witness.

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/sports/c...h-case-clemens

[cf-62]

O.F.

At first, I was just going to say "No way! Since RC testified that he wasn't at the party, they would have nailed him for sure with evidence." Instead, I went looking for it - and found several "scoop" articles in the NY Daily News (who you seem to quote quite a bit about this stuff) -- all alluding to the existence of this picture from one of Canseco's neighbors who would have been 11 at the time - but the story dies within days of breaking - all with no pictures posted anywhere. Bottom line - it's either nonexistent, or it's not from the party. Because given the tenacity and cost that the government pursued this, if a picture existed, they would have gotten it.

TBH, I think the NY Daily News was probably slightly jaundiced in its coverage of the Clemens situation, from being named in the Mitchell debacle to the trial, itself - for much of the same reasons we've been talking about Bonds and Clemens being excluded from HOF votes - because they don't like him personally.

I understand your disdain for PED Users, but I think you're putting a lot of credence into institutions and people that truly TRULY have an axe to grind and/or are completely untrustworthy, including but not limited to: McNamee, Mitchell, USADA, WADA, and the NY Daily News.

[Matches]

Baseball is going to have a very sad day when one of the untainted 90's stars gets in the HOF and THEN, for the first time, confesses to PED use.

[JasonEvans]

Baseball is going to have a very sad day when one of the untainted 90's stars gets in the HOF and THEN, for the first time, confesses to PED use.

Awesome thought. The guys who got caught are not getting in. So, what happens to guys who get in and then get caught or admit to it? For that matter, would we treat someone who comes clean largely on their own differently than someone caught via an investigation or other evidence? What about the guys who admit it versus the ones who staunchly deny? Are Pettite or ARod different from Clemens or Bonds?

-Jason "I still think there is some merit in letting them in and including their misdeeds on the plaque talking about their career -- but that is a slippery slope and easier in concept than in execution" Evans

[A-Tex Devil]

-Jason "I still think there is some merit in letting them in and including their misdeeds on the plaque talking about their career -- but that is a slippery slope and easier in concept than in execution" Evans

What's the slippery slope if you just state the facts? Is it that we assume PED use with guys like Sosa, Clemens and Bonds even though they denied it? I guess your right that it gets difficult then.

If Roger Clemens, for instance, makes the hall of fame, what can you put on his plaque? That he was named in the Mitchell report?

The more and more I think about how to handle, whether a special wing for these players, something on their plaque, or even an exhibit in the hall of fame describing the era, the more and more I realize that it's just not that important. If the BBWA votes a guy in, he gets the plaque he chooses. If they don't, he's not in. If we get an era with only a handful of hall of famers, so be it if that's how the BBWA of America want to wield their cardboard sword. The veterans committee will just vote them in down the line... maybe.

[Dukeface88]

O.F.

At first, I was just going to say "No way! Since RC testified that he wasn't at the party, they would have nailed him for sure with evidence." Instead, I went looking for it - and found several "scoop" articles in the NY Daily News (who you seem to quote quite a bit about this stuff) -- all alluding to the existence of this picture from one of Canseco's neighbors who would have been 11 at the time - but the story dies within days of breaking - all with no pictures posted anywhere. Bottom line - it's either nonexistent, or it's not from the party. Because given the tenacity and cost that the government pursued this, if a picture existed, they would have gotten it.

TBH, I think the NY Daily News was probably slightly jaundiced in its coverage of the Clemens situation, from being named in the Mitchell debacle to the trial, itself - for much of the same reasons we've been talking about Bonds and Clemens being excluded from HOF votes - because they don't like him personally.

I understand your disdain for PED Users, but I think you're putting a lot of credence into institutions and people that truly TRULY have an axe to grind and/or are completely untrustworthy, including but not limited to: McNamee, Mitchell, USADA, WADA, and the NY Daily News.

You apparently didn't look very had. The photo not only exists, it was actually shown to the jury.

Before a lunch break, the jury was shown photos of a bleached-blond Clemens in the pool with then-11-year-old Alexander Lowrey, a neighbor of Canseco's. Lowrey testified that he arrived at the party between noon and 1 p.m. and was there for what he "guesstimated" was three hours.

Beyond that, I agree with others that whether there was sufficient evidence to find Clemens legally guilty of perjury is a different question than whether people think that Clemens used steroids. Hall of Fame voters are not jurors, and aren't required to use the same standard of proof or follow the rules of evidence regarding hearsey.

[weezie]

OK, I'm too lazy to search these hallowed threads...

Thome, IN!? I say yes. For being an Indian if not much more else, haha. And a pretty good baseball hitter, yadayada.

No steroid user he, no sir.