[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jul 17 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

in any case, adam's post is correct - there were no rules against some of these things, why would anyone call it 'cheating' if no rule was broken?

1stly, the Commissioner, who is endowed with considerable power by the major leagues of which he is Commissioner pronounced the use of steroids prohibited, and neither the owners nor the players took exception... indeed, eventually, drug testing ensued, and the cheating took on the form of an arms race in efforts to avoid detection. So it is untrue or at least a half-truth to argue that there were no rules broken.

Secondly, election to the hall of fame is supposedly based on exhibiting integrity and sportsmanship.

There are some, and maybe you and Adam are amongst them, who equate sportsmanship with doing whatever one can get away with.... if it isn't specifically prohibited, then anything goes.

That's not my view of sportsmanship... but maybe I am the one out of step.

As for pointing to earlier entrants: society's view of integrity, character and sportsmanship will reflect the mores of the time. Cobb lived in a time when racism was everywhere. Heck, in the US, Nixon, who was in office decades after Cobb's election, was against abortion except when it was 'necessary'... and his example of such a necessity was when the fetus arose from sex between a black and a white.

We don't permit people to excuse their current immoral acts by pointing to the acceptability of their practice in former times, and we shouldn't use society's historical condonation of conduct we now consider to be offensive as an excuse to allow us to honour people whose current conduct we see to be equivalent. The fact may be that earlier electors were themselves racist or so accepting of racism as to see it as a non-issue. So what? We wouldn't let a blatant racist in now, would we? As an example for kids to live up to?

[jdonn]

mikeh, on Jul 17 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

Secondly, election to the hall of fame is supposedly based on exhibiting integrity and sportsmanship.

There are some, and maybe you and Adam are amongst them, who equate sportsmanship with doing whatever one can get away with.... if it isn't specifically prohibited, then anything goes.

It's not the definition of sportsmanship where I disagree with you, it's what election to the hall is based on. To me it's based on how well you played (or coached, contributed, etc.), period, nothing more. Anything else they did is secondary. (I don't agree with leaving Pete Rose out either btw.)

If all we want are angels who every single fan and sportswriter loved in there, then I hope Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken have a very nice eternity together.

[mike777]

Tony was a client of mine when I lived in SD. Great ball player, nice man...not an angel

Again I would just vote out Rule 5.

Voters of course can still vote their conscience.
How they voted for HofF over the years is another thread.

The system changes all the time. I think the current system is ok but not perfect.
The names of who votes is actually a secret and the ballots are secret.

[ggwhiz]

My all-time baseball hero is Doc Ellis who pitched a no-hitter on Acid and claims not to remember doing it.

Jerry Reuss said "I try not to take the game home with me, just leave it in some bar."

During his career, Steve Garvey impreganted 3 women who were not his wife.

None of these things bar you from the Hall but placing a bet on your own team does?

Roids are different though. A lot to do with the media and political frenzy that may well be overblown (yup it is) but I personally know of a college football player that used then to keep his scholarship 10 years ago who is probably in a wheelchair by now. Then there is Lyle Alzado.....

What is happening is needed action that I condone, overblown or not.

[matmat]

there are *lots* of things about american professional sports that are wrong, imo.

in the case of baseball, the players' union is too strong, the umpires' union is too strong.

i think that if anyone cheats, (according to whatever the clear regulations of their time are), they should be banned from the game for an extended period of time immediately (something like 2 or 4 years, similar to what the IOC does); and they should lose their eligibility for the HoF or any other future possible honors (MVP, cy young etc.)

[PassedOut]

matmat, on Jul 17 2009, 10:59 PM, said:

in the case of baseball, the players' union is too strong, the umpires' union is too strong.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by "too strong." Although it's true that the owners depend on good players to sell tickets, the players would be out of work without teams to play for.

No one forced the Texas Rangers to offer A-Rod a quarter billion dollars, and no one forces the Steinbrenners to buy up the huge contracts of old washed-up stars from previous years. Don't the unions and the owners have a symbiotic relationship?

[mike777]

matmat, on Jul 17 2009, 10:59 PM, said:

there are *lots* of things about american professional sports that are wrong, imo.

in the case of baseball, the players' union is too strong, the umpires' union is too strong.

i think that if anyone cheats, (according to whatever the clear regulations of their time are), they should be banned from the game for an extended period of time immediately (something like 2 or 4 years, similar to what the IOC does); and they should lose their eligibility for the HoF or any other future possible honors (MVP, cy young etc.)

I do not think you understand.

Baseball has a culture of cheating. Compare the culture of
Baseball to Golf. In golf if you break a rule and you know it you must resign or take penalty from the tourney, in fact you must turn yourself in even if no one else knows you broke a rule.
In baseball if you cheat you deny. See basic baseball plays.

The definition of cheating is pretty broad and baseball players cheat. Baseball players do not claim to be out when called safe, baseball players do not claim to not catch a ball, when umpire says they did!

If you throw out cheaters, any cheater for two years, no players.

OTOH make vague regulations regarding cheating, honor, etc ok....that is baseball/football/basketball/etc

[matmat]

PassedOut, on Jul 17 2009, 11:20 PM, said:

I'm trying to understand what you mean by "too strong." Although it's true that the owners depend on good players to sell tickets, the players would be out of work without teams to play for.

They have too much say in the rules of the game as far as drug testing is concerned. The current slap on the wrist punishment is partly due to the union's stance, iirc.


re mike -- yeah... a culture of cheating... this is NOT a good thing.

[mike777]

Show me baseball/basketball/football players who go to umpire and say...ya.....you got it wrong...I missed the play, cheated, broke the rules, etc?

In Golf this is common, very common at upper levels.

[matmat]

mike777, on Jul 18 2009, 12:52 AM, said:

Show me baseball/basketball/football players who go to umpire and say...ya.....you got it wrong...I missed the play, cheated, broke the rules, etc?

In Golf this is common, very common at upper levels.

lol. there is cheating, and then there is cheating...

i am not advocating that fielders should admit to trapping the ball if the call has gone in their favor...

but corking a bat, throwing spitballs or sandpapering the ball... taking steroids, imo, that's different.

[mike777]

matmat, on Jul 18 2009, 01:00 AM, said:

mike777, on Jul 18 2009, 12:52 AM, said:

Show me baseball/basketball/football players who go to umpire and say...ya.....you got it wrong...I missed the play, cheated, broke the rules, etc?

In Golf this is common, very common at upper levels.

lol. there is cheating, and then there is cheating...

i am not advocating that fielders should admit to trapping the ball if the call has gone in their favor...

but corking a bat, throwing spitballs or sandpapering the ball... taking steroids, imo, that's different.

Fair enough, all players in any sport who took drugs, spitters, corked, or in football or baskeball on purpose broke the rules........stand up.

Ignore judgment calls. that you know are wrong and choose to cheat.

[matmat]

matmat, on Jul 18 2009, 01:00 AM, said:

mike777, on Jul 18 2009, 12:52 AM, said:

Show me baseball/basketball/football players who go to umpire and say...ya.....you got it wrong...I missed the play, cheated, broke the rules, etc?

In Golf this is common, very common at upper levels.

lol. there is cheating, and then there is cheating...

i am not advocating that fielders should admit to trapping the ball if the call has gone in their favor...

but corking a bat, throwing spitballs or sandpapering the ball... taking steroids, imo, that's different.

did I say anywhere that the players are supposed to turn themselves in?

wtf?

if/when caught, the punishment for cheating using illegal drugs/materials should be severely punished.

imo, the issue is with people who tolerate the cheating and don't push for more frequent tests, etc., not the players who try to game the system. though unfortunate, the latter is understandable, it's just that when it is revealed, the punishment should be swift and heavy.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jul 17 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

There are some, and maybe you and Adam are amongst them, who equate sportsmanship with doing whatever one can get away with.... if it isn't specifically prohibited, then anything goes.

so is it or is it not ok for a bridge player, for example, to use ritalin to increase concentration (enhance performance)? let's assume such use isn't against the rules, since i really don't know

matmat @ Jul 18 2009, on 10:33 AM, said:

if/when caught, the punishment for cheating using illegal drugs/materials should be severely punished.

i assume by 'illegal' you're using the actual definition

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jul 18 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

so is it or is it not ok for a bridge player, for example, to use ritalin to increase concentration (enhance performance)? let's assume such use isn't against the rules, since i really don't know

My answer: yes...altho I allow (need) coffee

[pigpenz]

luke warm, on Jul 18 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 17 2009, 06:07 PM, said:

There are some, and maybe you and Adam are amongst them, who equate sportsmanship with doing whatever one can get away with.... if it isn't specifically prohibited, then anything goes.

so is it or is it not ok for a bridge player, for example, to use ritalin to increase concentration (enhance performance)? let's assume such use isn't against the rules, since i really don't know

matmat @ Jul 18 2009, on 10:33 AM, said:

if/when caught, the punishment for cheating using illegal drugs/materials should be severely punished.

i assume by 'illegal' you're using the actual definition

well several years ago, I believe Jill Myers and her partner were embarrassed at one of the world championship events they had to march out of a bathroom with their vials of urine for testing.

Only the power to be know for sure what drugs are illegal in bridge......or maybe it is "better bridge playing through chemistry"

[luke warm]

i personally think if a person felt that ritalin increased his concentration, he's within his rights to take it... since it can be considered a ped, i suppose there are some who think its usage constitutes poor sportsmanship (or outright cheating - hard to get a straight answer here)

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jul 21 2009, 04:44 AM, said:

i personally think if a person felt that ritalin increased his concentration, he's within his rights to take it... since it can be considered a ped, i suppose there are some who think its usage constitutes poor sportsmanship (or outright cheating - hard to get a straight answer here)

conduct is 'outright cheating' if it violates a specific rule. conduct is unsporting if it violates the spirit of the game... which is why it is impossible to agree upon a definition of sportsmanship. Some players view the game from the perspective of 'that which is not prohibited is permissible'. I happen to disagree with that view.

Taking ritalin to enhance my powers of concentration would seem to me to be offensive and unsportsmanlike, yet I acknowledge that my drinking coffee has a similar, tho I suspect lesser, effect. But I don't drink coffee in order to enhance my bridge... and to me that is the difference. I won't take a substance that I would ordinarily not take if the primary purpose of doing so is to gain a competitive edge.

However, in the spirit of full disclosure, I once tried melatonin in an effort to overcome the impact of jet lag when playing the Canadian team trials 3 time zones away from where I live. It was a disaster... I played in a fog for the 1st four days, but quit on day two and by the playoffs was much sharper. Was I being unsportsmanlike? I think, looking back, that this was a borderline case.. but any benefit I hoped to get would have been from getting better sleep, not from directly improving my bridge powers.

BTW, when I played in the Bermuda Bowl, the WBF had announced random drug testing... I don't know if ritalin was one of the substances being tested for. We played so poorly that nobody would have suspected that we were using performance-enhancing drugs...

Obviously I think that my approach is the correct one, but I don't regard those who disagree, and who act upon that opinion, to be cheating unless they are breaking a specified rule.

As for the OP: since I understand that the baseball players were arguably cheating, that ends matters for me. But if I am mistaken.. if they were not flouting a specific and lawful ban by the Commissioner, then they were, imo, guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct, which conduct enabled them to post the stats that seem to warrant election. Maybe Bonds or Clemens would have been good enough to warrant election anyway.... but that's not the point. They chose to adopt an unsportsmanlike course for personal and financial gratification. They have, again imo, thrown away any moral considerations.

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Jul 21 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

Taking ritalin to enhance my powers of concentration would seem to me to be offensive and unsportsmanlike, yet I acknowledge that my drinking coffee has a similar, tho I suspect lesser, effect. But I don't drink coffee in order to enhance my bridge... and to me that is the difference. I won't take a substance that I would ordinarily not take if the primary purpose of doing so is to gain a competitive edge.

That doesn't strike me as too far removed from athletes who wouldn't lift weights but for the advantages it gives them on the playing field (at least with respect to legal substances that aren't prohibited by league rules).

[mike777]

If feels a bit weird to ban/not vote for someone from the Hall of FAme forever for cheating when we define cheating as taking a legal drug, legally prescribed by a doctor that millions legally use over decades that is not proven to enhance baseball performance.

OTOH we allow baseball players to use drugs that enhance baseball performance but they also have some sort of medical use such as stopping aging, shorten healing time, help with hangovers, pain, etc.

I would not be surprised at some point down the road people come to see this as a dumb rule that was broken by many and that they were punished enough, more than enough and voted in.

A good first step would be to repeal rule 5.

btw it does seem odd to ban nonproven enhancing drugs(steriods) but not ban chemicals from baseball that hurt performance such as cigs and booze, etc.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jul 21 2009, 11:46 AM, said:

Taking ritalin to enhance my powers of concentration would seem to me to be offensive and unsportsmanlike, yet I acknowledge that my drinking coffee has a similar, tho I suspect lesser, effect.

i guess we just differ, then... from my view, it doesn't matter a bit if ritalin is a ped... it's a legal drug and, if obtained legally, i wouldn't frown on its use... i pretty much feel the same way about steroids - unless their use is against rules formed by some cba (which is the case in football, i'm not sure about baseball), that's a different case

Quote

But I don't drink coffee in order to enhance my bridge... and to me that is the difference. I won't take a substance that I would ordinarily not take if the primary purpose of doing so is to gain a competitive edge.

i would think that if your focus is on the spirit of the game you'd refrain from taking a substance that improves your abilities, regardless of your motive - although bridge w/out coffee seems somehow unamerican

mike777, on Jul 21 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

btw it does seem odd to ban nonproven enhancing drugs(steriods) but not ban chemicals from baseball that hurt performance such as cigs and booze, etc.

yeah, it does seem strange... i guess "they" are more worried about the game than the well-being of the players