McGwire admits steriod use

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100111&content_id=7900244&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Interesting how MLB.com reports it.

Anyway, has your opinion of Mac changed for the better, worse, or not at all? Do you believe he is more likely now to get in the HOF? Or is this a move because he knows he can't?

I normally don't start out with my take, but here goes:

I am not surprised by this. This has been out there for a few years now. Given his testimony before congress back in '05, he all but admitted it there to many pundits. What I am surprised by is his statement that he felt the steroids had no affect on his ability to hit homers and did not enhance this ability. Balderdash. I know that if I take sterioids (I have in the past year) that I won't turn into Mark McGwire. However, steriods made Mark healthier, stronger, and able to do quantitatively better things that other players who did not take steriods could only do qualitatively. IOW, Aaron w/o steriods could bash homers. So could Mac. But with them, Mac did it longer.

I am curious to see the reaction to the apology. When Pete Rose apologized for and admitted to gambling, it just proved what everyone thought. I don't think he got much yardage out of it. It will be interesting to see if Mac is given a pass (Some will do so...Harold Reynolds is on MLB Network right now doing just that, praising him for apologizing). Mac is part of the Boo Yah mentality, so he will be an interesting test case.


Edited to add: Probably the most bizzare comment I heard Mac give Bob Costas was "We need drug testing in baseball because if we had drug testing back then, we wouldn't be sitting here today." Oh okay. "Judge, there should've been a cop at the door of the bank. If there had been one, I wouldn't have robbed it."

I'm sorry Mac, there was drug testing - it went on in your conscience, and you failed.

Okay. Give your take and shred mine now :smilewinkgrin:

 

Btw, read this at MLB.com:

Very interesting. Citing the fact that he did not reach the 2700 and change hit minimum for the hall as a reason to exclude him. That may be the opt out the voters have for excluding Mac for the hall to allow for the others.

Read on about HOF voting and the steriod impact:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100111&content_id=7902132&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

 

So has your opinion changed? In my post, the questions got lost I really wanted to find answers for.

 

Everyone makes a big deal out of the size of players in the 80s vs today's players, and it's assumed steroids is the answer. Is it? Everyone looks smaller to me in the 80s than they do know. Heck, a Mike Gallego kind of player today, say a Paul Yanish, looks bigger than most back in the 70s and 80s. Dave Parker would be a SS today :tongue3:

Back to the Hall. Bonds is indeed a larger question. His numbers are assumed to be HOF caliber, and with good reason. His inclusion/exclusion will be interesting. Some say he's not going to be as big of a case due to race. I think it will have to do with his surly treatment of the voters. You have to kiss butts to get into the Hall, and mercy help ya if you were aloof. Contrary to the media? you're toast.