The Mitchell Report (Post-Release)

Grimsley's testimony was corroborated in all circumstances, making the evidence against those listed in my previous post sufficiently substantiated (at least in my eyes). I won't delve into the complications of how thorough the evidence is for each of the players (because that would be too lengthy) or just the ones considered important (because I feel that neglects the cases of those less prominent). Instead I think it's pertinent to discuss two major issues aroused by this report.

The first is the magnitude of the steroids problem. Names appeared on this list that few saw coming (Denny Neagle and Mo Vaughn both caught me off guard), but the cases against many of these players were built off of a select group of informants. Since a large portion of the evidence is in the form of testimony from players or trainers and because the Mitchell investigation only extracted information from a small number of these groups, the actual number of steroid users is undoubtedly much greater.

Three organizations had a predominantly large number of players using steroids: the Yankees in 2001 (Sheffield, Giambi, Pettitte, Clemens), the Dodgers in 2000 and 2001 (Brown, Gagne, Hundley), and the Orioles in 2003 (Tejada, Bigbie, Gibbons, Roberts). There are numerous other connections and trends one can find, but these stood out to me. Imagine however if the Mitchell investigation found evidence from a trainer on the Braves, the Red Sox, or the Cubs. It's highly probable that there are equally large number of players on other teams that were shooting up at the same time but have yet been exposed. This hypothesis in no way justifies what happened in all the other clubhouses but it makes you wonder if we're really seeing the entire scope of this problem.

The other controversial issue is whether or not to induct steroid users into the Hall of Fame (note: I'm going to use steroids as a term for all banned substances that are considered cheating, including HGH, for convenience). The new name obviously added to this controversial list is Roger Clemens. Here are the two arguments I have heard for why one should vote for Clemens or Bonds or any of the others in comparable situations:
1.) The player had accumulated a sufficiently impressive resume of statistics and awards before he began using steroids. By using steroids he did not surpass the boundary between HOF worthy and unworthy. Therefore the player should be admitted based on his merits before steroid use.
2.) It is impossible to judge how many players used steroids during this era and even more difficult to pinpoint which ones. Due to this difficulty, one cannot deny a player's entry without denying all of the players from this era unless we have absolute proof of their cheating (ie: positive test).

Both of these arguments fail to neglect the moral issues associated with the Hall of Fame in different ways. The first effectively chooses to ignore what a player does after he has reached HOF status. To paraphrase the argument, "a player reaches a certain statistical pedestal than he is absolved of any and all infractions or misdeeds that he may do following the reaching of this mark". When you put a player's plaque on the wall in Cooperstown you can't choose to acknowledge and ignore specified portions of that player's career. This decision sends a message to children that it is alright to use steroids if certain qualifications and circumstances are met.

The second argument is flawed in that it chooses to be selectively naive. By refusing to believe multiple corroborating and independent testimonies against a certain individual one is being very demanding as to what constitutes sufficient proof of cheating. However, when they claim that they cannot consider this person's merits altered based on the presumption that others were likely using too than one is being overly presumptuous based on minimal evidence. Furthermore, the whole conception of judging a player based on the actions of other players is absurd and doesn't acknowledge the consequences of electing a likely steroid user into the Hall of Fame (I'll address the issue of "likely" later on).

One's decision to elect a worthy player to the Hall of Fame who should be dictated by a single belief: whether or not the voter believes the player used steroids. If the voter believes that player used steroids, under any circumstance, he should not vote the player into the Hall of Fame because he violated the rules of the game and by electing him it portrays steroid use in as acceptable to people of all ages. Cheating is not excusable under any circumstances. If the voter believes with all certainty that the player never cheated, than by all means he/she should vote for him.

Herein lies the flaw with the voting system. If one is unsure, they should choose to abstain and thereby require that player to get the necessary percentage of votes from the remaining individuals but not count that particular voter in their percentage calculation. I understand that this description is quite complicated so think of the situation as follows: There are 300 voters and I abstain for one player, than for that player instead of needing say 75% of 300 votes, he needs 75% of 299 votes. Those voters who think it's "likely" the player cheated but are not sufficiently persuaded should take this course of action.

People may not like the idea of turning the Hall of Fame vote into a jury trial but that's what steroids have forced upon us. In a jury one would not declare a person's innocence or guilt without being absolutely confident in one's decision. I will withhold my own beliefs regarding specific players because that is irrelevant here. What is important is that the voters consider the facts in the most objective and comprehensive way possible and make their decisions according to these principles in line with how one would normally vote in terms of deciding a person's guilt.