First off, I have no problem voting for PED users. Secondly, I don't think it's diligent or fair to take the stance of "everyone used or everyone didn't." For guys against PED use, let them boycott admitted users or those who tested positive, etc. But when they declare themselves judge to decide who the users were based purely on suspicion, or to decide that everyone is tainted, the only statement that makes is that they're foolish.

Posted by dahsdebater on 1/7/2014 6:15:00 PM (view original):
And your statement, as I noted above - "it was fine if they cheated as long as they didn't get caught?" - isn't foolish at all?  Because that's the stance you seem to expect voters to take.  Some people have a slightly more developed sense of ethics than that.

So because I choose not to try and guess who cheated, that means I'm saying it's okay? You're really twisting my statement.

My point was, it's not for the voters to try and guess who used and who didn't. Boycotting everyone does not show that you're strongly against PED use. It shows your a fool with no judgment.

Do you understand the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty? I sure as hell hope you're not in the legal profession.

Technically, every player in baseball history could have cheated, so we shouldn't vote for anyone if that's the case. This clown has no way of knowing if Morris ever cheated, so how can he vote for him? If you're against PED use, fine, but don't accuse people based on assumption or association. Find some EVIDENCE that they used, or don't treat them like a user.

I'm really not sure what it is you're failing to grasp in this concept. I'll see if I can find a way to dumb it down for you.

So you're cool with voters denying worthy players entry to the HOF purely because some of their contemporaries used steroids? Makes sense.

I guess if a couple of your coworkers were caught using drugs, and your boss said "we don't know for sure who all was using these, so we're firing everyone", you wouldn't have any beef with that.

By the way, here's a quote from Gurnick:

"I just don't know who did and who didn't. Some people quibble over when the era starts, but the bulk of [Morris'] career was in my opinion well before all of the widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs."

So he can use his OPINION to determine when the steroid era officially started and how much of Morris's career came before that, but he can't use his OPINION to determine if he thinks Greg Maddux did steroids or not? And Morris's "innocence" isn't determined by what Gurnick thinks of him, but the years he happened to play in? It's ridiculous.

As Michael Wilbon said, even if his position is defensible, it's extremely lazy.

Posted by Jtpsops on 1/7/2014 9:27:00 PM (view original):
So you're cool with voters denying worthy players entry to the HOF purely because some of their contemporaries used steroids? Makes sense.

I guess if a couple of your coworkers were caught using drugs, and your boss said "we don't know for sure who all was using these, so we're firing everyone", you wouldn't have any beef with that.

I was thinking about this earlier tonight when I was in the car running some errands.  And came to the conclusion that the voters can and should do anything they want with their votes.  That's the right they were given as part of their voting privileges.

That's fine. I was more disputing dahs's claim that Gurnick did a noble thing in defense of his strong stance against PEDs. And he didn't. What he did was as foolish as someone assuming you're a stoner just because your friend is caught with pot.

The same Michael Wilbon that said whoever didn't take Joakim Noah first in the 2007 draft would be unbelievably dumb?



You use Michael Wilbon to backup your argument?  Hahahahahahaha.  Why not just use his equally worthless buddy, Kornheiser, also?

I was more emphasizing the point than the speaker - he summed it up well. At very least, Gurnick's approach is incredibly lazy.

It's good to see that you're all in support of this clown leaving Maddux off his ballot though.

When a proven dumbass makes a point...maybe it's not quite as good a point as you think it is. 

Reading about the guy...he definitely has been erratic in his voting tendencies.  To his credit, he says this will be his last vote.  In a way it kinda bothers me that he made the voting about himself, but in another way, I like the way he made his point, and then called it a day.  As it is, Ruth wasn't unanimous so I won't sweat it about Maddux not being unanimous.