Gaylord Perry cheated and wrote a book about it.

"The words are clearly expressed in the Hall of Fame's guidelines: 'Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.'

That's it. One sentence. That's what the members of the Baseball Writers Association of America entrusted with the responsibility of voting for the Hall of Fame are told to consider.

Big problem for Roger Clemens. Integrity. Sportsmanship. Character. These words do not mix well with the one Clemens will be called the rest of his life: cheater."

All true, but I think it's safe to say that the guidelines are vague and open for interpretation. I also think it's safe to say that the Hall of Fame is filled with unsavory characters.

What about cheating on your wife?

Is that a worse character flaw than taking steroids?


Read this sentence from the the introductory paragraph of Cap Anson's wikipedia page:

"His contemporary influence and prestige are regarded by historians as playing a major role in establishing the racial segregation in professional baseball that persisted until the late 1940s."

More:

"Anson was well known to be a racist and refused to play in exhibition games versus dark-skinned players. This attitude was not considered to be unusual in his day, and Anson remained very popular in Chicago while playing for the White Stockings. On August 10, 1883 Anson refused to play an exhibition game against the Toledo Blue Stockings because their catcher, Moses Fleetwood Walker, was African American. When Blue Stockings Manager Charlie Morton told Anson the White Stockings would forfeit the gate receipts if they refused to play, Anson backed down. On July 14, 1887 the Chicago White Stockings played an exhibition game against the Newark Little Giants. African American George Stovey was listed in the Newark News as the Little Giants' scheduled starting pitcher. Anson objected, and Stovey did not pitch. Moreover, International League owners had voted 6-to-4 to exclude African-American players from future contracts. In September 1888, Chicago was at Syracuse for an exhibition game, Anson refused to start the game when he saw Walker’s name on the scorecard as catcher. Again, Anson pressured his opponents to find a Caucasian replacement."

I suppose it must be okay because the attitude was not considered to be unusual in his day.

Maybe kind of like human growth hormone in Roger Clemens's day.

I happen to think Roger Clemens is a walking, talking S.O.B. of the highest order and still a better role model for the Youth of America than Cap Anson.


I'd also prefer the Youth of America take performance-enhancing substances than drink their liver into oblivion.


Surely, the voters would demand solid proof, no?:

"To say there is no absolute proof that Clemens used steroids is a distraction to reality. Short of Clemens admitting he used - which doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon - and actual video evidence of him injecting, it's never going to arrive.

What we know is that his steroid provider and injector, Brian McNamee, said Clemens used, that McNamee's statements that he provided other players with steroids have been verified, and that a man everyone regards as honest, Andy Pettitte, has said Clemens told him he used Human Growth Hormone."

Lame.

"So don't put Clemens in the Hall of Fame because there is a lack of proof that he used. There isn't."

Jumpin' Jesus on a Pogo Stick, what the heck is that paragraph attempting to say? I've re-read it a dozen times and I can not figure it out.

First of all, I can't vote for Roger Clemens and neither can about 99.99% of your reading audience. But, rather than tackle today's sudoku, let me instead exercise my brain by trying to figure out the logical carousel:

Should I put Clemens in the Hall of Fame?

"No."

Why should I not put Clemens in the Hall of Fame?

"Because there is a lack of proof that he used steroids."

So I should put him in the Hall of Fame? Because there is a lack of proof that he used steroids.

"There isn't."

Oh, there isn't a lack of proof that he used steroids.

"Do not put Clemens in the Hall of Fame because there is not a lack of proof that he used steroids."

Wow! I think that's, like, a triple-negative. But I finally figured it out. He's not talking about a lack of proof. He's talking about a lack of a lack of proof.

How about re-wording thusly and thereby saving Felz about 10 minutes of his life?:

"Do not put Clemens in the Hall of Fame because there is substantial proof that he used steroids."