Election 2013 (or Later): Debates Already in Swing
By JACK CURRY
Published: December 21, 2007
The future is uncertain for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Bonds could end up in prison if he is found guilty of felony charges of perjury or obstruction of justice for lying to a grand jury about using steroids. Clemens could be called to testify before Congress next month to answer questions about his alleged steroid use.
Since peeking forward to next week in the lives of both players is difficult, envisioning where Bonds and Clemens will be and how they will be viewed in five years is even more daunting. Still, if Clemens and Bonds never play again, they could be on the Hall of Fame ballot in 2013 and would learn together how much their off-the-field issues affected their legacies.
If Bonds and Clemens had not been linked to performance-enhancing drugs, they would sail through the voting process and maybe challenge Tom Seaver’s record of being named on 98.84 percent of the ballots. But because they have been accused of using illegal drugs to enhance their performances, the path to Cooperstown, N.Y., will be littered with endless debates.
How will Hall of Fame voters treat their candidacies? In a survey of 90 veteran baseball writers who vote on player inductions, neither Bonds nor Clemens garnered the 75 percent that is required to gain entry into the Hall. Although this is only about a sixth of the writers who usually vote each year, it seems portentous for Bonds, the career home run leader with 762, and Clemens, who has 354 victories and a record seven Cy Young awards.
Bonds received 53 votes, or 59 percent, while 28 writers said they would not vote for him and 9 were undecided. Clemens received less support, notching 50 votes, or 56 percent, while 27 writers voted against him and 13 were undecided. Writers were encouraged to give a definitive answer, with the understanding that future developments could change their opinions.
“The problem is you don’t know who was on the stuff and who wasn’t,” said Mike Rutsey of The Toronto Sun. “No doubt there will be players who have been on the juice who will or have been voted into the Hall of Fame. If we don’t have proof or heavy suspicion, we can’t hold it against other players. It may not be fair, but nothing in life is.”
To Bill Conlin of The Philadelphia Daily News, Bonds and Clemens are the “Tainted Tandem.” To Paul Sullivan of The Chicago Tribune, they are “weasels.” To Drew Sharp of The Detroit Free Press, they are “pariahs.” To others, they are cheaters who should only enter the Hall by paying admission.
“I think these guys have stained the game, and I’m not in the mood to forgive and forget,” Hal Bock of The Associated Press said. “I prefer everyone on a level playing field. Their actions changed that.”
Still, the question about immortalizing Bonds and Clemens is complicated. Jack O’Connell, the secretary-treasurer of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America and the man who counts the ballots, said a lot could happen in five years, which was why he was undecided about both players. In the absence of an admission of drug use, or a failed drug test, some said they felt compelled to vote to enshrine Bonds and Clemens.
“Do I think they used steroids and human growth hormone? I do,” John Hickey of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer said. “But I don’t know it, and I can’t prove it. So they both get my vote.”
What Hickey cannot prove, others have proved to themselves. Bill Livingston of The Cleveland Plain Dealer said he would vote against Bonds and Clemens and any other suspected steroid user. Livingston said he would decide who they are by “going by the evidence of my own eyes.”
Bonds has been the focus of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroid distribution case and has been the subject of a best-selling book about his alleged steroid use. Yet Clemens’s support for the Hall was shakier, which shows how damaging his trainer Brian McNamee’s testimony in the Mitchell report had been. McNamee said Clemens used steroids and human growth hormone.
Martin Fennelly of The Tampa Tribune was one of a few writers who said that he would not vote for Bonds, but that he needed additional time to evaluate Clemens’s situation.
Fennelly explained that someone asked him how cheating by using steroids differed from the New England Patriots’ stealing signs. Fennelly told the person to let him know the next time “he comes across a story about a high school kid killing himself because he wanted to steal signals just like his heroes.”
Bruce Jenkins of The San Francisco Chronicle said the period labeled the steroid era was not “a pretty era, but it was real baseball, and never a cartoon.” In deciding whether a player is worthy of the Hall, voters are asked to consider a player’s record, playing ability, contributions to a team, integrity, sportsmanship and character. The last three are the reason some voters said they will not put an X besides the Clemens box or the Bonds box.
“Do we really want Barry Bonds standing up there in Cooperstown between Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson?” Richard Justice of The Houston Chronicle said. “I’m having trouble getting my mind around that notion.”
Justice added that if the seasons Clemens might have used performance-enhancers are factored out, “his career win totals are below Kenny Rogers.”
“I love Kenny Rogers,” Justice said, “but he ain’t going to the Hall of Fame.”
Bonds had 409 homers and 445 stolen bases after the 1998 season, which is when he supposedly decided to use performance enhancers. Clemens had 218 wins and four Cy Young awards before 1998, the year McNamee said he first injected him with steroids. Based on those statistics, some voters say Clemens and Bonds were on their way to the Hall before they might have cheated.
“This is the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard,” Steve Dilbeck of The Los Angeles Daily News said. “Once they cheat, once they dishonored the game, they’ve disgraced themselves and eliminated themselves from Hall consideration.”
Steve Buckley of The Boston Herald conceded that he is “growing to hate this time of year” because it is when he agonizes over his ballot. Some writers said they are considering removing themselves from voting. Stephen Brunt of The Toronto Globe and Mail said baseball was responsible for these awkward conditions, so what has happened must be accepted.
“That history can’t be rewritten,” Brunt said. “And, if anyone would like to try, let’s start by cleaning everyone out of Cooperstown who ever used amphetamines. That would certainly open up a lot of wall space.”
News source：http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/sports/baseball/21fame.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin
The future is uncertain for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Bonds could end up in prison if he is found guilty of felony charges of perjury or obstruction of justice for lying to a grand jury about using steroids. Clemens could be called to testify before Congress next month to answer questions about his alleged steroid use.
Since peeking forward to next week in the lives of both players is difficult, envisioning where Bonds and Clemens will be and how they will be viewed in five years is even more daunting. Still, if Clemens and Bonds never play again, they could be on the Hall of Fame ballot in 2013 and would learn together how much their off-the-field issues affected their legacies.
If Bonds and Clemens had not been linked to performance-enhancing drugs, they would sail through the voting process and maybe challenge Tom Seaver’s record of being named on 98.84 percent of the ballots. But because they have been accused of using illegal drugs to enhance their performances, the path to Cooperstown, N.Y., will be littered with endless debates.
How will Hall of Fame voters treat their candidacies? In a survey of 90 veteran baseball writers who vote on player inductions, neither Bonds nor Clemens garnered the 75 percent that is required to gain entry into the Hall. Although this is only about a sixth of the writers who usually vote each year, it seems portentous for Bonds, the career home run leader with 762, and Clemens, who has 354 victories and a record seven Cy Young awards.
Bonds received 53 votes, or 59 percent, while 28 writers said they would not vote for him and 9 were undecided. Clemens received less support, notching 50 votes, or 56 percent, while 27 writers voted against him and 13 were undecided. Writers were encouraged to give a definitive answer, with the understanding that future developments could change their opinions.
“The problem is you don’t know who was on the stuff and who wasn’t,” said Mike Rutsey of The Toronto Sun. “No doubt there will be players who have been on the juice who will or have been voted into the Hall of Fame. If we don’t have proof or heavy suspicion, we can’t hold it against other players. It may not be fair, but nothing in life is.”
To Bill Conlin of The Philadelphia Daily News, Bonds and Clemens are the “Tainted Tandem.” To Paul Sullivan of The Chicago Tribune, they are “weasels.” To Drew Sharp of The Detroit Free Press, they are “pariahs.” To others, they are cheaters who should only enter the Hall by paying admission.
“I think these guys have stained the game, and I’m not in the mood to forgive and forget,” Hal Bock of The Associated Press said. “I prefer everyone on a level playing field. Their actions changed that.”
Still, the question about immortalizing Bonds and Clemens is complicated. Jack O’Connell, the secretary-treasurer of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America and the man who counts the ballots, said a lot could happen in five years, which was why he was undecided about both players. In the absence of an admission of drug use, or a failed drug test, some said they felt compelled to vote to enshrine Bonds and Clemens.
“Do I think they used steroids and human growth hormone? I do,” John Hickey of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer said. “But I don’t know it, and I can’t prove it. So they both get my vote.”
What Hickey cannot prove, others have proved to themselves. Bill Livingston of The Cleveland Plain Dealer said he would vote against Bonds and Clemens and any other suspected steroid user. Livingston said he would decide who they are by “going by the evidence of my own eyes.”
Bonds has been the focus of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroid distribution case and has been the subject of a best-selling book about his alleged steroid use. Yet Clemens’s support for the Hall was shakier, which shows how damaging his trainer Brian McNamee’s testimony in the Mitchell report had been. McNamee said Clemens used steroids and human growth hormone.
Martin Fennelly of The Tampa Tribune was one of a few writers who said that he would not vote for Bonds, but that he needed additional time to evaluate Clemens’s situation.
Fennelly explained that someone asked him how cheating by using steroids differed from the New England Patriots’ stealing signs. Fennelly told the person to let him know the next time “he comes across a story about a high school kid killing himself because he wanted to steal signals just like his heroes.”
Bruce Jenkins of The San Francisco Chronicle said the period labeled the steroid era was not “a pretty era, but it was real baseball, and never a cartoon.” In deciding whether a player is worthy of the Hall, voters are asked to consider a player’s record, playing ability, contributions to a team, integrity, sportsmanship and character. The last three are the reason some voters said they will not put an X besides the Clemens box or the Bonds box.
“Do we really want Barry Bonds standing up there in Cooperstown between Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson?” Richard Justice of The Houston Chronicle said. “I’m having trouble getting my mind around that notion.”
Justice added that if the seasons Clemens might have used performance-enhancers are factored out, “his career win totals are below Kenny Rogers.”
“I love Kenny Rogers,” Justice said, “but he ain’t going to the Hall of Fame.”
Bonds had 409 homers and 445 stolen bases after the 1998 season, which is when he supposedly decided to use performance enhancers. Clemens had 218 wins and four Cy Young awards before 1998, the year McNamee said he first injected him with steroids. Based on those statistics, some voters say Clemens and Bonds were on their way to the Hall before they might have cheated.
“This is the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard,” Steve Dilbeck of The Los Angeles Daily News said. “Once they cheat, once they dishonored the game, they’ve disgraced themselves and eliminated themselves from Hall consideration.”
Steve Buckley of The Boston Herald conceded that he is “growing to hate this time of year” because it is when he agonizes over his ballot. Some writers said they are considering removing themselves from voting. Stephen Brunt of The Toronto Globe and Mail said baseball was responsible for these awkward conditions, so what has happened must be accepted.
“That history can’t be rewritten,” Brunt said. “And, if anyone would like to try, let’s start by cleaning everyone out of Cooperstown who ever used amphetamines. That would certainly open up a lot of wall space.”
News source：http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/sports/baseball/21fame.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin
0 意見:
張貼留言