When it comes to the Hall of Fame, many writers refuse to vote for those players they feel took PEDs, even without having any evidence of their use. That doesn’t sit well with new MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred, who told several ESPN.com reporters that he wasn’t comfortable with writers surmising a player’s PED usage without evidence.
Asked what he would tell the Hall of Fame about how it should handle the PED era, Manfred replied: “The only piece of advice that I’m comfortable giving is that I think that everyone should keep in mind the difference between players who tested positive and were disciplined on the one hand, and players where somebody has surmised that they did something on the other. And I think, based on what you read in the media, sometimes those lines get blurred. And I think it gets really important to keep that distinction in mind.
“I think it’s unfair,” Manfred said, in answer to a follow-up question, “for people to surmise that Player A did X, Y or Z, absent a positive test, or proof that we produced in an investigation, or whatever. I just think it runs contrary to a very fundamental notion in our society, that you’re innocent until somebody proves you’re guilty.”
Wait, what’s this? Commissioner Manfred wants writers to be reasonable about the Hall of Fame, and not make up stupid reasons involving PEDs to not vote for players? I’ll be damned.
But what does Manfred consider proof? He talked about that when indirectly discussing Barry Bonds.
“I think you get to the point, on any individual player — I’m talking about just as a general proposition, not necessarily talking about Barry Bonds,” the commissioner said. “You get to a point where there’s a quantum of credible evidence out there that you can make a judgment that he did something.
“The guys I’m concerned about are, there are players out there who are talked about where there is literally nothing. They have nothing, other than, you know, ‘He looked like X.’ Trust me, from somebody who spent a lot of time doing it, you can’t decide whether or not somebody was using steroids, based on what they look like. That is not enough evidence to make that determination.”
What Manfred is saying defends players like Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza, who never failed PED tests and weren’t named on the Mitchell Report. But because those two players were power hitters that played during the 1990s, they get labeled as “steroid guys” and lumped in with Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Gary Sheffield, who never failed tests or admitted to using PEDs, but were named in the Mitchell Report.
Bud Selig never made a definitive statement about how Hall of Fame voters should handle the steroid era. Manfred already has, and voters will have nearly a year to consider his comments before voting for the Class of 2016. Punishing players who have never been conclusively linked to PEDs is one of the biggest issues plaguing the Hall, and hopefully the voters will take his words to heart and stop withholding votes from deserving players because of a vague anecdote or a gut feeling about their PED use.
[ESPN]
