Thursday, December 13, 2007
So Few Names
SportsCenter experts decry the flimsy evidence. Players scoff that so few big names are included. That's all? Gee, what a surprise that you would stonewall an investigation that had no subpoena powers and they'd "only" come up with dozens of names including some of the most storied in baseball. Another expert: "in the absence of proof, I'm voting for [Clemens, et al]. Just to single out guys doesn't seem fair to me." You're not throwing them in jail, idiot. You're deciding whether to give someone tainted with cheating the biggest honor your sport can offer. Why would you include ANYONE with even a reasonable chance of being a low-down, dirty cheat? Others weren't implicated? Sure. But to HONOR people you have reason to think have behaved in a way that disgraces the game? It's not necessary, it's not needed and it shouldn't be done. All the players decided to live in an era of looking the other way. They all need to pay the price where rumors and hearsay and physical evidence contribute to their not being honored with the Hall of Fame. They don't like it? Tough.