Donald Fehr on Steroids

kfkorn · 12-11-2006, 12:34 AM

Quote:

SANTIAGO, Dominican Republic -- Donald Fehr doesn't want to tell journalists how to do their jobs, but he hopes that the shadow of alleged steroid use doesn't affect the chances of some to reach the baseball Hall of Fame.

"You get to the Hall of Fame mainly through the voting of baseball writers. I just hope that the writers judge the players on what they did on the field," Fehr told ESPNdeportes.com Sunday.

Fehr: Vote for players based on what they did on field

Thoughts on what Donald Fehr has to say?

kflo · 12-11-2006, 01:17 PM

well, fehr and selig should take a place alongside the cheats as personas non grata in baseball, to be honest. that they still hold their respective positions is as much a disgrace to baseball as anything mcgwire did. they set the rules that mcgwire, etc, thrived in. gee, lets play by the honor system - that should work. of course fehr hopes that. he doesn't want to have to look himself in the mirror.

Codered · 12-11-2006, 02:32 PM

Even though there might be some truth to what he says it's human nature to take it into consideration. Also noone cares what Donald Fehr has to say. He is about as unpopular as Scott Boras and Bud Selig.

WilsonC · 12-11-2006, 03:45 PM

I more or less agree with the quoted remarks. It's one thing if a player was actually proven to be using steroids, but when we're dealing with speculation, it's another thing. When it comes to speculation, it becomes far to ambiguous as to where the line is drawn. People also have a tendency to look at power numbers and jump to much quicker conclusions about steroid use for power hitters than other types of players, even though many of those caught have been pitchers or borderline players. If writers base their decisions on unproven speculation, it's rather likely that some innocent players will be left out, and/or some guilty players will get in anyways. I'd rather see them make decisions based on performance and concrete evidence, with a historical side-note about steroid use in the era in the books.

kflo · 12-11-2006, 04:01 PM

after mcgwire's performance in front of congress, his next public appearance can't be a cooperstown party. he's got splainin to do before he can get in. there's more than mere speculation here. he didn't feel able to answer under oath about his own steroid use.

Lenny · 12-11-2006, 04:31 PM

When I read the topic I thought you were saying that Donald Fehr was on steroids.

WilsonC · 12-11-2006, 04:57 PM

I agree that there's more smoke for McGwire than raw speculation, but his congress hearing still isn't proof of anything. Given the amount of speculation surrounding him already, I could easily see the reasoning behind his refusal to answer in front of congress. Even if he'd denied use, it wouldn't change the opinions of anyone who suspected him already. What if he'd tried steroids earlier in his career, but given them up long ago? Does that have the same weight as if he'd used them throughout much of his career, or his best years? It would make it difficult to answer without incriminating himself. What if his lawyer was scared of the type of perjury investigations surrounding Bonds, which even if he's innocent, would prove to be stressful for him and those around him.

Now, I agree that he's suspicious and personally think he has used steroids, and that it would be in his best interests to publicly talk about in in a non-legal environment, but I maintain that his choosing not to speak is different from actual proof.

kflo · 12-11-2006, 05:15 PM

we don't have proof, nor do we need any. the burden now is on mcgwire. consider this the civil trial, not the criminal one.

mcgwire could have told the truth in front of congress, including circumstances of his use. his only requirement would have been not to perjure himself. he had the choice of incriminating himself via speaking the truth or via keeping his mouth shut. he chose the latter and now has to deal with what goes with that. ultimately, he'll need to address it anyway. i suppose it's better for him to not have to do so under oath, so he can lie. for now, he's just got a cloud.

again, my complaint is that the enablers are equally guilty, and yet still have their standing. fehr's ability to credibly comment on this should be nil.

TonyBagO'Donuts · 12-12-2006, 02:31 AM

Who is Donald Fehr?

12-11-2006, 02:32 PM	#3 (permalink)
Codered Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 148	Even though there might be some truth to what he says it's human nature to take it into consideration. Also noone cares what Donald Fehr has to say. He is about as unpopular as Scott Boras and Bud Selig. __________________ Save us Jay Cutler....

12-11-2006, 01:17 PM	#2 (permalink)
kflo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,606	well, fehr and selig should take a place alongside the cheats as personas non grata in baseball, to be honest. that they still hold their respective positions is as much a disgrace to baseball as anything mcgwire did. they set the rules that mcgwire, etc, thrived in. gee, lets play by the honor system - that should work. of course fehr hopes that. he doesn't want to have to look himself in the mirror.

12-11-2006, 03:45 PM	#4 (permalink)
WilsonC Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 121	I more or less agree with the quoted remarks. It's one thing if a player was actually proven to be using steroids, but when we're dealing with speculation, it's another thing. When it comes to speculation, it becomes far to ambiguous as to where the line is drawn. People also have a tendency to look at power numbers and jump to much quicker conclusions about steroid use for power hitters than other types of players, even though many of those caught have been pitchers or borderline players. If writers base their decisions on unproven speculation, it's rather likely that some innocent players will be left out, and/or some guilty players will get in anyways. I'd rather see them make decisions based on performance and concrete evidence, with a historical side-note about steroid use in the era in the books.

12-11-2006, 04:01 PM	#5 (permalink)
kflo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,606	after mcgwire's performance in front of congress, his next public appearance can't be a cooperstown party. he's got splainin to do before he can get in. there's more than mere speculation here. he didn't feel able to answer under oath about his own steroid use.

12-11-2006, 04:31 PM	#6 (permalink)
Lenny Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 240	When I read the topic I thought you were saying that Donald Fehr was on steroids.

12-11-2006, 04:57 PM	#7 (permalink)
WilsonC Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 121	I agree that there's more smoke for McGwire than raw speculation, but his congress hearing still isn't proof of anything. Given the amount of speculation surrounding him already, I could easily see the reasoning behind his refusal to answer in front of congress. Even if he'd denied use, it wouldn't change the opinions of anyone who suspected him already. What if he'd tried steroids earlier in his career, but given them up long ago? Does that have the same weight as if he'd used them throughout much of his career, or his best years? It would make it difficult to answer without incriminating himself. What if his lawyer was scared of the type of perjury investigations surrounding Bonds, which even if he's innocent, would prove to be stressful for him and those around him. Now, I agree that he's suspicious and personally think he has used steroids, and that it would be in his best interests to publicly talk about in in a non-legal environment, but I maintain that his choosing not to speak is different from actual proof.

12-11-2006, 05:15 PM	#8 (permalink)
kflo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,606	we don't have proof, nor do we need any. the burden now is on mcgwire. consider this the civil trial, not the criminal one. mcgwire could have told the truth in front of congress, including circumstances of his use. his only requirement would have been not to perjure himself. he had the choice of incriminating himself via speaking the truth or via keeping his mouth shut. he chose the latter and now has to deal with what goes with that. ultimately, he'll need to address it anyway. i suppose it's better for him to not have to do so under oath, so he can lie. for now, he's just got a cloud. again, my complaint is that the enablers are equally guilty, and yet still have their standing. fehr's ability to credibly comment on this should be nil.

12-12-2006, 02:31 AM	#9 (permalink)
TonyBagO'Donuts Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 65	Who is Donald Fehr?