Rick Morrissey knows a non-roider when he sees one

Stellar Hall of Fame reasoning from Rick Morrissey of the Sun-Times:

Dawson, who played 11 years with Montreal and six with the Cubs, was wiry strong his entire career. He looks very much the same today--the same ridiculously skinny waist holding up the same solid upper body. He had one season that popped out--49 home runs and 137 runs batted in to win the 1987 most valuable player award while a Cub--but never put together a string of seasons with outrageous power numbers.

I love this. With some players -- usually players the writer doesn’t like all that much -- we’re told we’re supposed to be skeptical of fluke seasons. Big spike in his home run total? ‘Roider!! Now, however, when there’s a player the writer likes, we’re supposed to be skeptical only of sustained power numbers and let the flukes lie. This is nonsense.

Look, I’m not accusing Andre Dawson of taking steroids. I don’t get in the business of accusing anyone of doing steroids unless and until there is actual evidence out there. So even if there were whispers about Dawson -- which there are not, and to be honest, I highly doubt he ever touched the stuff -- I’d ignore them unless and until someone actually put some evidence on the table.

But the point is, Morrissey doesn’t know that Andre Dawson didn’t do steroids, just like he doesn’t know all of the players who have taken PEDs. There could be a steroid user in the Hall of Fame as we speak. We could elect one next year. We have, and always will have, imperfect information on the subject, and in my mind, that renders the “well, he never did steroids” argument to support someone’s Hall of Fame candidacy ridiculous. Don’t presume guilt. Don’t presume innocence. Don’t presume at all. Punish the confirmed users if you wish, and stop speculating one way or the other about the personal use (or not) for those for whom we do not have the information. How hard is that?

Not that Morrisey cares about reason or fairness, as evidenced by the sense of dictatorial entitlement with which he views his Hall of Fame vote:

The civil libertarians might argue that without hard proof of steroid abuse, those players should be allowed into the Hall of Fame. But that’s the great thing about the Hall: You vote your conscience, not the preponderance of evidence. And in the public square, we all get to be judge, jury and unfeeling despot. Somebody hand me my riding crop.

If you think this “I know better than the evidence” attitude is limited to steroids, you’re dreaming. Morrissey and like-minded voters simply know a Hall of Famer when they see one. QED.