Just watching Around the Horn, and Mariotti finishes off saying that he didn't vote for a single person for the HOF. He said because none of the first time eligible were "worthy" of being first time ballot selections, and all of the other people who haven't gotten in yet, "don't deserve it either".
The guy is such a frieking tool. (I am not an Alamar fan, but the man was dominant in his time)
Then he goes on to say "Go ahead and take my vote away if you don't like it". Well, that sounds like a good idea.
This is perhaps my biggest beef with HOF voting. How can writers consider a guy to be eligible in one year and not the next? I mean, there's one thing to be said for a guy who slips through the cracks and is re-evaluated by statistical analysis years later, but it's another thing to be a douche like Mariotti who will probably vote for Alomar, Larkin, etc. next year because now they've earned 'second-time HOF status.' Sad. This is as bad as when a sure-fire, no-doubt player gets elected with only 97-98 percent of the vote since a couple of jerks hold out because 'nobody has ever gotten a unanimous vote.'
Kirk, crackers are a family food. Happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers, we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without.
Hmmm...he's been denying taking steroids at any point in his career even after this supposed testimony? That seems... strange. Why testify that you took them, which will of course come out eventually, only to deny it publically afterward?