one of my questions has been answered...... i have heard some lame excuses before and to me, this ranks among the lamest.....

an excerpt from the sun....

And yet another year will pass without a unanimous selection.

Of the 178 members of the BBWAA who answered the question about Ripken's induction, only one, Paul Ladewski, a columnist for the Daily Southtown in suburban Chicago, said he didn't vote for Ripken.

"In an attempt to uphold the Hall of Fame standards established by their predecessors, I will not vote for anyone who played in the 1993-2004 period, which I consider to be the Steroids Era," Ladewski wrote in an e-mail to The Sun last month. "That includes Tony Gwynn, Mark McGwire and Cal Ripken Jr."

The San Diego Union-Tribune did a similar poll as it applied to Gwynn's candidacy, and of the 233 responses it received, only Ladewski said he would have reservations about voting for the Padres' eight-time batting champion.

Ladewski, a BBWAA member since 1984, confirmed last week that he submitted a blank ballot, which, in effect, will be counted as a "No" vote for all candidates.

"It's not an anti-Cal Ripken vote or an anti-Tony Gwynn vote; it's a vote about not knowing enough, in my opinion, of the Steroids Era and performance-enhancing drugs to make the kind of decision that needs to be made," Ladewski said.

"From my dealings with Cal Ripken Jr. in the past, he was very pleasant, a good ambassador for the game, and his numbers speak for themselves," Ladewski said. "But I don't have enough information on the [steroids] subject to make a decision."
............................................

and for the HOF to accept a ballot with out any votes on it as a no vote is ludicrous. talk about guilt by association..... that writer is a disgrace and should have his credentials revoked with the BBWAA. it's one thing to not vote for someone because you do not think his performance warranted it, but not vote just because others may or may not have used steroids is totally without merit and at best, absurd and ridiculous. his logic is simply illogical.

i'm so disappointed. not surprised, i guess. but i kept hearing Mark Patrick on XM talk about how there will always be at least one who does this because he can get his 15 minutes of fame or make some lame attempt at making a "point," and i kept hoping this time that wouldn't be true...oh well.

so, effectively, he votes "no" to the following:

i wonder how other writers define the Steriod Era.

I think "i'll vote no because no ones ever been unanimously elected" is a better reason than this

I have tried and I just can't care about this. Every year it's the same tired old arguments, I turn them off.
Cal is in, we knew that years ago.
When I hear Paul Ladewski, I'm sorry, but a disparaging thought about his ethnicity comes to mind.
Ever hear a dumb Paullock joke?
Ladewski was the kid that the coach never put in the game unless his parents showed up. The one that
not only could'nt hit, he could'nt swing. He could not hurt you with the bat not less hit a ball but his dad ripped
him away from his tea-time toys and signed him up anyway. I guess he needed to tell the guys at work, my boy plays ball,
even though he did'nt. He cried when a ground ball hit him in the leg during practice, swung after the catcher
caught the ball, and stood there unaware after the third strike. He did'nt talk to anyone but seemed to be
in his own little world way out in the outfield during late innings when your team lead by 15 runs.
Ladewski was never liked or excepted and now he wants to be viewed as a maverick.
The Ladewski's of the world are not all the blame here though. Yes, they are here and they are real, but
why in the hell are they tolerated? Once again, I am sorry, but I blame baseball. This is baseball's burden.
If Ruth only got 95% of the vote in 1936, does'nt it seem that in 70 years it would have dawned on someone
that a change needs to be made?
As far as I am concerned, good for Cal and let the idiots argue.

I have nothing against Polish people or people who's families originated in Poland.

Good description of Little Paulie's ballplaying days.... It sure sounds like a lot of kids you see in 9-10, though.

I don't care if Ladewski wants to take on the role of "solitary principled conscientious objector" as long as he's consistent about it.

Better to be an asshole consistently than sporadically?

Paul Ledewski's response to his HOF vote...

Paul Ladewski ::

'Dew' tell: Ripken, Gwynn votes won't be unanimous

January 8, 2007

EDITOR'S NOTE: The Daily Southtown's Paul Ladewski, a longtime member of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, did not vote for any candidates listed on the 2007 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot, meaning neither Cal Ripken Jr. nor Tony Gwynn has a chance to be elected unanimously. Here is Ladewski's defense of his position:

So I've turned Cal Ripken Jr. and Baltimore baseball fans into a bunch of crabs, huh?

Same with Tony Gwynn and San Diego diehards, it seems.

Well, I can assure you that wasn't my intent when I turned in a blank Hall of Fame ballot and thus bypassed the two most eligible candidates the other day.

Rather, after much serious thought in the last year, my decision was based on this belief: At this point, I don't have nearly enough information to make a value judgment of this magnitude. In particular, that concerns any player in the Steroids Era, which I consider to be the 1993-2004 period, give or a take a season.

This isn't to suggest that Gwynn or Ripken or the majority of the other eligible candidates padded his statistics with performance-enhancers and cheated the game, their predecessors and the fans in the process.

In fact, from the contact I've had with Gwynn and Ripken over the years, I like them as players and people. And, no, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Gwynn and Ripken helped deprive Chicago of two World Series appearances. In consecutive years, no less.

But tell me, except for the players themselves, who can say what they put into their bodies over the years with any degree of certainty?

I mean, Hall of Fame hopeful Rafael Palmeiro swore under oath that he was innocent, right? The same Rafael Palmeiro who played with Ripken for five seasons, by the way. Palmeiro tested positive for steroid use during the 2005 season.

Now let's suppose a player is voted into the Hall of Fame, then a short time later, a former teammate steps forward to Canseco him. And another. What to do then? Keep him there? Take him out? Drape black crepe over his plaque?

See what I mean?

Besides, what makes Gwynn and Ripken so special that they deserve to be unanimous selections?

Walter Johnson, Cy Young and Honus Wagner didn't receive such Hall passes. Neither did Lou Gehrig, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. In fact, nobody has in the history of the game.

Based on the standards set by the Hall of Fame voters decades ago, is there a neutral observer out there who can honestly say Gwynn and Ripken should be afforded an unprecedented honor?

Rest assured that I haven't written off anyone who played in the 'Roids Rage Age permanently. At this time next year, the Barry Bonds case may have revealed more substantive evidence on the subject. Maybe some of the names of the nearly 100 big-leaguers whom federal investigators said tested positive for steroids will become public information. And maybe a few of them will come forward to tell us what they know, good or bad.

Until then, I stand firm. Better one year too late than one year too soon, I say.

Paul Ladewski can be reached at pladd@aol.com

source for the last:

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/ladew...081LAD2.article

In my unofficial book, it's better to be an asshole than a hypocrite.

Time will tell if he is a hypocrite, but he has the asshole part of his act down pat.

No doubt about it.

I think that I mentioned here before that I have a six-pack of beer riding on the fact that Cal won't get 100% of the vote. This isn't because I don't feel that he should but rather that there are writers who just won't vote for someone on the ballot the first time.

I don't think that this guy will be the only one who didn't vote for Cal so the final percentage will be the interesting part to me.

Bottomline, Cal is a HOFer and that is fitting as he is the best representative of the ball club that I grew up loving as a kid (and have been paying for every since.)

PUMA

i realized today that at some time in the future, ladewski, should he hold true to his philosophy, will, effectively, vote 'no' on admitting roger clemens to the HOF.

I don't think this is necessary true. His logic may be stupid, but he's saying, "at this point, we don't know enough." He could just as irrationally turn around one day, and say "ok, it doesnt matter what we know."

But anyways, in recent interviews, while he's getting his 15 minutes of fame, he's changed his tune to "i dont vote for people the first time they're on the ballot." Which of course, brings up the question, were there any players from Chicago voted into the hall of fame on their first time on the ballot? And did he vote for them? Inquiring minds want to know..