Should an asteriks be placed by the Yankee WS Championships in the 1990's?

Question

NY Yankees, and former Yankees dominate the names in the Mitchell Report - with that much Steroid use were the Yankee players, trainers and organization cheating?

Answer 1

***** Jeffrey Mayer. That little rat b*****d took that obvious fair ball over the fence and the dumb *** umpire called it a homerun and '97 Baltimore Orioles were WAY BETTER, then the Yanks that year. I lost some faith in that sport that day, why could'nt they get this call right. It was more pivotal then any Cubs fan catching a foul ball, we dont know what that outcome would've been anything could've happened but in the case stated above it was a playoff game which would've determined the AL Champs. Baseball needs replays, we need to know the correct calls in a game which we call "Our National Past Time". Yeah well get the d**n calls right. How many times do Football refs converse with each other to get a call right? How many times does this happen in baseball? Not many, and with all the steroid talk and other things it just seems like Propaganda in a sport riddled with politics. Lets just hope for a Brew Crew Vs. Rays Finals this year. s***w the MLB, let the teams that never do good, Win.

Answer 2

Maybe Barry Bonds should change his name like Prince did, to a symbol.

He will now be known as: *

Answer 3

In fairness, the Yankees (and Mets) dominated the Mitchell report simply because the only sources used were clubhouse people related to the NY teams. Had they done research on every team, I'm sure they would have found many other users.

Answer 4

No, as much as I hated the Yankees during their championships against the Braves, I consider that there should not be any asterisk in any stat or record in baseball.  Even in Bonds' HR record. The Yankees were are superb team during their run and they won it all fair and square.  

Answer 5

In the meantime the moon landing never happened. Thank you for your conspiracy theory of the day.

Answer 6

Let me make my answer very simple: NO!

The Mitchell Report was far from the Bible of steroid use that so many critics claim it to be. I'm sure plenty of other teams had players who used PED's in the 1990s.

And I also take the Mitchell Report with more than a grain of salt seeing as how the person who headed the investigation was a member of the board of the Boston Red Sox. Not saying George Mitchell isn't a good man, but don't blame me for being a bit skeptical when he's leading the investigation and so many players with ties to the Yankees were found and next to none from the Red Sox were. Like it or not, that report has credibility holes you can drive an 18-wheeler through.  

Answer 7

No more yankees were named in the mitchell report than other teams, that they would have had to beat, and did.  I can only think of Clemens, Petitte, Canseco (who played a very very minor part in the 00 WS), and i think glenallen hill (who played very poorly for them). So no.   And asterisks should never be known, steroids will be noted in books, and if someone doesn't enjoy baseball history enough to read books, who cares if they don't understand stats.  Thats the great thing about baseball, it's had many many different eras.

Answer 8

That's the lamest reasoning I've heard.

If the Yankees were the only team, sure. throw another asterisk into our great game.

But they weren't.

The reason so many Yankees were named is that one of the informants worked for them and supplied to Clemens, perhaps a few others.

Every team is guilty.

  

Answer 9

I'm not a Yankees fan but I think this is ridiculous.

Personally, the teams I associate strongest with steriods are the A's, Rangers and Orioles. McGwire, Canseco, Palmeiro, Tejada, Brady Anderson...

The Yankees teams of those eras had Jeter, Paul O'Neill, Posada, Bernie Williams, Wade Boggs and others as their leaders - all clean players. No evidence showing Pettitte was using at that time, it came later after the Yankees stopped winning and he started to get hurt. Clemens was only there at the end, and again the evidence suggests it was later that he used. Given that every team they were playing against was also using...their championships were deserved.

Answer 10

Do me a favor, delete this question please. Asterisks have no place in baseball. Plus the Mitchell Report was very biased, notice what team was completely missing from it?

Does the Boston Red Sox ring a bell? Completely missing from the Mitchell Report.  

Answer 11

No, considering whose name is on report it was & what team he represents, Boston Red Sox.  Steroids is a baseball issue, not a Yankee issue.

Answer 12

The championships in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000 were won fair and square.

Answer 13

No.  Asterisks have no place in the game.  Period.

When you start trying to setup rules for what records, wins, stats, etc. were tainted, you'll find it's difficult to draw a fair line.

I mean, if you give the 90s Yanks asterisks, what about other teams that won the World Series?  Are the Marlins on the hook, too?

The asterisk doesn't solve the problem.  It creates a new one.  

Before steroids were prevalent, players were finding other ways to get an unfair advantage.  Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame and openly admitted to doctoring baseballs.  Why not put an asterisk there, too?

So you see, you don't need to look very far to discover how much trouble you get into when you introduce the asterisk.

Answer 14

no! and i will not answer this stupid question any further!

Answer 15

Might as well put an asterisk on the 94 season too. Apparently, too many players were burn out on roid rage that they canceled the whole season.

You can use the steroid argument to make claims on anything or anyone you don't like but have no other claim for not liking them

Answer 16

There is no place for an asterisk in baseball.  You must be a Yankee hater to post such a stupid question.