Baseball - General

The Hall of Fame

This is not Reds related, but I have an editorial up at The Hardball Times about this years Hall of Fame farce. I’d love to hear what the Nation thinks, feel free to chime in here or over at THT.

47 thoughts on “The Hall of Fame

  1. I don’t know why voting “no” has to be made in to an issue of character. If a guy cheated, whatever that gained him is invalidated. In Barry Bonds’ case it was a whole bunch of batting records.

    You didn’t make a big deal out of this but everyone else did — had this been a “normal” year, Biggio missing on his first ballot would have gone COMPLETELY unnoticed. It’s a total non-story.

  2. @Jared: I agree… I saw an si.com article where Biggio was saying he felt it was a little “unfair” he didn’t get in…Rather, I’d imagine that if steroids weren’t an issue, he wouldn’t have gotten nearly as many votes as he did as a first timer. He would have been an afterthought to Bonds and Co. and would be getting much less attention at all.

  3. Great article, Jason. I’ve read a lot of HOF articles in the last several days (weeks?), but yours took a different and interesting tack. Thanks for linking.

  4. Well-written essay. But I think it misses the point. The character clause is not really about “character” in any objective sense. It is just a means of allowing the Hall of Fame to avoid associating itself with certain people when it would be embarrassing or politically untenable to do so. In other words, people who would otherwise qualify but would “send the wrong message” to celebrate. Lots of organizations have such rules. Same reason Disney hasn’t released Song of the South for 20 odd years – it’s embarrassing. Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, indeed. Roman Polanski could make another Citizen Kane and would never be invited to the Oscars, either.

    The reason it would be embarrassing for the hall to induct PED players is because this would put them in the position of seeming to celebrate a group of players who many people feel have cheated so thoroughly and so flagrantly that their success was essentially a con. People feel betrayed and angry, like the victims of a con usually do. They’d like to punish – not celebrate – the people who are making them feel that way. Emotionally, I agree with them: These players have already taken us for all we’re worth and laughed about it – do I have to kiss them on the lips too? But there’s no way to do this now (except to prevent them from getting the enshrinement they probably think is their due. How else to send a message?) It’s even more frustrating that we still can’t be sure exactly which ones were the con men (although I’d suppose most of them are complicit, if only because of their silence).

    If you don’t personally feel betrayed and conned, then none of this probably makes sense, but you can still “get” why the writers and the HOF don’t want to throw it in the face of those who DO feel that way. What would the ceremony look like? Protesters? Angry chanting during the speeches? Longtime fans saying they’ll quit watching baseball forever? Hall-Of-Famers crowbarring off their own plaques? Nobody wants that. That’s why there’s a “character” clause.

    These feelings will likely dissipate over time. Younger fans and younger writers are less likely to take it personally. Maybe baseball’s new PED policy will help assuage our anger and convince us that the con is finally over and we’ll learn to forgive. For my money I think the Hall is diminished by not having them there (as it is without Pete Rose), but until there’s some sort of mea culpa from those suspected – or some MLB version of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission – I think there will long be too much bad feeling about these “heroes” for 75% of the writers to want to put up a plaque for a con artist. And that’s just as well.

  5. @Jared: Yes, amen to that. Voters for years have been ignoring players on their first few years. Now it’s a big deal just because of who else didn’t get votes. To me, this whole “steriod era in the hall” thing won’t really be told for the next few years. If Bonds, etc, begin to get more votes in the next few years and eventually get in, then OK, the voters made their “statement” and things will work out. If not, I suspect I’ll be a bit more outraged then.

    I find it almost funny that now the focus is on some voters who cast ballots for players who have no chance of getting in. A voter from the LA Daily News voted for Shawn Green, Bernie Williams and Kenny Lofton. That’s a big deal NOW? Undeserving guys have been getting stray votes for years. Just because this voter didn’t tab Bonds, etc, is irrelevant, at least to me. Lots of voters ignored the Steroid era guys. The fact that there are, what, 500 or 600 voters, is supposed to be a large enough sample to counter the whacko votes for players who have no chance. With that large of a sample size, it makes me think we’ll see more sanity in the next few years.

    Also, it has happened five or six times that a player has never been voted in? So the fact that it happens now is a big deal? If it happens for consecutive years, OK, we have a problem. But that won’t happen. Maddux is going in next year, maybe Glavine, Frank Thomas, etc, with him.

    Finally, I’m no final judge of character, but we have Bonds, who lied to a grand jury, admitted he took the stuff but denied he realized he was doing it; Palmeiro, who lectured Congress that he NEVER took this stuff, and them promptly flunked a test; Clemens, who had a clubhouse guy say he injected, and didn’t Pettitte say so, too?; McGwire, who gets before Congress and loses his voice but had the stuff in his locker, visible to the press; Sosa, who was on a list that was never supposed to be made public, HE gets to Congress, and he goes from Mr. Look At Me guy to Mr. No Hablo Ingles.

    I’m pretty sick of the whole thing, and while I can agree in some measure of the folly of trying to judge character, voters are human. This stuff is gonna affect them.

    My long way of saying that it’s a farce, yes, in more ways than one.

  6. @Jared: Maybe I’m misunderstanding your post, but actually, cheating doesn’t “invalidate” Bond’s achievements completely, just like amphetimines and spitballs and such didn’t completely invalidate the achievements of past HOFers. Certainly his steroid use diminishes his claim to being the best hitter ever–or at least makes it an unfair comparison–but he was the best hitter in his era. He didn’t get there by steroids alone (or else all the other cheaters would have been just as good). There can be no doubt that what he did was a tremendous achievement, diminished to some degree by his cheating. We can argue about the degree, but “invalidate” is WAY too strong a word.

  7. @BenL: Also, he only cheated if he used steroids after the rule change. People seem to forget that if something isn’t against the rules, it isn’t cheating, even if it is distasteful.

  8. Totally agree Jason. Also have to say Mark McGwire had Andro in his locker which although now banned by the FDA was a completely legal over the counter supplement at the time. It’s not cheating when it’s not against the rules. Baseball had decades to ban steroid use. And a fact lost in all this is that while I’m sure players were using PED’s mostly for personal gain there was inherently the gain to their team by their better performance…so now we’re concerned that players are doing anything within the rules to win?

  9. @Jason Linden: That’s a fair point. I think it’s pretty reasonable to think that Bonds did use steroids after the rule was in place. (2002, right? He was still a ridiculous hitter for years after that.) Certainly that’s a strong argument in favor of some other players, e.g. McGwire.

    • @Jason Linden: That’s a fair point.I think it’s pretty reasonable to think that Bonds did use steroids after the rule was in place.(2002, right?He was still a ridiculous hitter for years after that.)Certainly that’s a strong argument in favor of some other players, e.g. McGwire.

      I haven’t gone back and crunched the numbers but by about any measure, hadn’t Bonds already done enough to make the Hall by the end of the 2002 season?

  10. @Jason Linden: I think it’s pretty fair to say that someone using steroids after 2002 knew they were cheating, even if the punishment wasn’t there yet. (I’m saying this as someone who would vote for Bonds in the HOF.)

  11. @Jason Linden: I almost said on the previous thread about this issue that the body armor (for batting) Bonds adopted over the years might have had as much as PEDs to do with his numbers later on….

  12. @BenL: I want to elaborate on/modify my point a little: Steroids were added to the banned substance list in 1991. I think it’s fair to say that players who used steroids, even back that far, were cheating and knew it. Obviously there was no testing or punishment until much later, and it seems clear that MLB was perfectly happy to let McGwire and Sosa keep on doing what they were doing. But the rules were known, players who broke them were cheating, and that cheating did harm to those who obeyed the rules. It’s one thing to say these guys belong in the HOF (which I strongly agree with), but it’s different to present things as if they did nothing wrong.

  13. @Jason Linden:
    I think the argument that a player wasn’t cheating because it wasn’t against the rules is incorrect. Baseball banned the use of steroids in 1991. A method for player testing and implementation of the ban was blocked for years by Donald Fehr and the players union.

    With plenty of pressure from outside the game, the union finally capitulated in 2002. Testing procedures and penalties for usage were defined and put into place beginning in the 2003 seaason.

    Any player using steroids after 1991 was clearly cheating.

  14. @MikeC: I don’t think it’s that clear. The banned substances list was largely the result of other drug issues the game had in the 1980s. I think it is obvious that most everyone in the game – players and owners – was fine with steroids until there was public backlash against them.

  15. @Jason Linden:

    According to this article, David Cone and the player’s negotiating committee kept steroid testing out of the contract in 1994- 1995. The obstruction from the union dates back to almost a decade prior to the agreement for testing was implemented in 2003. It is not so obvious almost everyone in the game was fine with steroid use.

    The owners certainly relished the resurgance of the game that came along with the home run race, helping to revive the game after the 1994 strike. No group related to the game is clean; however, baseball management was blocked by the union in their early attempts to do corral steroid use.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3234479

  16. I am a fan of baseball. Have been since I was 9 years old. One of baseball’s attractions to me is its history – its records and stats. It’s like Bob Costas said – becoming a baseball fan is like entering a river that was flowing before you arrived – or something like that. I think what bothers me most about the steroid era is the distortion of this record.

    When George Foster hit 52 homeruns in 1977, he was the 10th player in the HISTORY OF THE GAME to hit 50 HR in a season. I have no idea how many players reached this level in the steroid era and am not interested in researching the answer. Suffice it to say that Sammy Sosa did it himself four times, including hitting 60 HR three different seasons. I don’t believe Sosa was ever proven to be a PED user, but no one believes he attained these accomplishments without PED’s.

    I have to admit to feeling somewhat abandoned by the game while Sosa and McGwire were battling for the home run record. Every night, some breathless nitwit on ESPN would be gushing about their exploits.

    I don’t know that I really blame Sosa and the others who used PED’s. The fans, the media, the baseball hierarchy all cheered their exploits (leaving me out).
    The players did it for the adulation, which means they did it for themselves but there were plenty of others who derived pleasure from the feats. In the end, those players have been betrayed by these same groups, who now belittle their accomplishments.

    The dilemma as I see it is how do we actually determine who was clean in the steroid era? I thought Bagwell was a no brainer in this category, but I have heard some believe otherwise. Other than a handful of players who were caught or admitted to using, everyone else is speculation – both clean and dirty.

  17. I’m just gonna echo what I’ve said before, in hopefully shorter and more concise form:

    - MLBaseball looked the other way on steroid abuse for a decade. Vote these guys in, and force the issue to be dealt with in the HoF. Not voting them in is in effect letting MLB off the hook.

    - What @MikeC said. Not everybody used steroids to bulk up. Most used in order to better withstand and recover from the grind and injuries of the long season. You can’t tell users just by looking. We can believe that Larkin or Griffey Jr. or any other “did it right” guy from the era was clean. But we can’t *know*.

    - Perhaps we owe McGwire/Sosa/Bonds a little debt of gratitude. Had they not rubbed everyone’s nose in it by puffing themselves up to cartoon proportions and then smashing long standing records that baseball fans really cared about, awareness of the issue would still be at 90s level.

  18. The question should not be framed “should so and so be in the “HOF?” But as ” does so and so deserve to be in the HoF?”

    Clearly a distinction with a differnce. By this standard neither Rose nor Bonds should be in the HoF in thei lifetimes.

  19. @seat101: That’s a very interesting distinction to draw, but I disagree with you on which question should be asked. If you only let in people who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, it’s an incomplete and pointless place. The best players should be in the Hall whether they deserve it or not. Leaving Bonds out of the Hall is like leaving Nixon out of a history museum. You don’t have to like the guy to recognize his importance to the game.

  20. Leaving Bonds out of the Hall of Fame is more like leaving Nixon out of a list of Presidents who put their position ahead of their personal interests.

  21. Gaylord Perry is in the Hall, and he cheated every time he pitched. Cheating is cheating – steroids gave lots of players just as much of advantage as Vaseline gave Perry. Hypocrisy.

  22. Seat 101 – you aren’t a hypocrite. I just don’t see how the voters can exclude one type of cheater and include another. It’s too arbitrary for my taste.

    And yes, I do believe that KY jelly was Perry’s weapon of choice.

  23. jessecuster44:

    One way I parse this out is to imagine the acceptance speech of the potential invitee: Bonds and Rose would look wrong up there, sound wrong up there, and therefore, with the imprimatur of the BBWA, be celebrated up there.

    They don’t deserve to be celebrated. They micturated on the game that gave them a chance to be great.

    As for those inductees who may have cheated, they didn’t spit on the game even if they put spit on the ball.

    To my mind, another distinction with a difference.

  24. @seat101: You’re really going just off feel, though, aren’t you? I mean what if someone else feels that it’s ridiculous to induct Perry because he didn’t do it the right way? I mean, no way is he a Hall of Famer without cheating.

    I think it’s a bit ridiculous to say the players were spitting on the game. They were doing what as allowed by the owners. And everybody ate it up. do you remember the talk about how Sosa and McGwire were bringing baseball back after it struggled to recover from the ’94 strike?

    Some people talk about this like it was all the players doing it for personal gain, but there were lots of people involved in it. The players took the drugs, but it was certainly encouraged by the owners (implicitly with big contracts). Reporters didn’t report it. Fans were only bothered by it when some records were broken, and then only years later.

    I often wonder if the lion’s share of the problem is just that no one liked Barry Bonds. If he hadn’t broken the all-time record, it’s hard to imagine that people would still be this worked up about the steroid era.

  25. Athletes began using steroids as early as the 60′s and 70′s all over the world. I’m sure baseball players were just too busy & honorable to notice the improvements in performance from those athletes…

    Baseball fans are so cute and naive. The odds that none of the guys inducted from the 70′s-2000′s used PED’s is almost 0.

    • Athletes began using steroids as early as the 60′s and 70′s all over the world.I’m sure baseball players were just too busy & honorable to notice the improvements in performance from those athletes…

      Baseball fans are so cute and naive.The odds that none of the guys inducted from the 70′s-2000′s used PED’s is almost 0.

      @CP: Worst post of 2013 but it is early. Besmirch a whole generation of players without a shred of evidence. Nice. Weren’t you supposed to be a lawyer some day? Jeez.

      • @CP: Worst post of 2013 but it is early.Besmirch a whole generation of players without a shred of evidence. Nice.Weren’t you supposed to be a lawyer some day?Jeez.

        Gee, a whole generation besmirched without evidence? Well we wouldn’t want that! Besides a few guys who have openly admitted their use, what do you think has happened?

        Btw, this isn’t a courtroom (and my profession is irrelevant here). Applying some simple logic…if steroids were used in every major sport starting in the 70s, gee…I wonder if it found it’s way into the MLB? I guess old time baseball players just preferred their PEDs to be amphetamines rather that steroids.

        • Besides a few guys who have openly admitted their use,

          @CP: Name some names and you at least will have provided a shred of evidence.

          This is in the “courtroom” of public opinion and as long as that opinion is of the mind that PED users are out – they will remain that way. Cases like the one you are making do not hold water.

          Applying some simple logic…if steroids were used in every major sport starting in the 70s, gee…I wonder if it found it’s way into the MLB?

          Outside of East German Women Weightlifters who competed in the Olympics, what do you have? This is all flimsy at best and if are or going to be lawyer I think it all applies. Don’t you have to abide by some type of creed.

          Please offer examples (proof) and I might actually buy what you are arguing. Not blanket condemnation.

          Gee, a whole generation besmirched without evidence?Well we wouldn’t want that!Besides a few guys who have openly admitted their use, what do you think has happened?

          Btw, this isn’t a courtroom (and my profession is irrelevant here). Applying some simple logic…if steroids were used in every major sport starting in the 70s, gee…I wonder if it found it’s way into the MLB?I guess old time baseball players just preferred their PEDs to be amphetamines rather that steroids.

        • @CP: Name some names and you at least will have provided a shred of evidence.

          This is in the “courtroom” of public opinion and as long as that opinion is of the mind that PED users are out – they will remain that way.Cases like the one you are making do not hold water.

          Outside of East German Women Weightlifters who competed in the Olympics, what do you have?This is all flimsy at best and if are or going to be lawyer I think it all applies.Don’t you have to abide by some type of creed.

          Please offer examples (proof) and I might actually buy what you are arguing.Not blanket condemnation.

          I think you misread my post, though this response has so much goal post moving it’s difficult to take it serious.

          I’m 100% positive you have no idea how pervasive steroid use was during the time period. There are a few obvious examples, yes, like Terry Bradshaw & Lyle, countless track and fielders like US sprinter Steve Williams (who said virtually every track and fielder in the 70s took steroids), widespread abuse in swimming, weightlifting, and virtually every sport involving strength.

          A simple google search of Tom House and steroids would have found that House estimated the 6 or 7 pitchers, PER TEAM, were using PEDs as early as the 60s.

          It’s true that all the evidence is circumstantial. Besides a few guys like Bonds, Canseco, & the handful of guys that actually managed to fail the drug test, ALL the evidence is already circumstantial.

          Again, this isn’t really your business or relevant to the discussion, but I’m already a lawyer-have been for over a year. Lawyers can make arguments based on circumstantial evidence. There is no creed against making these type of arguments. We rarely have access to all the information.

          In summary, there are likely current HOF’s who used steroids. Some, possibly even wearing Reds’ uniforms. The current outrage among fans (and particularly the baseball writers), is the product of ignorance, willful blindness, or likely outright deception.

  26. http://jasonlinden.com/

    Short answer? Yes. It is based on a feeling. With Bonds and Sosa and their ilk.

    The fact remains, though, that by putting either in the HoF would make for the (probably) unintended consequence of widening the magnitude of what you can get away with and still be legitimized.

    Did that happen with Gaylord Perry induction? Maybe. I don’t think so, but I don’t know.

    Honest to goodness, is the fact that it was easy to get away with makes it okay? That is a reasonable interpretation of your comments above.

    And does the fact that some people (or many) benefited makes it okay? Another reasonable interpretation from your comments above.

    Iread your article. I enjoyed it. I also disageed with it. How about this; tell me if you think ‘enshrining’ Bonds woul be good for baseball ? Now? Five years from now?

  27. The fact is that the writers who are gatekeeping the HoF are the same group who didn’t make an issue of it as it happened. It’s a degree of hypocrisy I’m just not comfortable with. Punishing the players while allowing those who facilitated or ignored the problem to either walk away free, much less actually pass judgment on others – it just doesn’t pass the smell test.

  28. I just don’t see the Hall of Fame as the Valhalla that some people do I suppose. That’s the big difference that I am detecting. To me, the Hall is a museum. There are terrible people immortalized in the Hall. There are cheaters. There are players whose numbers are a product of their era, their competition, their own PED’s, their likeability, etc. I think throwing the morality clause out of it is the only way to fix the problem.

  29. HOF should be an extremely exclusive club, IMO. Didn’t really see any deserving names at this point (1st ballot). Jack Morris? Naw. McGriff? Maybe in 7-8 more years. Lee Smith? What the heck is his career ERA? Eventually Biggio & Piazza? You bet. I would say +5-6 years for the Biggio and 2-3 for Piazza. Joe D didn’t get in until the 4th ballot. On the whole the writers do a good job. But Santo & Perez are examples of overreaching. If they were not great guys, they are not in.

    If Bonds, Clemens, or Sosa never get in, I’ll be satisfied.

    Guys cry when they get inducted for a reason. It is the highest of honors in any Professional Sport, because it is so exclusive. It is not for the very good but only the greatest.

  30. I much prefer that Pete Rose be in teh HOF than out, but understand his personality, his lying, kept him out. In the same vein, Sosa, McGuire, Bonds, Clemens – lie, lie lie. Do steroids shrink more than your balls?

  31. @BenL: I don’t mean to say Bonds accomplishments are worth nothing. But from the time he started taking steroids (when we’ll never know) everything he did was affected. He was already a very good player when it appears he must have started, but all of his “unreal” years were after.

    Maybe he would have continued at his regular pace which would have likely been a HOF career. But you don’t know that. He might have gotten hurt and his last 6-8 years would have been like Griffey’s — 50-100 games with mediocre numbers. Would a career like that have gotten Bonds in the HOF? I don’t know.

    In the end I think the fact that Bonds was just such a huge jerk is the biggest reason he didn’t get the votes. The animosity will fade and eventually he’ll get in. I personally don’t like the guy and wouldn’t vote for him.

  32. @Jared: More important than Bonds being a huge jerk was that he was like the face of what guys accomplished in the steroid era – he has faced years of accusations and controversy (the Balco Scandal) over the issue. Bonds has implied that he hasn’t sought all the attention… but you don’t hit 60+ homeruns if you don’t want any attention, and players usually get attention when they stand out. Denying things only resulted in further suspicion of wrongdoing. I think Bonds will get in eventually, just not yet.

  33. The HoF election rules make it pretty clear why character matters:

    5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

    I’d argue that PED use puts a player’s integrity, sportsmanship and character into question. I’ve never met McGwire or Cobb, so I don’t know who is/was the better babysitter, but I trust Cobb’s statistics more than McGwire’s. Cobb also founded the predecessor of the Ty Cobb Healthcare System, which has probably treated more than a few kids over the years, so maybe he wasn’t as bad as you think.

    It may be true that prior HoF inductees cheated, but that should be more of an indictment of the BBWAA of prior generations. As another commenter noted, the composition of the BBWAA obviously changes through the years; many of the current writers weren’t part of the 1991 vote that selected Gaylord Perry. Rather than blame today’s BBWAA members for historical events not under their control, let’s applaud them for applying the HoF rules as written.

    The editorial argument smacks of the teenage excuse that “everyone’s doing it” and suggests that since all cheating is the same, we should just let it go. Only this time around, there were Congressional hearings, grand jury testimony, and a long-held HR record being shattered with regularity. I’d be interested to know what transgression would be sufficiently dire for you to consider barring a player from the HoF.

    HoF inductions are irreversible, as far as I know, so it’s an asymmetric process. If you induct Bonds today, and discover more damning evidence of his doping tomorrow, he’s still in. If you vote ‘no’ today, though, you can always vote ‘yes’ next year. So the prudent course of action is to wait a few more years, to see if more dirt comes out and to gauge whether public opinion evolves to a clear consensus. I won’t be surprised if Bonds eventually gets in, but I won’t be disappointed if he doesn’t.

  34. @GeorgeFoster: I think the congressional hearings seemed rather teenage to me. Just a bunch of old dudes getting worked up about stuff that has nothing to do with their jobs. Big abuse of power if you ask me.

    As to what would be sufficient, I don’t know. I like the argument that you try to figure out if a player would have been in the HOF if he hadn’t taken steroids and go from there.

    The thing I really take issue with is that a lot – A LOT – of the same writers who are upon their high horses right now absolutely swept this under the rug when it was happening. And then there are the owners and the commissioner’s office. Everyone knew about it. Everyone approved of it. The players are just a scapegoat.

    • Unfortunately two wrongs don’t make a right. Even if someone screwed up in the past, it makes no sense that we condone them screwing up again to somehow make it right. So the writers are hypocritical. Surprise, surprise. I am too and I would guess all of us are at one time or another.

      I’m doubtful McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, and Clemens ever get in but who knows. Standards, universally, are loosened more and more each year.

      The thing I really take issue with is that a lot – A LOT – of the same writers who are upon their high horses right now absolutely swept this under the rug when it was happening. And then there are the owners and the commissioner’s office. Everyone knew about it. Everyone approved of it. The players are just a scapegoat.

  35. I did a search on Tom House and PEDs and there were very few links but one blog posting stated the following, which basically concurs with my thoughts on that particular matter:

    “Tom House is kind of a weirdo who seems to have it out for Hank Aaron. I find it kind of strange that no one other than House has come out to with this 6+7 pitchers per team, if that were really the case. It seems like if everyone and his (or at least Mark McGuire’s) brother can write books about steroids, some middling middle reliever or cash-struck starting pitcher from House’s era would try to make a buck off a book.”

    The evidence maybe be mainly circumstantial, as you state, but is believable enough in a lot of cases.

    I agree that some may have sneaked into the HOF under less than ideal circumstances but that doesn’t mean they vote in others through a wide-open front door. Just my opinion.

  36. House is definitely a little weird. Obviously you can’t just give House the immediate benefit of the doubt. He doesn’t seem Pete Rose-desperate for money, but he could be. But he’s at least somewhat credible. Most players aren’t going to come forward, either out of loyalty, embarrassment, or fear of reprisal. The only reason we know anything about the current guys is basically the fear of committing perjury. Imagine the reaction if someone like Hank Aaron came out and saying he used steroids.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s