The Princess of Wales has touchingly revealed how she is reassuring her young children amid her battle with cancer after the announcement she is fighting the disease.

The mother-of-three says she and Prince William have explained the situation to their children George, Charlotte and Louis, after the ‘huge shock’ of her diagnosis.

Princess Catherine said had told them she is doing ‘well and getting stronger every day’ and that she was ‘focusing on the things that will help me heal’.

The 42-year-old also revealed that she was comforted by having her husband by her side, and that they were doing ‘everything we can to process and manage this privately for the sake of our young family’.

In a televised address, the future Queen revealed that she had been diagnosed with cancer after undergoing a successful abdominal operation in January, and that doctors have advised her to undergo preventative chemotherapy.

Speaking from a bench surrounded by daffodils and spring blossom, the Princess of Wales revealed her shock diagnosis this evening.

‘I wanted to take this opportunity to say thank you, personally, for all the wonderful messages of support and for your understanding whilst I have been recovering from surgery,’ she said.

‘It has been an incredibly tough couple of months for our entire family, but I’ve had a fantastic medical team who have taken great care of me, for which I am so grateful.’

Kensington Palace has said it will not be sharing details of what kind of cancer the princess has, or what stage of cancer it is and has asked people not to speculate. 

The future Queen revealed that she and her husband have been focusing on their children during this difficult time. 

She said: ‘But, most importantly, it has taken us time to explain everything to George, Charlotte and Louis in a way that is appropriate for them, and to reassure them that I am going to be ok. 

‘As I have said to them; I am well and getting stronger every day by focusing on the things that will help me heal; in my mind, body and spirits. 

‘Having William by my side is a great source of comfort and reassurance too. 

‘As is the love, support and kindness that has been shown by so many of you. It means so much to us both.’

It is understood that the King – who is also currently undergoing cancer treatment himself – and the Queen have both been informed of the news. 

Earlier she revealed that she had been diagnosed with cancer after undergoing a planned operation at The London Clinic two months ago. 

‘In January, I underwent major abdominal surgery in London and at the time, it was thought that my condition was non-cancerous,’ she said.

‘The surgery was successful. However, tests after the operation found cancer had been present. 

‘My medical team therefore advised that I should undergo a course of preventative chemotherapy and I am now in the early stages of that treatment.’

The Princess of Wales added that the news had left the family shaken and they have been coming to terms with her diagnosis in private. 

She said: ‘This of course came as a huge shock, and William and I have been doing everything we can to process and manage this privately for the sake of our young family. 

‘As you can imagine, this has taken time. It has taken me time to recover from major surgery in order to start my treatment.’

Catherine added that she and her family would like privacy while she battles the disease.

She said: ‘We hope that you will understand that, as a family, we now need some time, space and privacy while I complete my treatment. 

‘My work has always brought me a deep sense of joy and I look forward to being back when I am able, but for now I must focus on making a full recovery. 

‘At this time, I am also thinking of all those whose lives have been affected by cancer. 

‘For everyone facing this disease, in whatever form, please do not lose faith or hope. You are not alone.’

This evening’s announcement will send shockwaves around the world and came after weeks of speculation – and wild conspiracy theories – about her health. It also creates a fresh crisis for the British Royal Family at a time where King Charles is also battling cancer. In January Sarah, the Duchess of York, was diagnosed with skin cancer, just six months after being treated for breast cancer.

It comes after sick social media trolls spent weeks spreading wild rumours about her wellbeing as palace aides refused to comment on her recovery from abdominal surgery in January.

The princess is now on what has been described as a ‘recovery pathway’ having commenced a course of chemotherapy in late February.

It is for this reason that Prince William pulled out of a memorial service for his late godfather, King Constantine of Greece.

Kensington Palace has strongly asked people not to speculate on what cancer she has.

However they say that she is in ‘good spirits and focused on her recovery’.

‘She is hugely grateful to the medical team for the care they are providing to her,’ a spokesman said.

‘She now needs time, space and privacy to complete her treatment and make a full recovery.’

It is understood that the announcement was made tonight not because of unpleasant social media speculation about her health and whereabouts – although that has been upsetting and unpleasant – but because her children, Prince George, 10, Princess Charlotte, eight, and Prince Louise, five, broke up from school today, which gave them the opportunity to take them away privately and protect them from the inevitable public shock.

A spokesman for the princess said: ‘We will not be sharing any further private medical information. The Princess has a right to medical privacy, as we all do.’

However her spokesman confirmed: ‘The Princess is now on a recovery pathway having commenced a course of preventative chemotherapy…in late February.’

The palace will not confirm how long her treatment is expected to last and has asked the media and public not to speculate.

It also said it would not confirm where her treatment would be taking place, a spokesman adding: ‘We will not be sharing any further private medical information. The Princess has a right to medical privacy, as we all do.’

Asked when the princess was given the news by her doctors, a spokesman explained: ‘Once post-operative tests had been completed and results reviewed.’

They added: ‘The Princess wanted to share this information when she and The Prince felt it was right for them as a family. ‘

A source said it had been ‘an incredibly tough couple of months for the entire family’ and it had been important for the princess to come to terms with her diagnosis, to recover form her surgery and begin her pathway to recovery.

Throughout this period the couple’s children have been her priority.

It is understood that William and Kate wanted to tell their children at a time that was right for them and to allow them to understand and process the news before it became public.

With the children having broken up from Lambrook School today for the Easter holidays this afternoon, they decided that now was the right time to share the statement.

Sources say their concern recently, despite global and social media speculation, was to put Catherine’s health and their children first.

It is now hoped, aides said, the speculation around the princess comes to a stop.

Catherine is apparently determined to go about her normal routine, which she sees as an important part of her recovery, and has asked for people to respect her privacy. 

Gwen Stefani gave her 10-year-old son Apollo a history lesson when he asked about her upcoming music performance at Coachella.

“I literally had to be in bed with Apollo and he said, 'But Mom, what is Coachella? Everyone says it. What is this? It sounds like it's a big deal,” Gwen, 54, recalled People on Friday, January 26. (The “Hollaback Girl” singer shares sons Kingston, 17, Zuma, 15, and Apollo with ex-husband Gavin Rossdale.)

“So we had to watch the 'Don't Speak' video, and he said, 'But wait, which one was your boyfriend?' It was so weird and so funny. I literally had to tell him every band member,” she said, referring to her ex-boyfriend and bandmate Tony Channel.

Gwen will reunite with her No Doubt bandmates at Coachella in April, more than a decade since the band's last hiatus. Days before the music festival's official announcement, the band sparked reunion rumors when they had a video chat and teased an upcoming performance.

'I'm going to do a show! Do you want to do a show?” Gwen asked Kanal, 53, and other members Adrian Young And Tom Dumont. (She co-founded No Doubt with her brother in 1986 Erik Stefaniwho left the band in 1995, and John Spencewho died by suicide in 1987. Kanal, Young, 54, and Dumont, 56, joined the group before their debut album was released in 1992.)

The band rose to popularity in the 1990s, with Gwen emerging as the group's breakout star. Gwen has continued to pursue her own music career and has released four solo albums since 2004.

No Doubt last traveled for them in 2012 Seven night stand tour, but went on an official hiatus the following year. While Gwen was seemingly never against a No Doubt reunion, she previously expressed her uncertainty about whether that was possible.

“I don't know what's going to happen with No Doubt. When Tony and I connect creatively, it's magic. But I think we've grown apart in terms of the kind of music we want to make,” she explained Rolling stone in 2016. “I was really exhausted and burned out when we recorded [2012’s Push and Shove]. And I had a lot of guilt: 'I have to do it.' That's not the right setting to make music. There's some really great writing on that record. But the production felt really contradictory. It was sad that we all waited so long to release something and it wasn't followed up.”

Thousands of protesters armed with Aboriginal flags and 'Black Rights Matter' signs swarmed the streets of cities across the country on Friday to call for changes to Australia Day.

For many Indigenous Australians, the holiday's celebration on January 26 – the date Britain's First Fleet arrived at Sydney Cove in 1788 – is a painful reminder of the devastating impact of colonization on their people and culture.

While supporters of the “Invasion Day” movement are divided over whether the date should simply be changed or whether the holiday should be abolished, protesters are united in their message to those who continue to celebrate the day.

Speaking to Daily Mail Australia, protesters attending the Sydney rally said those commemorating the holiday were disrespectful to Indigenous Australians and needed to 'wake up'.

“We must recognize the impact that colonialism has on indigenous people,” said Marco Mannering.

“Wake up and ask questions.

'Australia Day is a day for reflection on the genocide against indigenous people.'

Ruby Bagnell, whose family are from the Wiradjuri people of central NSW, said many people did not seem to understand the atrocities Aboriginal people have faced since colonization.

“People need to educate themselves about the significance of Australia Day for Indigenous people,” she said.

In recent years, Izzy Pisanos has celebrated the holiday by attending protests.

She said she believes there are still many social issues that need to be addressed before the country is ready to celebrate a day that should symbolize national unity.

“We have a lot of problems in Australia and I don't think we should celebrate this day,” she said.

“All my friends are indigenous. I just wanted to show my support [by attending the protest].'

Tanaka Nhongo was born in Zimbabwe and grew up in South Africa before later moving to Australia.

He experienced oppression during Apartheid and came to the protest to show his support for First Nations people as they continue to fight racial inequality in their homeland.

“I have been detained several times… I know what oppression looks like,” he said.

“The physical presence here (at this protest) is important to me.”

He said he did not believe people would be deterred from supporting Invasion Day, despite the country voting overwhelmingly 'No' to the Voice referendum.

Mr Nhongo said it was surprising that so many Australians still seemed unaware of the mistreatment of Aboriginal people.

He hopes that by standing up for what he believes in and for the rights of others, he will inspire his children.

“You don't have to be someone who comes from an oppressed society to tell people about the injustices of indigenous people,” he said.

'I want my son to know that we as an oppressed people can only be strong and that we don't need others to stand up for us.

'There is always room for compassion and recognition of the mistakes committed in the past.'

While Invasion Day proponents are all united in their call for change to Australia Day, there is still debate within the campaign over whether a different date should be chosen to celebrate the diversity of modern Australia.

Ms Bagnell and Mr Mannering would like to see Australia Day scrapped entirely.

“I don't think we should celebrate Australia Day,” Ms Bagnell said.

“I prefer to call it Invasion Day.”

The 'Invasion Day' movement has escalated in recent years as more and more protesters take to the streets of capital cities during the holiday to show their support for Indigenous Australians.

For First Nations people, colonization has left an indelible mark on their history – including the state-sanctioned mass killings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the forced removal of children from their parents between the mid-1800s and the 1970s.

The lingering impacts continue to affect Indigenous Australians, who suffer from inequalities such as poverty, poor health/nutrition, housing, low education levels, high unemployment and lower life expectancy compared to the rest of the community.

Major companies have also begun to rethink their branding strategies as the Invasion Day movement continues to gain momentum.

Earlier this month, Woolworths sparked controversy after announcing it would no longer sell Australia Day merchandise.

The company cited a “gradual decline in demand” and “broader discussions around January 26 and what this means for different parts of the community” as reasoning.

Aldi followed suit, revealing days later that it would also not have Australian-themed merchandise in its dedicated buying section this year.

Mr Manning, Ms Pisanos and Ms Bagnell welcomed the decision.

“F*** yes,” said Ms. Pisanos.

13YARN 13 92 76

Aboriginal Advisory Services 0410 539 905

Look, we get it.

The Baseball Hall of Fame is a breathtaking idea. It’s a celebration. It’s a history lesson. It’s a pilgrimage. The museum in Cooperstown is home to heroes and memories and the posters on our walls. The very notion can fill a fan with wonder, and actually being there feels like going to church, and the Louvre, and Game 7 of the World Series, all at once.

And so, we care a great deal about who gets in and who does not. Passion and debate come with the territory. In press boxes and clubhouses and postgame hotel bars, we debate these decisions among ourselves. We get it.

You’re not going to agree with all of our ballots. You’re not supposed to. This process is built around people with different opinions coming to an overwhelming consensus without establishing a definitive answer to what makes a Hall of Famer.

This year, I’m serving as president of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America, and I’m confident that the vast majority of my colleagues view Hall of Fame voting as one of the great privileges and responsibilities of the job. It’s an honor to play a role in the process. It takes 10 years of BBWAA membership to become a Hall of Fame voter, and last year 389 ballots were submitted. It takes a 75 percent majority for a player to be elected. Each ballot, therefore, is a tiny piece — a little more than one-quarter of 1 percent — of the final product. We all have our say, but no one person tips the scales. The process is built on differing opinions.

Here, we’ve collected some of the ballots — and some of the internal thinking — of many of The Athletic’s Hall of Fame voters. As you can see, we disagree even among ourselves. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. — Chad Jennings

---

Daniel Barbarisi’s ballot

Carlos Beltrán, Adrián Beltré, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Joe Mauer, Billy Wagner

Looking at Mauer’s career numbers in aggregate — .306/.388/.439, 143 homers, 428 doubles, amassed over 923 games at catcher, 603 at first base, 310 at DH — it strikes me that he is one of those odd cases where the whole isn’t actually greater than the sum of its parts. The whole is excellent in its own right — those are good numbers. They’re even Hall of Fame numbers, with the right context. But they don’t fully do justice to the individual pieces that comprise it, those superlative seasons early in his career that couldn’t possibly have come from a man playing his position.

Remember what a unicorn he was? Back when he was hitting .328 and .347 and then finally .363 as a catcher, with respectable-to-excellent slugging through that whole period. Mauer and the obviously dissimilar stolen base threat Jason Kendall are always paired up a bit in my mind because they both reside in the neighborhood of “Guys who do things catchers aren’t supposed to do.”

And then he stopped doing so many of those things, and stopped being a catcher really at all, and without that all-important context for a while it felt like everybody had been robbed of watching something special; Mauer at first base was a pale imitation. Safe to say we didn’t understand head injuries well enough then, certainly still don’t, but it’s hard not to wonder how long he could have kept up that brilliant production from the catcher’s spot if injuries hadn’t been an issue.

Grading on a curve when it comes to injuries is tricky — who’s to say what this or that player could have been if it were not for some injury or another, and so it’s cleaner just to say what they actually were. But in Mauer’s case, that’s clear: a special hitter and excellent defensive catcher and pitch framer whose numbers put him among the very best to ever play a demanding position. To me, that’s an easy vote. My semi-informed guess is that Mauer doesn’t get in this year, but hopefully his time is coming soon, if only for a chance to remember how high the highs were.

---

Daniel Brown’s ballot

Carlos Beltrán, Adrián Beltré, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Joe Mauer, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner

As a fan of the Hall of Fame Tracker operated by Ryan Thibodaux (aka @NotMrTibbs on X), I’ve seen how his followers hate “drops” — voting for a player one year but not the next. The justifiably snarky joke is, “I guess (candidate) had a terrible year.” Har-har. For the record, I plan on voting for Bobby Abreu again next year, as he ranks 21st all-time in JAWS among right fielders, sandwiched between Hall of Famers Dave Winfield (20th) and Vladimir Guerrero (22nd). But I dropped Abreu this year as part of some strategic voting. There are players who need every checked box they can get to clear the 75 percent threshold (Sheffield, Wagner) and others who need to generate momentum as their years on the ballot wane. I surprised myself by voting so enthusiastically for Utley, but his JAWS ranks 12th all-time among second basemen and his WAR-7 (the sum of a player’s seven best WAR seasons) trails only Rodriguez among players on the ballot this year.

---

Steve Buckley’s ballot

Carlos Beltrán, Adrián Beltré, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Joe Mauer, Andy Pettitte, Gary Sheffield, Billy Wagner

The early returns suggest Beltrán won’t be getting into the Hall of Fame this year. That’s the bad news for those of us who believe he belongs in Cooperstown. The good news? He’ll likely get the call in the next two, three or four years. And he darned well better get that call, or else I’m going to be setting a world record for being a broken record.

As I wrote last year, and will do so again next year, Beltrán has already been punished for his role in the 2017 Houston Astros sign-stealing scandal. And the punishment was a whopper: Hired later to manage the New York Mets, he never even made it to spring training. When the sign-stealing verdict came in, Beltrán was out as manager of the Mets.

A.J. Hinch, former Astros manager, sat out during a one-year suspension and then was hired to manage the Detroit Tigers. Alex Cora, the former Astros bench coach who in 2018 managed the Red Sox to a World Series championship, also was handed a one-year suspension after he had already stepped away as Boston’s manager via one of those mutual-parting-of-ways deals.

But Red Sox upper management was practically in tears after making the announcement, all but telegraphing that Cora would be back in 2021. Which is exactly what happened.

Fair enough. Hinch and Cora paid dearly, even if, OK, their punishment was sitting out the 2020 pandemic season. By whatever means one measures their culpability and the ensuing punishments, they should have been invited to return.

And yet here’s Beltrán, stuck in Fly Creek — which is my way of saying he’s just outside of Cooperstown. (Fly Creek, N.Y., is only a few miles from Cooperstown.)

Admittedly, we could remove the cheating scandal from the discussion and Beltrán would not be a Willie Mays-like Hall of Fame lock. But he combined power (435 home runs) with speed (312 stolen bases), won three Gold Glove awards, had 70.1 career WAR according to Baseball Reference (identical to Hall of Famers Gary Carter and Scott Rolen), and … let’s stop there because, again, it’s not stats that are keeping Beltrán out of the Hall. It’s bats, or whatever the Astros were using when they banged on trash barrels to pass along the other teams’ signals.

A year ago, I characterized the Astros’ sign-stealing caper as something you might have expected in a 1930s “Little Rascals” short but not in big-league baseball. This year I’m breaking up the routine by suggesting it was something you might have seen in a 1930s Marx Brothers movie, only with Harpo squeezing some kind of horn to relay the signals, and actor Edgar Kennedy as MLB commissioner Rob Manfred doing a slow burn after discovering the scheme. Now unless your name is Ben Mankiewicz of Turner Classic Movies, you probably have no idea what I’m talking about. But that’s the entire point: What the Astros did was something out of old-timey Hollywood slapstick, and it cheapened the game.

Beltrán paid a price for that. He shouldn’t have to pay for the rest of his life.

---

Marc Carig’s ballot

Carlos Beltrán, Adrián Beltré, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Joe Mauer, Gary Sheffield, Billy Wagner

My holdovers from last year include Sheffield, Beltrán, Jones, Helton, and Wagner, the ahead-of-his-time strikeout machine. Both Mauer and Beltré got my vote in their first year of eligibility. Beltré’s inclusion is about as clear-cut as it gets. And upon reflection so was Mauer’s. Though injury forced him to first base for the end of his career, Mauer dominated during his prime as a catcher. He racked up six All-Star appearances, three batting titles and an American League MVP — feats made more impressive because he did this all while still toiling behind the dish.

Not on the list for now: Chase Utley. With 1,885 hits, Utley finished short of the 2,000-hit mark that serves as a bit of an unofficial threshold for entry into Cooperstown. He also didn’t rack up the accolades (Gold Gloves, MVPs, etc.) that you’d expect from a Hall of Famer. That said, Utley’s career arc was atypical. Also, his peak seasons at second base were awfully impressive. Utley was just short of inclusion. Of course, I once felt that way about Jones, Helton and Wagner.

Over time, I reconsidered. I suspect that one day this might also be the case with Utley.

Two candidacies I am unlikely to reconsider: Alex Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez. While other players have been the subject of whispers and speculation regarding steroid use, I put Rodriguez and Ramirez in a distinct category. Both served multiple suspensions for violating the league’s performance-enhancing drugs policy, and both ran afoul of those rules after the sport’s reckoning with PEDs. In my mind, this is different from mere whispers and speculation, or even being named in a report.

---

Chad Jennings’ ballot

Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltrán, Adrián Beltré, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Joe Mauer, Gary Sheffield, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner, David Wright

As a general rule, my Hall of Fame voting tends toward peak over longevity. Jones has always been an easy choice for me, and in the past I thought long and hard about Cliff Lee before deciding the peak was just too short to check his box. That personal preference probably explains much of my ballot this time around.

With research, Mauer became an easier choice than even I expected, and my real-time belief that Utley was a Hall of Famer was only reinforced looking back at his 10-year run of excellence. I covered Utley in Triple A in 2003 and ’04, but I shouldn’t have. He lost two years on the front end of his career because the Phillies inexplicably would not commit to him. His career numbers should speak for themselves more than they do.

Wright, though, was a hard one. His career was just so much shorter than the usual Hall of Fame standard. I left an open spot on my ballot for a week, reading, researching and asking friends for advice before I finally checked the box after seeing Thibodaux’s excellent Hall of Fame tracker had Wright far too close to falling off the ballot (if he received less than 5 percent of the vote). As with Abreu, I can’t say with absolute certainty that Wright belongs in Cooperstown, but I’m confident his inclusion would not diminish the Hall of Fame. For nine years, he was an essential part of the game, and he spent much of the next decade trying like hell to return from a back injury that just wouldn’t let up. When I take my sons to Cooperstown, I won’t hesitate to tell them his story alongside so many others who have been enshrined.

---

David O’Brien’s ballot

Carlos Beltrán, Adrián Beltré, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Joe Mauer, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner

When I checked a few days into January, there were four candidates named on at least 80 percent of writers’ Hall of Fame ballots that had been revealed, according to the tracker that Thibodaux and his staff update — Beltré, Helton, Mauer and Wagner, in that order.

I voted for each of those four along with Jones (10 consecutive Gold Gloves while averaging 34 homers and 103 RBIs per season from 1998-2007), Beltrán and Utley.

This will be my 30th year covering MLB as a beat writer, and I saw each of these players in his prime. That’s not to say I know more than any others who vote or more than attentive fans. But I know which players I saw who looked like future Hall of Famers, and by weighing my observations with copious statistics available on every player and also considering many discussions with players, coaches and managers about whom they believe to be Hall of Famers, I think I have a pretty good handle on which players are Cooperstown-worthy.

I do, however, have a stronger anti-performance-enhancing drugs stance than some voters, and that’s caused the most difficult situation of my time as a voter: leaving Gary Sheffield off my ballot. To be clear, I covered Sheffield as a beat writer both when he played for the Marlins and the Braves, and I rank him with Chipper Jones and Freddie Freeman as the greatest hitters on any teams I’ve covered in my career. (Ronald Acuña Jr. will move into that group if he keeps up his current career pace, and perhaps surpass them all.)

Sheffield has tremendous stats — first-ballot Hall stats — and I believe he would’ve been a Hall of Famer without PEDs. I also tend to believe him when he says that his use of steroid creams and whatnot while working out with Barry Bonds was more a dalliance — he says it was by accident, which I do find hard to believe — than the deep dive into PEDs that I’m convinced Bonds, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez and others took. But the fact that Sheffield was connected to PEDs in a report is enough to make me not vote for him, and he’ll likely fall short of 75 percent this year in his 10th and final year on the ballot.

As much as I liked covering him and admired him as a player, I kept him off my ballot each year because if I made an exception for Sheffield, I can’t justify not doing so for some others. Then I’d also get caught up in weighing evidence and timelines and whether a player tested positive or used before or after MLB cracked down on PEDs. Fact is, using steroids without a prescription was illegal in the United States well before baseball created stiff penalties for it. Players always knew it was wrong to use them, that it was cheating, or else they would’ve done so openly. If they didn’t know it was cheating, they should have.

Banging on trash cans as part of a team-wide sign-stealing scandal is one thing; Beltrán was great for nearly two decades before that 2017 season when the Astros cheated during home games of his age-40 season, the last and worst year of his career. He’s also paid a price, getting fired by the Mets before he’d managed even one game. But changing one’s actual body composition through banned substances, adding massive amounts of muscle early or midway through a career — or late in one’s career when it would normally be in decline — is another thing entirely.

It allowed Bonds, already a great player before steroids, to become an otherworldly offensive machine from his mid-30s through age 42, and to rewrite and completely distort the record books, setting artificially enhanced marks that blew away many once-hallowed records, and making most career and single-season power-hitting standards all but meaningless, since most of those records will never be broken. That’s just wrong, and steroid enhancement should not be rewarded with a Hall of Fame vote.

PED-implicated players are featured throughout the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown because it’s a museum and they were part of the game. And that’s fine. But it doesn’t mean they should have a bronze plaque there.

---

C. Trent Rosecrans’ ballot

Carlos Beltrán, Adrián Beltré, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Joe Mauer, Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner

This is my 10th Hall of Fame ballot as a voter, a significant number for a pair of reasons:

• Ten is the number of years it takes as an active BBWAA member to earn a Hall vote, which means I’ve been a member and voting as long as I was a member and not voting. That means I’m old. But it also means I’ve done this a time or two and I’ve more or less settled on a philosophy. On my first ballot, in 2015, I thought about trying to guess how others were voting and worried about the bottom of the ballot. That approach would mean I wouldn’t vote for no-doubt Hall of Famers Pedro Martinez and Randy Johnson. The thought of not voting for them shaped my theory, which brings us to the other reason 10 is important …

• The rule of 10. The Hall of Fame limits voters to 10 selections per ballot. This is not a BBWAA rule, but a Hall of Fame rule. As a group, the BBWAA has asked to either take away the governor or increase the limit. Both requests were denied by the Hall of Fame. That means the rule of 10 stands and it has been a major factor in all 10 of my ballots.

So, with all that said, sorry Bobby Abreu. I believe Abreu is a Hall of Famer. I voted for him last year and in a perfect world, I’d have voted for him before (and after) then.

Alas, there are just 10 spots. The process I’ve settled on is to rank the players and draw a line at 10. I don’t necessarily vote for all 10, but all those who pass that imaginary Hall of Fame line, whether it is after two or 15, get (or would get, if there were no rule of 10) a check mark.

And so here we are. I’m not exactly sure where the Hall threshold should be, but I know Abreu is above the line and he’s No. 11 on my list, so no check mark.

Like when voting for MVP, it seems like the bottom of the list is more difficult than the top (well, once you make a decision on PEDs — my belief is all that I know is what happened on the field and the numbers reflect that. While I know some players used PEDs, I don’t know if their competitors did. In the end, MLB still counts the games they played in and their results. So, yeah, Rodriguez was the best player in the game; he gets a check from me, as does Ramirez, like Bonds and Clemens before them).

Anyway, there’s a strange line between Wagner — No. 10 on my list — and Abreu. It’s nearly impossible to compare a reliever and an outfielder, but that’s the exercise and in the end, there’s a leap of faith in my head that puts Wagner just ahead of Abreu, so Wagner gets a check and Abreu doesn’t. Yes, relievers and outfielders are apples and oranges, but the assignment is to compare apples, oranges, watermelons, grapes and the rest of the fruits. If neither player is elected this year, both should be on the ballot next year and it’s possible both get a check a year from now or neither do. That’s not because their careers have changed, but because the competition has. The Hall of Fame can stop this and employ the Binary Ballot (I’m not sure if Derrick Goold of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has trademarked the idea of a simple yes/no vote for all players, but he should), but they haven’t yet and I don’t expect them to in the future.

That’s where we are today, as I make my (left-handed) check marks on a piece of white paper.

You can read all sorts of explainers on why a player deserves one of these check marks, and all are valid. I respect many points of view, but in the end, I lean on the theory that I am a voter, not a selector. I vote and I’d rather vote for someone worthy than not vote for someone worthy. Sadly, the rule of 10 takes that out of my hands. So, yeah, I’m sorry Bobby.

---

Eno Sarris’ ballot

Bobby Abreu, Carlos Beltrán, Adrián Beltré, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Joe Mauer, Gary Sheffield, Chase Utley, Billy Wagner

In a sure-to-fail attempt at brevity, instead of addressing each of my votes, I thought I’d just bullet point the general thought process that begat the selections.

• I believe in being at least as inclusive as we’ve been for previous generations. We’ve voted in fewer and fewer players as a percentage of the whole with every passing decade — down from 2 percent to 3 percent of the whole to around 1.5 percent, as Mike Petriello showed on MLB.com in 2020 — and no matter what you think of the modern game and its training methods, it doesn’t sit right with me to think that players are worse now.

• I believe that before MLB had a testing policy in place in the 2004 season, league leadership was complicit in the steroid issue (the commissioner of the era, Bud Selig, is in the Hall of Fame, and that seems significant), and I’m more lenient toward players in that bucket. After testing was in place, players knew the stakes, and the numbers that I use to judge them are in question.

• I believe in wins above replacement as a framework because it’s unique in its ability to bring together all facets of the game into one number. I also consult Jay Jaffe’s JAWS system because it considers the relationship between a player’s peak abilities and their longevity. I don’t believe batting average or hits (alone) are of outsized importance within the context of all the things a player can do, and stats like RBIs and runs are typically influenced by the team’s situation.

• That said, I believe in offensive stats over defensive stats, since the former have been proven to be more reflective of true talent and the latter have only recently begun improving rapidly. A player like Jimmy Rollins — who was, by some measures, below average with the bat compared to the league when he was in it — has to have all-time elite defense to get my vote.

• I believe league trends in player usage are pushing us away from the volume that used to give players the chance to rack up the traditional benchmarks. A starting pitcher without 250 wins, a position player without 2,000 hits — I’m just not sure these things bother me as much as they might have bothered other members of the electorate in the past.

• I believe that relievers should be compared to relievers. In overall production, relievers pale against their counterparts. But if we ignore the position because of that fact, we dismiss a whole class of players who are currently throwing around half the innings in a given season.

• I believe that a player can be an elite accumulator. Consider someone like Abreu, who, as some people rightly point out, was never a top-five player in the league — in one season. But by being so consistently excellent from 1998 to 2004, he was actually the fifth-best player over that time frame. Posting matters.

Well, so much for being concise. I tried!

---

Keith Law’s ballot: Carlos Beltrán, Adrián Beltré, Todd Helton, Andruw Jones, Alex Rodriguez, Gary Sheffield, Chase Utley

---

Hall of Fame ballot columns from The Athletic

• Rosenthal: Why Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley are both on my Hall of Fame ballot

• Kepner: Explaining my Hall of Fame ballot — a celebration of greatness

Note: Jayson Stark’s ballot column will be published next week. 

---

More Hall of Fame coverage

(Top image photos: Joe Mauer: Larry Goren / ICON SMI / Corbis/ Getty Images; Adrián Beltré: Jeff Gross / Getty Images; Carlos Beltrán: George Gojkovich / Getty Images)

A writer has accused GP practices of ‘treating women like idiots’ after making them explain how they know they are not pregnant when booking an appointment.

Alice Vinten, from Essex, a former police officer turned writer, took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to share a screenshot of her attempt to book a doctor’s appointment online.

The form asked, “How do you know you’re not pregnant?” For example, if you are using birth control, you have not had vaginal sex with a man since your last period or you have had a negative pregnancy test in the past 24 hours.”

Alice filled out the form and wrote: ‘I am a 42 year old woman who does not need to explain to you why I know I am not pregnant. I know,” she wrote.

Alongside the tweet, Alice said: ‘Can all GP practices please stop treating women like idiots and asking them to explain how they know they are not pregnant. This question really f****s me. “I know I’m not pregnant, that should be enough of an answer.”

Dozens of women responded that they felt the same way, but several medical professionals said this was to protect the patient.

‘Frustrating for you, but essential for us. I have seen a woman who denied she was pregnant and then went into cardiac arrest due to a bleeding ectopic uterus. Absolutely terrifying experience for everyone. However, we don’t really have much say in how these questionnaires are designed,” said one doctor.

‘Wouldn’t this question still have helped? Also, this is a question I have to answer *every time* I want to contact the practice or request a GP appointment, as they are no longer taking calls for appts,” Alice replied.

Another wrote, “I recently had to ask a patient about a prescription I was issuing for antivirals and their response made me smile so much (she understood why)…. ‘I’m a raving homosexual…it’s the best form of contraception’ unfortunately the form didn’t have that option for me to check!’

“There’s no need to answer so rudely, though! This looks like a generic form, there may be women who need to double check this and this would prompt them to do so, but it is clearly a double check as it may change the care/treatment you receive!’ said another.

‘I am a midwife and have cared for a number of women (from very young to 45 years old) who either discovered they were pregnant late, or when they pushed out a baby at home (usually the bathroom). For some it was a first pregnancy, for some it was a second pregnancy. It’s not stupid Q,” one added.

“Every time I’m asked this question, and I’m a lot older than you, I always say ‘coincidence would be nice,’” another added. “Don’t worry so much about something so trivial.”

‘Wow. 500 words allowed for the explanation!’ said another.

‘I understand why this is annoying, but there have been cases where people have had no idea they were pregnant and even had bleeding that they thought was menstruation. More of a duty of care than anything,” wrote another.

‘My favorite is when they ask if I’m likely to be pregnant and I say no, and then they ask when my last period was and I have to explain to them that my contraception means I don’t have them. THE HORROR (and lecture) every time,” another added.

‘Yes, or also for women who mainly have relationships with women; this question would require them to explicitly state that. It infantilizes all women and does not explicitly trust them to be in control of their own affairs,” said another.

‘I was 53 and in hospital for surgery for a broken ankle. I was asked if I was pregnant and I said no. They still made me take a urine test to prove it. Still completely amazed by this!

I have been having problems with my ribs for a year! I was asked if I could be pregnant.. I no, I was born without a uterus.. doctor.. okay, we still have to do a pregnancy test to confirm this. ..I had to walk out of the emergency room before I exploded.

I had to sign a waiver before surgery because I refused to take a pregnancy test as a 51 year old woman who had been in chemical menopause for 20+ years with severe adenomyosis and PCOS. Good grief.

If there is an ongoing reason why you are not pregnant, they should be able to record this in your records so that you do not have to be asked every time. A little thing that can save a lot of trauma for some.

I once saw someone answer this question with “20 years of lesbianism makes me pretty sure I’m not pregnant”