I'm pretty sure we'll be declaring many players inelligible for the Hall in that case. The steroid problem probably runs deeper than any of us even know.
Printable View
I'm pretty sure we'll be declaring many players inelligible for the Hall in that case. The steroid problem probably runs deeper than any of us even know.
It's a conspiracy!
I concur...Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
or want to know, MLB knows that if they get one or two scapegoats everyone will be happy, no need to get more just people the fans hate will be enough....Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Good. I'm okay with players having to have a great deal of natural talent and physical gift in order to be eligible for it. 500 isn't a common HR total and wasn't all that common until the 'roid era. Why should the HOF be open to cheaters just because a lot of players cheat? It shouldn't. Everyone who tested positive should be permanently ineligible for Cooperstown. That alone would probably deter a lot of players. Toss in a meaningful suspension for a first offense, permanent for #2, and allow the team to negate any and all monies owed that player, and maybe like the NFL, allow them to go after that player for damages.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
the hall has always been open to cheaters,some known cheaters....Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
This is a different breed of cheater we're talking about. We ain't talking Cobb's penchant for spikes up, dirty ball, here. This is somethng that can't be dealt with on the field by a wary ump.
cheating is cheating...Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
There's little evidence that increased career home run totals have anything to do with steroids.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Throughout history, if you divide it into eras, home run totals are increased and there are always points where you can say "300 home runs isn't a common HR total and wasn't all that common until the X era."
Babe Ruth in 1920 hit more home runs by himself than all but one other team had in total. There's nothing fishy about that, but there is something fishy when the entire league starts hitting more home runs? There are tons of other reasons why home runs have increased - better natural physical conditioning of players, smaller ballparks, changes in the ball, expansion, etc.
Fine. Barry Bonds, you're eligible for the Hall.Quote:
Everyone who tested positive should be permanently ineligible for Cooperstown.
Look, I'm all for instituting penalties for players that test positive for banned substances (as the MLB has done). The problem is going back in time and retroactively applying today's penalties to players that possibly used banned substances at some point when the MLB had no clear-cut rules on the issue, and likely knew what was going on and let it happen to reap the financial benefits.
This "steroid era" is part of baseball history. The players still played on the baseball field, and what they did still is part of the record of play and that cannot be removed.
And what about "greenies"? Everybody seems to ignore this. Do you know how widespread amphetamine use was in the 1960s and 1970s? Should we go back and remove all them from the Hall? How about players that used cocaine, like Tim Raines, should he be prevented from the Hall? These things aren't dealt with "on the field" like other cheating, but they qualify as cheating under the rules today, and after all, if we're going to go back through the steroid era and subject possible users to today's penalties, isn't it only fair to go back throughout all of history and apply today's penalties to players?
Where does the insanity end? Institute penalties now, punish the players that test positive, etc. Don't go on a witch hunt throughout history to prevent entry into the Hall of Fame based on today's rules.
Wow, hey, if you want to close your eyes, stuff your fingers in your ears, and scream LALALALA. Go ahead.
These guys are, or were, playing into the recent penalty phase of 'roids. If the secret's out, they shouldn't be in. McGwire's sorry arse isn't yet in, so no ones removing anyone from the HOF, and there's nothing wrong with keeping them out before they get in. The problem with the whole mess, is that there's some screwed up notion that these druggies shouldn't be punished because they got away with it for so long. It's called personal responsibility, it's a big part of what's missing in all aspects of today's life, and it shouldn't be promoted as all right. These guys did it, they got caught in various ways, and they shouldn't continue to prosper because of it. Joe Jackson was on a HOF path, he got himself into trouble, he got himself thrown out. Pete Rose, same deal. Some other players were arguably on a HOF path and tossed too. Why are today's cheats to be the exception?
There's plenty of evidence that there is a corelation between steroids and increased power and general hitting numbers. You choose to ignore it, is the reason you make statements like:. In the immortal words of the Cleveland GM, "That's ludicrous, get outta my face".Quote:
There's little evidence that increased career home run totals have anything to do with steroids.
Show me the evidence that increased offensive levels are due to steroid use.
You aren't advocating punishing players that were caught. You're advocating punishing players that are suspected of use, or have some circumstantial evidence against them.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Yeah, it is called personal responsibility. And the MLB needs to take responsibility that they let it go on, and did little to nothing to stop it until after the fact. But, I guess they're allowed to go back on that and punish the players that they turned a blind eye to.
You don't think that baseball players have the same internal mechanism that the rest of us do? They don't know right from wrong without MLB telling them what right and wrong are? MLBPA? Who is it that should do the thinking for these guys? It seems that you feel they're incapable of independant thought, or at the least to be treated as if they're mentally incapable of determining right from wrong.
I'm not saying that what they did was right. I'm not saying that they didn't know that what they were doing is wrong. I'm saying that they shouldn't be punished by the very system that turned a blind eye to the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Actually, to sum it up perfectly - Players that have never tested positive should not be punished as though they have.
No, I'm done playing that game with you. You're going to argue in a nearly infinite circle, eventually change the topic or your argument, tell me you're only a kid, and wind up the thread with a lock on it. Nope, not gonna do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Whatever you say. That made no sense, but okay. You're free to make a claim and not back it up with any evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Okay then, they traffic in illicit drugs, import them, deal them, push them, while breaking god only knows how many national and international laws. Who would you rather see nail these scumbags? Yes scumbag is the right term for them. Just because they're rich and famous athletes, doesn't give them immunity from being nothing more than a drug dealing, junkie, low life, cretin.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yes, as are you.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Back on topic, Barry's induction, if he has one, should be interesting. Maybe he'll be in prison for tax evasion by then and be unavailable for it?
I for one am going to completely ignore it. The HOF induction procedure is a joke now anyway. it's all basically meaningless. I'll admire the guys who have been in the hall for 5-10 years or longer, and basically ignore everyone else and everything else going on with it. It's just the same old BS that you two have been blathering about above, anyway.
Who cares, it's not baseball.
Yawn...:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Now about Barry's induction. Do you think they'll do the same to him as Big Mac got? Or will they roll out the red carpet and just ignore what he did after '98/ I think the majority of yes votes will be based on what he did up until 1998. But the whole IRS thing is probably the #1 problem right now, with a close second being the perjury charges being levelled against him. Those may cause him some problems, especially if they end in any amount of jail time.
Yup, "Yawn" is about exactly what I said as well.
As for Barry, I'm all but certain that he'll be treated exactly like Big Mac. LIke I said, the induction process is a joke any more.It's nothing but a bunch of silly reporters who thing that they can somehow "repent" or something for their hero worship and the encouragement that they gave these guys throughout the 1990's. And people wonder why Barry distrusts the media so much...
I agree here. I know it's wishful thinking but a fan voted HOF would be awesome. Thats why I like what Petrel is doing. Giving the fans a voice! Sure it's not official but it is fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
As for Barry.....I don't like him personally, but for his career he did do some great things....sure they might be enhanced and with proof I would change my mine but otherwise let him in and let him alone. Morality in the HOF is moot anyways. I just finished reading about Babe Ruth. The man was a jerk. He's in.
Mark Mcgwire took and admitted taking a legal substance at the time and when it was banned he stopped. He should be in for what he contributed to the game when he played not as Ohms said held out because reporters are trying to Repent.
I think it should be ball players and fans only for HOF voting...
That's the biggest problem I have. It was not legal at the time. MLB hadn't banned it, but MLB doesn't run our legal system. I think that's a pretty weak arguement.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD
So he should be barred entry to the Hall because he broke the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Say goodbye to a bunch of HOFers.
why not kick everyone out of the HOF and have everyone have to be re-elected??Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
No, that silly "it wasn't against the rules" arguement. It really doesn't matter if it wasn't against the rules if it's against the law now does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Why not just slam the door before the rats get in instead of debating whether they should have been allowed in after the fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
I'm not following you. You say he shouldn't be in the Hall. You admit he didn't break the rules. So, it follows that you think he shouldn't in the Hall because he broke the law. Or am I mistaken?Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Becuase the Hall of Fame is meant to chronicle baseball history, not have its door shut after a certain point, while baseball is still going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
No, you're intentionally misrepresenting my statement, and you're not very good at that sort of thing. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'm not intentionally doing anything. I may be misunderstanding you, which is why I'm asking you to clarify.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
The players voting is actually one of the best ideas around, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
Dude, he went and bought the stuff from GNC.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Androstenedione is still available online. The FDA banned it's (over the counter) sale in the US in 2004, only after the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004 was passed.
Even with the above, it's only a schedule III drug. It's still available with a prescription.
Look, I've spoken to bodybuilders, have some in my family, read a lot of the reports. They all tell me that Andro isn't going to make you look like Mac did. That's the result of steroid abuse. These guys know what they're talking about, because some of them did the stuff too.
Anyhow, will Barry see the doors shut on him after the first ballot? How long will the writers make him wait if at all?
Pure speculation. You're obviously free to believe whatever you wish, but I personally wouldn't take the word of a body builder, professional or not, as being truly "expert" (with the obvious exception of those who happen to have a medical degree). There's just to much going on with steroids and the human body for anyone but real experts to carry any real weight on this subject, in my opinion. Even those who actively develop steroids and study their effects can't seem to predict their effect on individuals. Just like most drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
...man, who knows. Big Mac is basically the test case for all of this, and that's only just begun to play out.Quote:
Originally Posted by robinhoodnik
Yep, going to the source is always pure speculation....:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
Think they'll let Mark in this time, or hold him back again?
I think so...