What really bothers me about the NFL is its avoidance of and dancing around the concussion issue and the lip service it pays to caring.

Well I don't know. People who work at Power Plants know that they may be exposed to health defects.

Players back in the day weren't aware of (at least not to the extent) of what an NFL career could do to their body, but they should be now and they're getting millions as opposed to the earlier players.

Other reason uhhhh how about playing 15 or 16 games (whatever it is) a season and taking FOREVER by playing once a week?

Personally, I think Bonds's case may be the biggest tragedy in the history of baseball, if by tragedy you mean one that is self-inflicted (as opposed to someone like Gehrig or Clemente or, say, what happened to Kirby Puckett). Bonds was a first ballot Hall of Famer before he took steroids, but jealousy and hubris too over, and now he will always be tarnished. It's like one of those legends from the Greek myths.

Personally, I think Bonds's case may be the biggest tragedy in the history of baseball, if by tragedy you mean one that is self-inflicted (as opposed to someone like Gehrig or Clemente or, say, what happened to Kirby Puckett). Bonds was a first ballot Hall of Famer before he took steroids, but jealousy and hubris too over, and now he will always be tarnished. It's like one of those legends from the Greek myths.

How does anyone know when Bonds started taking steroids?

Fair point, there's no way to know for sure. But I think most people in baseball believe Bonds did not start taking steroids until sometime after the McGwire/Sosa home run record season. Based on his physique, power surge, and other evidence.

So it sounds like you are equating PED use to cheating. Is that a fair assumption? If so, should those who took greenies or cheated in other manners be banished as well?

The funny thing is that what was taken by most or at least some of the players was COMPLETLEY LEGAL.

I don't remember nor do I care to research whatever McGwire had taken or had admitted to taking but it was 100% legal during his playing career.

So I think there may be that thin line there. They're being ridiculed as Rose is however, what Rose did WAS ILLEGAL and he damn well knew about it.

Exactly! And taking or providing amphetamines without a prescription was a federal crime since 1971. Contrary to what some rosy-colored glass wearers would have you believe, they should be considered as performance enhancing drugs because that is exactly what they did. There are also a number of baseball execs who see them as a bigger problem that steroids as well.

I've posed this question before: If Bonds hit a home run of Clemens, or Clemens struck out Bonds, should that be considered a 'level playing field'? At least if you discounted just those kinds of confrontations, it might make sense. But how do you credit back a strikeout from Clemens to a batter who might not have taken steroids. Or a HR from a pitcher to Bonds. The idea of picking and choosing which records to ignore is just downright silly.

"Simply stating Bonds hit more home runs during his playing career than anyone else in MLB, though this was done during a time of rampant PED and steroid use, including by Bonds himself" or something similar should suffice.

Every locker room in every sport has a sign that says "You bet on (insert sport here) you lose everything.
He did it, he got caught and he got what he deserves. End of story.

He clearly did, but he was equally clearly an obvious HOFer already.

This is not true. What Bonds, McGwire, etc. took was completely illegal. I think what you are confusing is when McGwire was seen as using Andro in 1998 and when it was revealed later that he took other steroids which were not. Mike Piazza is known to have used Andro when it was legal and there is no evidence of his illegal steroid use. He is getting far more hof support than those who are known to have used illegal steroids. It is similar with greenies.

You claim that greenies are illegal has no support. The federal government has to my knowledge never tried to prosecute teams or players on this issue. They have gone after steroids, BALCO, and cocaine, Pittsburgh drug trials. Teams had doctors to prescribe these and amphetamines are easily obtainable legally. They have been prescribed for diet or ADHD and in general are safe to use, unlike steroids.

Those who are charged with determining hof worthiness have determined that gambling, Joe Jackson, and steroids, Bonds and Clemens, are offenses that exclude offenders from the hof. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. Not all offenses are equal, but you want to even include players like Aaron, who admitted to trying greenies once, or Schmidt, who tried them a couple times, with hardcore dopers like Bonds or McGwire. That is what doesn't make sense to me.

Bonds' power surge began in 1993 when he hit more HRs than Willie McCovey and more HRs than Mays, except 1965, ever in Candlestick. And 1994 when he was on pace to break Mays' team record for HRs and teammate Matt Williams was on pace to break Maris' MLB HR record.

The claim that greenies are illegal has "no support"? Seriously? Perhaps you should look at 21 U.S.C. Sections 801 et seq. Amphetamines are a Schedule II controlled dangerous substance. Whether the feds prosecute baseball or those who sell or distribute them without a prescription to do so is wholly irrelevant to that issue of whether that is legal or not.

The "et seq" is key.:D

Either Mays or Aaron described these being available by the handful on communal tables in training rooms. I seriously doubt these were all by prescription.

Yes Android was what I was talking about. I'm unaware of anything he took that was illegal.

Either way I'm not ashamed to say I liked and still like McGwire and Sosa. They did a Shit ton for the sport after a strike and they were pampered and then shit all over after MLB reaped the benefits. For the 98 season alone they'd have my vote well over Rose.

Loved McGwire! I've mentioned this before, but that AS HR contest at Fenway with McGwire at the plate was epic! Just turn down the sound so you don't have to listen to Berman. Agreed that McGwire and Sosa did a ton for the sport, and brought fan and non-fan interest back in the game.

Thank you.

I've long believed that Bonds started doing roids before the 1993 season.

Or maybe he was just a great hitter, who got even better in old age after roiding. Certainly his then live-in said he started after the McGwire Sosa year because he was so pissed off that they were getting all the attention when he was the greater ballplayer.

My two cents
 

Some thoughts:

1) MLB doesn't control the HOF. The Hall can choose to do what it wants or doesn't want with Pete Rose.

2) At the time Rose committed his offenses, the HOF had no policy in place barring those on the lifetime ineligibility list. Voters decided. Shoeless Joe isn't in not because of a policy, but because the voters did not elect him.

3) Rose, arrogantly, probably didn't think not getting into the Hall was an option. The Hall had no policy (as detailed above) when Rose agreed to his ban.

4) Shoeless Joe is dead. His lifetime is over. The Veterans Committee should be able to nominate him if they chose to, correct? (Note - I don't know the exact phrasing of the Hall's policy on banned players.)

5) The Hall could easily tell the story. Induct Rose. Give him a plaque with whatever language tells the story. The Hall could also simply do this and deny Rose an induction weekend appearance and speech. Put him in, but don't give Rose the dais from which to speak. No admittance to the inductee events. Just a press release, without fanfare.

6) As to #5 above, if the PED issues are troublesome, similar procedures could take place allowing the Hall to tell the story, recognize real and artificial excellence, but not allow certain individuals their moment in the limelight. No party for them.

7) As to the past, tell the whole story within the proper context. Plaques can be amended. An entire exhibit could be created showing the evolution of (il)legal enhancements, rule bending/breaking, etc. This would cover modern PEDs, greenies, corked bats, spitballs, sharpened spikes, pine tar, gambling, throwing games, ownership collusion, and anything else that might be in this vein.

As to my personal position, I grew up watching Pete Rose and having him as my childhood athletic idol. I defended him and his actions for years, bought and read his books, had him sign his rookie card at a show in the mid-80s (he checked if it was real). The Hall "protected" itself from the voters by barring Rose from the formal ballot. I get it. I think the story should be told. Put him in.

Thanks for reading.

Mike

I do not believe that this is a "character issue" as many have framed it. There is a very specific rule that, if broken, calls for a permanent ban. It doesn't matter if you are a cup-of-coffee utility infielder or the greatest player in the history of the game. If you wager on baseball in a game in which you have the duty to perform, you are permanently ineligible. Period. To equate this specific infraction to any other moral or legal infraction by any other player in any sport (unless that act has a similar rule governing it) is irrelevant. This is not about whether Pete Rose, or anybody, is a good player or a good person. It is about whether he bet on baseball games in which he had a duty to perform. He did. He's out. Forever.

+1

He was certainly a power hitter and great player pre-1999, but a closer look at the numbers shows a definite surge after 1999.

-His slugging averages pre-1999 range from .416 to a high of .677. Beginning in 1999 it jumps to .688, .863, .799, .749, .812 for the next five years.

-His home runs per at bat rate was one-in-every-16 for the first 14 years of his career, with a high of one-every-10.6 in 1994. Beginning in 1999 it jumps to one-every-8.5 at bats.

-Pre-1999 he had three seasons (out of 13) with 40 or more home runs. Beginning in 1999 he has 5 in a row, including the ridiculous 73 he hit in 2001.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, ALL OF THIS INCREASE COMES WHEN THE HISTORY OF BASEBALL AND ATHLETES INDICATES HE IS WELL PAST HIS PRIME AND OUGHT TO BE DECLINING. His power surge in 1993 was to be expected, based on a strong player coming into his prime. His second surge and best years, though, come after age 35, which, for an every day player, is, quite frankly, unheard of in the history of the game.

There are very few people in the baseball industry who believe he took steroids in the early 90s. There are very few who believe he didn't take them after 1999.