Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens don’t have the integrity, sportsmanship or

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Seven

Aaron Took amphetamines once so I guess the record reverts to Ruth? Oh wait Ruth injected himself with sheep testosterone, so Mays is the record holder I guess? Oh wait Mays took liquid amphetamines during his days with the Mets, guess it's not his record either. We should just give it back to Roger Conner at this rate.

No one is a saint in this sport, almost all of the greats have done something wrong either on or off the field. Performance Enhancing Drugs have been apart of the game for a better portion of it's existence, and will continue to be apart of it, going forward.

Keep digging. One can find something if they truly wish to.

I stand by my previous post.

Cheers.

Butch Turner

[ClementeFanOh]

Bonds, Sosa, etc in the Hall or not? The debate that won't die, appearing in
multiple recent threads...

I'll start by saying everyone gets an opinion. The problem is that someone's
right to opinion, does not carry with it a right of legitimacy. Anyone who
tries to equate caffeine pills with back room HGH injections and physically
mutated players, is a person who is desperately trying to make his own
bias work. Sosa was a horrid outfielder and even worse teammate, whose
15 minutes of "fame" is directly tied to PEDs and cork. He's a joke, a
sideshow.

I get the feeling that many posters somehow feel that their fandom, as it
was tied to the fake home run race of 98 and fake HR totals after, has been
cheapened. Those fans don't like it- they want their time, their energy, their
passion to be worth something. Problem is you were wrong, it was a sham.
So, to mitigate this let down, people justify the cheating because it
somehow makes it easier to live with inside. I'm lucky that I was never a
fan of these dudes or their teams- it would stink for sure. But the truth is
they were sneaky, malicious, self serving at the expense of others- and
TOTALLY outside MLB's bylaws. The argument for PED guys is pretzel logic.

Trent King

[bnorth]

I think it is so sweet when people think their favorite player didn't cheat or only took caffeine(LOL) pills.

[ClementeFanOh]

Ben North- we have agreed more than once in the past, I am disappointed
at your take...

To put a bow on this, I'll reveal that I am an Ohio State football fan. There is
a LOT to be proud of as an OSU fan. There are also, however, realities that
I'm not proud of (Woody Hayes staying too long and going out ingloriously,
Jim Tressel lying to NCAA, Urban Meyer's transgressions, etc). The difference
is that I won't sugarcoat them...

So, you can lose the snarky remark about how it's "sweet" how others
think their favorites are somehow perfect. Your argument/logic is faulty. I
didn't say it, didn't even imply it, and don't believe it. Odds are you are a
McGwire/Bonds homer (yes, that was on purpose) and are butthurt that
their undeniable (important!) cheats have been exposed. Don't care to read
your exposition or deflections of the point. The steroid boys went WAY out
of bounds, got caught with their pants down, and now fanboys are doing
everything they can to normalize the behavior. Hard pass. Trent King

[seanofjapan]

To me it makes zero sense to be excluding Bonds and Clemens from the hall due to PED, it’s just a no brainer that they should be in regardless based on their accomplishments.

That said, I don’t think PED is irrelevant to Hall consideration in some cases. It’s really a question of how much weight is put on that factor, which I don’t think should be so high as to offset the accomplishments of a Barry Bonds. It seems it should really just be a major factor in those cases where you’ve got a borderline candidate, Where PED use could be a significant factor in excluding them. Like Jose Canseco, who without the PED use might have had a shot, I think it makes sense to take that as a factor that moves him solidly into the “no” column.

Bonds and Clemens are just so far beyond that level though that it doesn’t make sense to be barring them though.

It’s a tougher question for guys like Palmeiro and McGwire though, a fair bit lower on the achievement scale than Bonds/Clemens, but also high enough above a Canseco that they can’t be so easily dismissed.

[ClementeFanOh]

seanofjapan- you are right that Bonds/Clemens certainly had HOF level
potential prior to PED use, when they were younger. The problem is that the
use makes folks wonder if the PEDs put them over the top from "hall of
very good" to "Hall of Fame". The blatant PED abuse causes voters to
hesitate- for VERY good reason.

A side issue is that, as also was mentioned earlier, the voting process itself
is skewed. Sadly, I do think a number of players who were utterly dependent
on PED use, will eventually make it due to the uneven nature of the voting
process. I mean, Harold Baines somehow got in, right? It's probably a matter
of time before "the clear and the cream" crowd slithers it's way in. Trent King

[ClementeFanOh]

Clarification- before I get mauled by White Sox/Baines fans, I was NOT
suggesting that Harold Baines used PEDs. My point is that the HOF voting
itself sometimes allows for a questionable admission- which I think most
serious fans consider him to be. So, if Baines can make it in, then it's
possible the PED guys can as well. Trent King

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

seanofjapan- you are right that Bonds/Clemens certainly had HOF level
potential prior to PED use, when they were younger. The problem is that the
use makes folks wonder if the PEDs put them over the top from "hall of
very good" to "Hall of Fame". The blatant PED abuse causes voters to
hesitate- for VERY good reason.

A side issue is that, as also was mentioned earlier, the voting process itself
is skewed. Sadly, I do think a number of players who were utterly dependent
on PED use, will eventually make it due to the uneven nature of the voting
process. I mean, Harold Baines somehow got in, right? It's probably a matter
of time before "the clear and the cream" crowd slithers it's way in. Trent King

I think with both Bonds and Clemens they were the among the best players of their generation long before they are suspected of starting PED use and there seems little question that absent career ending injury (which neither ultimately suffered) they were on their way to HOF careers regardless. Bonds already had almost 500 career home runs by 2001 when he is believed to have started using.

With other guys the case is way less clear and I could see using PED use as a factor in voting against them on that basis.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

To me it makes zero sense to be excluding Bonds and Clemens from the hall due to PED, it’s just a no brainer that they should be in regardless based on their accomplishments.

Bonds and Clemens are just so far beyond that level though that it doesn’t make sense to be barring them though.

It’s a tougher question for guys like Palmeiro and McGwire though, a fair bit lower on the achievement scale than Bonds/Clemens, but also high enough above a Canseco that they can’t be so easily dismissed.

PED use is akin to gambling. Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, McGwire and many more gambled to ‘be better’ by PED use. Sweet mother, look at a Canseco, McGwire, Bonds or a Sosa card in their rookie seasons. They were all sticks compared to cards towards the end of their career. Some of that was due to being and maintaining fitness, granted. But these guys bulked up unnaturally and due to what? The example of McGwire is a shocking example, at least to me it is.

No, none get in and should never get in. Those that either got caught or came forward and admitted their PED use should not even get a ballot sniff of any sort.

[jiw98]

[QUOTE=butchie_t;2181853] Sweet mother, look at a Canseco, McGwire, Bonds or a Sosa card in their rookie seasons. They were all sticks compared to cards towards the end of their career.

I'm not saying that there was steroid use here, but Mike Trout is listed at 45 lbs heavier than his rookie year, Miguel Cabrera at 65 heavier. Both HOF caliber players.

Yes I believe Bonds etc used steroids, but I also believe that steroids were used by a lot more players than we think. These guys did not fail a MLB drug test so they should be eligible for the HOF. JMO

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I think it is so sweet when people think their favorite player didn't cheat or only took caffeine(LOL) pills.

Reminds me of Shoeless Joe Jackson fans, they like him and won't admit its possible that he threw WS games.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Reminds me of Shoeless Joe Jackson fans, they like him and won't admit its possible that he threw WS games.

Shoeless Joe took the money, no pass from me.

Pete Rose gambled on his team to win, no pass from me.

Pick anyone from the Houston Astros a couple of years ago. They all should be banned. No pass from me.

:shrug:

B. T.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Shoeless Joe took the money, no pass from me.

Pete Rose gambled on his team to win, no pass from me.

Pick anyone from the Houston Astros a couple of years ago. They all should be banned. No pass from me.

:shrug:

B. T.

Astros, yes, 100% should be banned. That immunity garbage MLB gave them is a joke.

Rose, he supposedly never tried to throw a game and lose, which is really what the gambling rule was put in place to stop. But it was and still is the rule, and Rose knew it. So agree as well.

Jackson my be a little more complicated. To this day, no one really knows exactly everything that occurred. There is evidence that Jackson didn't necessarily willingly agree to accept and keep the money, and supposedly the money primarily went to benefit a sick relative in need of surgery and care. His stats and play during the 1919 WS certainly seem to belie the argument that he was actively trying to throw the WS. And there was no specific gambling rule in place at that time for MLB as there is today. So Jackson was permanently banned by the retroactive application of a rule that didn't exist at the time of the alleged transgression. I'd love to see how that would have held up in today's courts, and how fast the lawsuits to stop it would have been filed. Not so sure Jackson was fairly treated by MLB back then, which had their own agenda they were keeping to at the time.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

Astros, yes, 100% should be banned. That immunity garbage MLB gave them is a joke.

Rose, he supposedly never tried to throw a game and lose, which is really what the gambling rule was put in place to stop. But it was and still is the rule, and Rose knew it. So agree as well.

Jackson my be a little more complicated. To this day, no one really knows exactly everything that occurred. There is evidence that Jackson didn't necessarily willingly agree to accept and keep the money, and supposedly the money primarily went to benefit a sick relative in need of surgery and care. His stats and play during the 1919 WS certainly seem to belie the argument that he was actively trying to throw the WS. And there was no specific gambling rule in place at that time for MLB as there is today. So Jackson was permanently banned by the retroactive application of a rule that didn't exist at the time of the alleged transgression. I'd love to see how that would have held up in today's courts, and how fast the lawsuits to stop it would have been filed. Not so sure Jackson was fairly treated by MLB back then, which had their own agenda they were keeping to at the time.

I'm not going to argue whether Jackson is guilty or not, I've done it dozens of times and nobody ever gets swayed to the other side. This is just what I believe. Jackson took money, lied multiple times about taking it. Complained that he was being double-crossed when more money failed to come, if he was playing to win, how was he getting double-crossed? After Jackson's Civil Trial against Comiskey, he was charged with perjury by the judge, the charge was never pursued but its easy to see he did lie under oath. I believe Jackson participated in the fix but played to win after he realized there was no more money coming. Look at his BA in wins vs loses. If he didn't run after 1 ball or made one out on purpose, hes as guilty as the rest.

[egri]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I think it is so sweet when people think their favorite player didn't cheat or only took caffeine(LOL) pills.

Or when they decide steroids are a no-no, but amphetamines, sheep testosterone and who knows what else are A-OK.

[ClementeFanOh]

To Egri- I suppose I am one of the "they" you mention, who have "randomly" decided
that amphetamines , sheep testosterone, and apparently animal sacrifice (since you
included "whatever else" as a possible enhancer) to get more hits, are somehow the
same as PROVEN PED abuse...

The problem with the "____" 50s superstar took stimulants" argument is that it is
based on anecdotal or 2nd hand (or worse) memory/speculation/rumor. Was it even
against MLB policy back then? (Serious question, I'm not privy to policy from 60+
years ago). The PED stuff, however, is NOT. It is within our memories and a matter of
formalized MLB conclusion. We all watched Bonds' head grow larger and Sammy Sosa's
bat give birth to cork- after his body shape changed completely. It's not rumor or 60
year old folk tale- it's provable and most certainly against MLB policy, which EVERY ONE
of those guys knew...

So, the extent to which permissive people like you will do all you can to justify the
PED crowd- "everyone was doing it so it's okay", or "I heard from my uncle's best
friend that ____ used to sniff jet fuel before games in 1960" is actually the amusing
thing here. You keep on justifying and speculating, have at it- the PED crowd actually
did what they have been accused of doing. Good luck with that argument! Trent King

[egri]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

To Egri- I suppose I am one of the "they" you mention, who have "randomly" decided
that amphetamines , sheep testosterone, and apparently animal sacrifice (since you
included "whatever else" as a possible enhancer) to get more hits, are somehow the
same as PROVEN PED abuse...

The problem with the "____" 50s superstar took stimulants" argument is that it is
based on anecdotal or 2nd hand (or worse) memory/speculation/rumor. Was it even
against MLB policy back then? (Serious question, I'm not privy to policy from 60+
years ago). The PED stuff, however, is NOT. It is within our memories and a matter of
formalized MLB conclusion. We all watched Bonds' head grow larger and Sammy Sosa's
bat give birth to cork- after his body shape changed completely. It's not rumor or 60
year old folk tale- it's provable and most certainly against MLB policy, which EVERY ONE
of those guys knew...

So, the extent to which permissive people like you will do all you can to justify the
PED crowd- "everyone was doing it so it's okay", or "I heard from my uncle's best
friend that ____ used to sniff jet fuel before games in 1960" is actually the amusing
thing here. You keep on justifying and speculating, have at it- the PED crowd actually
did what they have been accused of doing. Good luck with that argument! Trent King

I’m going to ignore your ridiculous ad hominem and straw man arguments, and just observe that Hank Aaron admitted to taking amphetamines in his autobiography. That’s not “ I heard from my uncle's best friend that ____ used to sniff jet fuel before games in 1960" or “anecdotal or 2nd hand (or worse) memory/speculation/rumor“; that’s straight from the man himself. As for MLB policy, the federal government had made amphetamines illegal without a prescription in the early 1960s; Aaron’s use occurred in 1968. When the feds say it’s illegal, MLB policy goes out the window.

[Republicaninmass]

I still dont see Ortiz mentioned in the mitchell report. This was just more n54 idiots allowing their own narrative to change the data.

"Manfred deferred to Hall of Fame voters to make judgments on Ortiz's career. But he did note that Ortiz "has never been a positive at any point under our program." MLB's drug-testing program was implemented in 2004."