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

[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.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

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.

To me, it makes no difference when a player started taking Steroids, that they took them should be all that matters. It was against the rules, period.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

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.

Let me preface this by stating that I am in favor of Bonds and Clemens making the Hall of Fame.

The idea that their early-career accomplishments would have gotten them in the Hall doesn't work for me, though. It's analogous to saying Pete Rose's early-career record should have gotten him in. It's almost like suggesting we can ignore a portion of someone's resume.

While I'm on the topic, Pete belongs in the hall, too.

Holding professional athletes to incredibly high moral and performance standards would make for a very "Small Hall." As someone wrote earlier, it would basically be Christy Mathewson and a handful of others. While I can see the appeal of having only the best-of-the-best-of-the-best enshrined in the HOF, my personal preference is a bit different.

I'm more of a "Big Hall" fan. The game is over 150 years old. Let's celebrate more than the half-dozen or so from that span who are (quoting Tom Hulce) "people so lofty they sound as if they shit marble."

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

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.

Hey Jim, No one really knows the complete truth, and after all this time, we never will. My understanding is that Jackson was not the brightest bulb in the package, and supposedly was working with and doing what he was told to say and do by Comiskey and Comiskey's attorneys during the initial grand jury testimony and Black Sox trial. So when he brought the lawsuit later on in 1924 against Comiskey, gee, guess what attorneys would likely be defending Comiskey in that trial? The same ones that had probably coached and told Jackson what to say and do in the first trial. So Comiskey's attorneys already knew when Jackson was likely telling the truth during the second trial, what didn't exactly agree with what he had been told to say in the original trial. And it is my further understanding Jackson's attorney, Ray Cannon, was told by Comiskey's attorneys that the transcript of Jackson's 1920 grand jury testimony had disappeared, and there were no copies available anywhere. Yet somehow during Jackson's interrogation by Comiskey's attorneys in the midst of the second trial, the transcript miraculously appeared in the the hands of those same attorneys that had said it was gone. Gee, what a lucky coincidence for Comiskey and his attorneys. Coincidence, yeah, right! Lies and a setup is more like it. Yet despite any inconsistencies from his testimony in the earlier trial, the jury in the lawsuit against Comiskey still decided overwhelmingly in Jackson's favor. It was only after Comiskey lost that the judge stepped in and denied Jackson's claim, accusing Jackson of having committed perjury. If Jackson had committed perjury, why was he never charged? The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and the idea of someone like Comiskey having "taken care of the judge" wouldn't have surprised me in the least. Based on many things I've heard or read about Comiskey, it would actually surprise me more if he hadn't had the judge in his back pocket. And as to the inconsistencies in Jackson's testimonies over several years, I don't know about you, but some afternoons, I have trouble remembering what I had for breakfast that day. And anyway, I still feel a lot of what Jackson said during the earlier trial was what he was being told to say by Comiskey and Comiskey's attorneys. Jackson never changed his saying that he didn't try to throw the series, but can maybe understand his not saying anything about the fix to anyone earlier than he finally did, and initially holding on to the money that was given to him, as he likely didn't want to see his teammates get in trouble with MLB, or worse from the gamblers. He seems to have involuntarily been stuck in the middle of something he didn't really want to do, and for which MLB had no specific rule for at that time, as it does today. It appears Jackson had been a pawn and a scapegoat in the whole affair, more than anything else, and for that I'm not so sure his punishment was so deserved and fit the alleged crime. Especially when he literally won two different trials, with two different juries, yet was still punished after both. Sounds an awful lot like what still happens today. I guess the old saying may be true after all - The more things change, the more they stay the same!

[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."

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by 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."

Do you think David Ortiz was PED free or just calling out one guy that messed up on him being in the Mitchell report?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by 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."

I read the story saying Ortiz name was on the list, why shouldn't I have believed it? Because Ortiz said it wasn't true? The same story named Manny Ramirez and they were right about him. I assume you never believe any news stories with anonymous sources?

I don't understand why you have to make it personal by calling people names?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...fame/91442256/

Hard to keep the story straight, did he test positive but it might have been a false positive, or did he not test positive at all? In any case, he is clearly going into the Hall and a great player and fan favorite.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by 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."

After reading some more, there was an agreement that any test results were to remain confidential, so you are correct, Ortiz was not named in the Mitchell Report. Some of the positive results were leaked to the NYT, thats where Ortiz name comes up. The same article also names Manny Ramirez, so the article does appear to have some validity.

Nothing you said here disputes that Ortiz might have failed the 2003 test and, sorry I don't put any weight in Manfred's quote.