Thoughts on this 1925 Gehrig

[Exhibitman]

It's a weird netherworld, Frank. Steroids weren't banned but they were illegal w/o a prescription, so McGwire and Sosa and the rest of them never should have had them at all. I guess in a sense they were banned before they were banned.

Yes, I am a lawyer.

But I digress.

The first thing I thought when I saw that Gehrig (esp the LL corner) was that it was intentionally rounded, maybe to aid in flipping it or doing something else with it, like this O'Doul:



If I submit that card I get an "A" 99% of the time a "1" the other 1%.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

It's a weird netherworld, Frank. Steroids weren't banned but they were illegal w/o a prescription, so McGwire and Sosa and the rest of them never should have had them at all. I guess in a sense they were banned before they were banned.

Yes, I am a lawyer.

But I digress.

The first thing I thought when I saw that Gehrig (esp the LL corner) was that it was intentionally rounded, maybe to aid in flipping it or doing something else with it, like this O'Doul:



If I submit that card I get an "A" 99% of the time a "1" the other 1%.

According to Game of Shadows, Bonds began using steroids in 1998, starting with Winstrol, and by 2000 was also taking testosterone, HGH, trenbelone (a steroid used for cattle), insulin, and Clomid (a female fertility drug). That's quite a cocktail.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[bcbgcbrcb]

I believe the "compromise" on Bonds and Clemens is that both were going to be Hall of Famers, no doubt, and need to be elected sooner rather than later. However, to me, the staggering numbers for both should be taken with a grain of salt and I don't put Bonds in the top 10 all-time nor do I place Clemens nearly as high as his numbers would warrant. I think that's where we should be drawing the line, not keeping them out of the Hall, that's just plain silly. However, I would keep them out of the conversation of top 10 all-time hitters/pitchers.

Thoughts on this?

[Leon]

I like this approach...but also think they should get the dreaded asterisk next to the induction, denoting steroid era.

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I believe the "compromise" on Bonds and Clemens is that both were going to be Hall of Famers, no doubt, and need to be elected sooner rather than later. However, to me, the staggering numbers for both should be taken with a grain of salt and I don't put Bonds in the top 10 all-time nor do I place Clemens nearly as high as his numbers would warrant. I think that's where we should be drawing the line, not keeping them out of the Hall, that's just plain silly. However, I would keep them out of the conversation of top 10 all-time hitters/pitchers.

Thoughts on this?

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I believe the "compromise" on Bonds and Clemens is that both were going to be Hall of Famers, no doubt, and need to be elected sooner rather than later. However, to me, the staggering numbers for both should be taken with a grain of salt and I don't put Bonds in the top 10 all-time nor do I place Clemens nearly as high as his numbers would warrant. I think that's where we should be drawing the line, not keeping them out of the Hall, that's just plain silly. However, I would keep them out of the conversation of top 10 all-time hitters/pitchers.



Thoughts on this?

I think it is a bit ridiculous to ask voters to imagine an alternate universe where players made different choices to see how their careers may have panned out. I don't believe in any case that Bonds numbers through 1997 would have put him in the Hall of Fame.

I also don't believe we should ignore the damage that PEDs did to the game of baseball, or give a pass to the players and owners that furthered it.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[PhillyFan1883]

I did not read all the post, but most of them. Another point to be made is- this card has traded many times in the last several years. People are sick of seeing the card for auction. And as many others pointed out- its a 1.5 at best.

[BeanTown]

It would be nice for a representative from SGC comment on the grade. I’m sure they steer clear of message boards unless they can control it like Collectors Universe.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

It would be nice for a representative from SGC comment on the grade. I’m sure they steer clear of message boards unless they can control it like Collectors Universe.

Agreed. The bad part is that it was “reviewed” and somehow crossed over to their new style holder! They can’t claim changing standards or anything like that when they have recently “verified” that a 3 was the accurate grade. They just did not want to be held liable for the obviously needed downgrade on a 80-100k card.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

It's a weird netherworld, Frank. Steroids weren't banned but they were illegal w/o a prescription...[/IMG]

That doesn't sound like a weird netherworld, it sounds like a place where you could have easily answered any critics by showing your prescription.

[Exhibitman]

Maybe I am too lawyerish, Doug. What I meant was that if it is illegal but not against the rules of the job, it inhabits a gray area between employer sanctionable and non-sanctionable misconduct. My personal view is that illegal activity is always grounds for dismissal but I appreciate that the line grays out with some offenses. Illegality is differentiated into what legal theorists call malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses. Malum in se offenses are things that no civilization ever tolerates: murder, rape, arson, pineapple on pizza, etc. Malum prohibitum offenses are those that are wrong only because a particular society has labeled them as wrong, while others do not. Marijuana is a perfect example. What I can buy and get high on here in Cali at a nice storefront next to a falafel place will get me arrested in Texas. In baseball 'law' steroids were more the latter: not against the rules but definitely against the law without a scrip. Does a team fire a player for something not against the rules (malum in se) but illegal activity, just not the sort of illegal that would be universally condemned. That's where money and marketing come in. Trevor Bauer got run out of MLB over an accusation of a malum in se activity that he was not even tried and convicted of doing because the "ick" factor of the behavior (even if consensual as he claims) itself was too ugly for the game's marketers to tolerate. MLB has lost enough audience share already without being seen to coddle pervs, even if not convicted; call it the Michael Jackson Rule: the fact that he was in a position to be accused of kiddie fiddling in the first place destroys his marketability for a sizable number of fans, so if you can, you get rid of him. Or Kapernick: basically got blacklisted in the NFL for speech because it really ticked off a lot of the fans. Yet, a guy who shoots up steroids and gets caught gets a suspension...because fans like how guys play when they are jacked on 'roids. Same with cards: lots of collectors don't care whether some honest wear is removed because they like the results; others pitch a hissy fit over using a glasses cleaning cloth to remove wax from a card front. As long as the money flows, the net result will be nothing. This is America: it's all about the Benjamins.

[etsmith]

It would be interesting to see someone do a projection of what Barry Bonds final numbers would have been based on his pre-steroid numbers. I don't think people who used steroids should be in the Hall of Fame though.