- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Barry Bonds: It would mean a lot to me to make the Baseball Hall of Fame
Posted on 11/30/13 at 12:39 am to Bench McElroy
Posted on 11/30/13 at 12:39 am to Bench McElroy
He deserves it.
0
Posted on 11/30/13 at 12:39 am to tankyank13
quote:Irrelevant when it comes to a writer's Hall of Fame vote.
How many test did bonds fail? Whats the number?
I love how the league uses their best players for their scapegoat and make examples of them. Mean while their game had never been more popular and turned blind eye to the obvious.
Posted on 11/30/13 at 12:40 am to ballscaster
Prestigious in their own minds
Posted on 11/30/13 at 12:43 am to trackfan
quote:They aren't being punished.
Why should players be punished for doing something that wasn't illegal at the time that did it?
quote:Not happening. Today's writers/voters had nothing to do with anyone in past eras, cheating or not cheating, getting in or being excluded from the Hall of Fame. They've done whatever it took to earn their right/privilege to vote, and they'll vote along the lines of their collective conscience, and that's the way it should be. To expect Tom Verducci to vote for Barry Bonds because Shirley Povich voted for Hank Aaron just doesn't make sense. The two are unrelated.
Retroactive justice is something you expect in some backwards totalitarian state, but not the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Posted on 11/30/13 at 12:45 am to trackfan
quote:
Why should players be punished for doing something that wasn't illegal at the time that did it? Athletes in track and field and other Olympic sports who took steroids back in the 60's were never stripped of their medals by their governing bodies after rules were passed banning them. Retroactive justice is something you expect in some backwards totalitarian state, but not the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Furthermore, shouldn't sportswriters be consistent in their sanctimony? Miquel Tejada was suspended for 100 games this year for taking amphetamines, the drug of choice for players in the 70's and 80's. If the pre-2003 steroid users are considered no better than the post-2003 steroid users, then certainly the pre-2003 amphetamine users are no better than post-2003 amphetamine users.
Agreed. Also, why do people assume everyone was so clean "back in the day"? Winstrol, one of the most popular steroids, was developed in 1962. Does everyone really believe that Ben Johnson in 1988, was really the first to use it? Of course not. Athletes are always looking for a competitive advantage. This isn't a new concept.
Posted on 11/30/13 at 12:49 am to trackfan
quote:This question is tremendously flawed.
Furthermore, shouldn't sportswriters be consistent in their sanctimony? Miquel Tejada was suspended for 100 games this year for taking amphetamines, the drug of choice for players in the 70's and 80's. If the pre-2003 steroid users are considered no better than the post-2003 steroid users, then certainly the pre-2003 amphetamine users are no better than post-2003 amphetamine users.
How many people who will be voters in Tejada's first eligible year (2019 at the earliest) were voters in the 1970's? Which of them voted for amphetamine users then and won't in 2019? There is a good chance that your question applies to exactly zero people.
Posted on 11/30/13 at 1:01 am to ballscaster
quote:
How many people who will be voters in Tejada's first eligible year (2019 at the earliest) were voters in the 1970's? Which of them voted for amphetamine users then and won't in 2019? There is a good chance that your question applies to exactly zero people.
Are you arguing that today's writers have higher standards than the writers of yore? If so, you're wrong because players have used amphetamines, a.k.a. "greenies", continuously since the 70's. There are scores of writers around today who have voted for amphetamine users who say they won't vote for steroid users. In 2003, Tony Gwynn said that half the position players in MLB used amphetamines.
quote:
Jose Canseco came first. Then Ken Caminiti and David Wells. Now comes Tony Gwynn, the latest player/ex-player to go public about rampant drug use in major-league baseball.
Gwynn, considered an exemplary citizen and future Hall of Famer, adds much credibility to the list. But unlike the others, who focused mostly on widespread steroid use, Gwynn addressed amphetamines and estimated that 50 percent of position players regularly use "greenies."
"People might think there is a steroid problem in baseball, but it's nowhere near the other problem; the other, it's a rampant problem," Gwynn was quoted as saying in Tuesday's New York Times.
"Guys feel like steroids are cheating and greenies aren't."
LINK
Posted on 11/30/13 at 1:09 am to trackfan
quote:No, I'm stating that a vote by one of today's writers, as well as the standards by which said vote is cast, has nothing to do with the vote of a previous era's writer or its respective standards.
Are you arguing that today's writers have higher standards than the writers of yore?
If I'm a writer, and I have the opportunity to vote for Barry Bonds or not, I will base my vote or lack thereof on a lot of things, but whether or not players of previous eras who got in the Hall did so by way of cheating will have nothing to do with my choice. No matter who voted for whom and why and when, there simply is nothing wrong with a voter refraining from voting for a player who he views as having damaged the game, and, therefore, there is nothing wrong with a majority of voters doing the same.
It appears as if Barry Bonds will not get in, and for good reason. The lesson young players should learn is that if you cheat and treat your teammates and the press like pieces of shite, you put at risk your legacy within the game. Bonds is no victim.
This post was edited on 11/30/13 at 1:11 am
Posted on 11/30/13 at 1:27 am to Bench McElroy
Here's the thing about Barry Bonds...he hit 762 home runs.
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame
Posted on 11/30/13 at 4:23 am to trackfan
quote:
Baseball had no PED enforcement policy before 2003. IMO, there's no justification for baseball writers punishing players like Barry Bonds for taking steroids before 2003, just like there's no justification for them punishing players like Willie Mays for taking amphetamines before 2003.
They were illegal, so yea there is. Baseball played its own part in it by ignoring what was going on, but bonds hubris attitude of not confessing what he did is his own fault.
Posted on 11/30/13 at 5:53 am to Bench McElroy
It would probably mean a lot to more people if he didn't.
Posted on 11/30/13 at 7:01 am to Bench McElroy
I would let him in. Even if he was a doper. He was the best in the age of dopers. Still means you're the best.
Posted on 11/30/13 at 7:41 am to barry
quote:
They were illegal, so yea there is. Baseball played its own part in it by ignoring what was going on, but bonds hubris attitude of not confessing what he did is his own fault.
Show me the link to this pre-2003 policy. Where does it say that "the clear" or androstenedione were illegal? Why do you think that MLB never sanctioned any of the pre-2003 dopers by removing their performances from the record books the way it's routinely done in other sports when an athlete who never flunked a drug test is found to have doped after the fact?
Posted on 11/30/13 at 7:49 am to ballscaster
quote:
No, I'm stating that a vote by one of today's writers, as well as the standards by which said vote is cast, has nothing to do with the vote of a previous era's writer or its respective standards.
If I'm a writer, and I have the opportunity to vote for Barry Bonds or not, I will base my vote or lack thereof on a lot of things, but whether or not players of previous eras who got in the Hall did so by way of cheating will have nothing to do with my choice. No matter who voted for whom and why and when, there simply is nothing wrong with a voter refraining from voting for a player who he views as having damaged the game, and, therefore, there is nothing wrong with a majority of voters doing the same.
It appears as if Barry Bonds will not get in, and for good reason. The lesson young players should learn is that if you cheat and treat your teammates and the press like pieces of shite, you put at risk your legacy within the game. Bonds is no victim
Fair enough, but don't you think each individual writer should show consistency with how they vote on steroid and amphetamine users? Is there any moral justification for a writer giving a pass to known amphetamine users while black-balling steroid users? Keep in mind that both steroids and amphetamines have always been illegal without a doctor's prescription as far as the criminal justice system is concerned, so both groups of people were breaking the law.
Posted on 11/30/13 at 8:28 am to trackfan
quote:I myself can't think of any. I'd have to hear a writer explain why he would vote so inconsistently. I suppose that a writer could have a change of conscience at some point in his life and swear never to vote for another cheater again, and I'd understand that.
Is there any moral justification for a writer giving a pass to known amphetamine users while black-balling steroid users?
But I'll have to ask again, and perhaps it's almost a rhetorical question because you and I don't have the info available to answer: which writers are we talking about? Which writers voted for known cheaters of a previous generation and are refusing to do so now? I find it entirely possible that the answer to that question, if the case isn't that there are 0 writers who fit this description, that the number of such writers is so low as to not away the Hall's election results one way or another, in which case I see nothing about which to worry here.
FYI: I don't know if I'd vote for Bonds or not. I really don't. I see a moral dilemma there. What I am saying, though, is that if I do vote for Bonds, and I see another writer refuse to do so because of any of Bonds' issues discussed in the thread, I have no problem with his choice or his reasoning.
Posted on 11/30/13 at 8:33 am to Bench McElroy
Did Bonds ever test positive for roids, or are we just assuming he took them?
Posted on 11/30/13 at 8:38 am to Sevendust912
quote:
are we just assuming he took them?
Posted on 11/30/13 at 8:40 am to Sevendust912
quote:
Did Bonds ever test positive for roids, or are we just assuming he took them?
Came up dirty in 2003 when baseball was doing a test run to see the extent of the problem.
I can see Barroid eventually getting in based on his pre-steroid numbers.
But it's not just the cheating--the power numbers were so grossly inflated in that era that they're meaningless. So the writers will discount them accordingly. That's why McGwire should never sniff the HOF. He's a .260 hitter, and he's the equivalent of a player with only 400 or so home runs in a normal era.
Posted on 11/30/13 at 9:11 am to Sevendust912
quote:
Did Bonds ever test positive for roids, or are we just assuming he took them?
Neither Bonds, Clemens, McGuire nor Sosa have ever flunked a drug test under MLB's PED enforcement program.
This post was edited on 11/30/13 at 9:13 am
Posted on 11/30/13 at 9:16 am to ballscaster
Let's not forget about Gaylord Perry, who actually got caught cheating on the field, but got voted into the Hall of Fame anyway.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News