- 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: Should the juicers get into the Baseball HoF?
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:12 am to MonroeTiger80
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:12 am to MonroeTiger80
ive never been sure but i say yes. just judge them in comparison to the era that they played in. you have to stand out in regards to your peers.
1
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:19 am to barry
quote:no he's saying that MLB refused to make using steroids against the rules
MLB has no authority to make steroids legal
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:21 am to Baloo
quote:You can't possibly mean the same writers who now cry out about the sanctity of the game? Baseball shot itself in the foot in 1994 when it shut down in the middle of the season. When it came back the collective bargaining agreement was silent on the issue of steroids. The players took advantage of this, the owners remained silent since they profited from it, and the writers turned a blind eye as they wanted to restore the popularity of the game. For any of those three groups to claim that the juicers should be excluded from the HoF is hypocritical.
It wasn't against the rules and was actively encouraged by the clubs and studiously ignored by the writers.
Baseball has historically used statistics to compare players from different eras, and it is unfortunate that steroids have distorted those comparisons so as to make them almost meaningless. However, HoF candidates have historically been judged relative to their peers. The reason baseball writers are the electors is because they watch the games regularly and are considered the best judges of the impact the players had on the game relative to their peers. There is no denying the impact Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and others who used steroids had on the game. They were clearly the best players of their era.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:22 am to DeltaDoc
quote:
Do you have proof that Bonds juiced?
Court documents show Bonds tested positive for 3 types of steroids
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:30 am to barry
quote:
O really?
Proof?
List of Players Listed in Mitchell Report
Sure the Mitchell Report only listed 12% of all MLB players but you got to figure a ton more were doing PEDs and were not discovered. When I consider a player from that era, I just assume they were on some form of PEDs.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:32 am to TigerintheNO
I'm sorry but I can't for the life of me support the induction of a player who used an illegal performance enhancer over someone like Pete Rose who merely gambled against his own team when he was a manager. Unethical? Yes. Worthy of a permanent ban from baseball? Heck no.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:35 am to MonroeTiger80
Yes. Maybe not right away, but eventually. The steroid era was one of the best in baseball history. It was extremely entertaining to watch and seeing record broken.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:36 am to MonroeTiger80
what about the players that played in the "greenie" era,, all those extra games played with more energy had to help Cal Ripkin
This post was edited on 1/9/13 at 10:52 am
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:50 am to MonroeTiger80
no
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:50 am to RollTide1987
quote:
I'm sorry but I can't for the life of me support the induction of a player who used an illegal performance enhancer over someone like Pete Rose who merely gambled against his own team when he was a manager. Unethical? Yes. Worthy of a permanent ban from baseball? Heck no.
Because, in Rose's case, the rule was incredibly clear and the consequences were clearly stated. It's posted in every clubhouse that gambling is expressly prohibited. Rose knew that gambling was against the rule, and the consequences for getting caught was a lifetime ban. He did it anyway, got caught, and is now suffering the consequences. Which were fully disclosed to him.
That's the difference.
Steroids were not only not against league rules, they were tacitly encouraged by the teams. Even now, after the crackdown, getting caught means a 50 game suspension, not a lifetime ban. Yet players are kept out of the Hall for violating no rule, with the encouragement of their employers not that there was any testing anyway, without any disclosure of the penalties.
I find it amazing people cant see the massive difference between Bonds and Rose.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:55 am to Baloo
quote:because they cant think for themselves and buy into the opinions of all the hack self righteous writers that a looking for a reason to hate on Bonds
I find it amazing people cant see the massive difference between Bonds and Rose.
This post was edited on 1/9/13 at 11:02 am
Posted on 1/9/13 at 10:56 am to MonroeTiger80
So you wouldn't allow Hank Aaron in either then?
Or any of the pitchers who admitted to all of the illegal baseball acts to help performance.
Or do we just arbitrarily make the rules up as we go?
Or any of the pitchers who admitted to all of the illegal baseball acts to help performance.
Or do we just arbitrarily make the rules up as we go?
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:00 am to shel311
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:04 am to rockchlkjayhku11
No. I don't buy the everyone did it argument. Furthermore,the it wasn't against the rules is also bs. It was always against the rules, it just wasn't tested.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:06 am to Poodlebrain
Poodlebrain and baloo nailed it.
I love the baseball hof, ive been there numerous times and some of the stuff in there gives me the chills just seeing it. But it will forever be a farce to me if the best players of an era are kept out.
I love the baseball hof, ive been there numerous times and some of the stuff in there gives me the chills just seeing it. But it will forever be a farce to me if the best players of an era are kept out.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:12 am to MonroeTiger80
They should all get in. Were they even testing for that shite at the time? Frick baseball and the HOF.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:22 am to MonroeTiger80
No they shouldn't get in ever.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:23 am to MonroeTiger80
I agree they cheated, but given that everyone in the game was doing the same thing (I will never believe that <95% of baseball players were juicing), they still stood out.
Put them in. Its a sports HOF, they are not being cannonized as saints.
Put them in. Its a sports HOF, they are not being cannonized as saints.
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:32 am to memphis tiger
quote:
memphis tiger
quote:
memphstigers23
Posted on 1/9/13 at 11:42 am to Baloo
quote:BS. Performance enhancing drugs WERE against the rules. They weren't tested for them, but they have been against the rules for DECADES.
teroids were not only not against league rules, they were tacitly encouraged by the teams.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News