POLL: IN or OUT: YES or NO

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

No, my basis is that Bonds was a HOFer before he started using steroids. From what I know, Bonds didn't start using steroids until after the '98 season. You don't think he already put up HOF numbers by then? What if MLB could somehow discredit all Bonds stats after the '98 season? Would you think he deserves to be in then?

As far as Clemens goes, I'm not even going down that road. It's ridiculous to assume he did them when he never failed a test and he was acquitted of perjury charges.

Ifs and buts. I don't think you can look at half the body of work. For that matter, what if he never cheated and had just outright sucked for the next 8 years? Is he still a HOFer or just a Hall of Very Good guy that gets no love from voters? We don't have a theoretical career to judge, we have the one he played. To be honest, that uncertainty is as much a detriment to his HOF chances as the fact that he cheated. By the way, Bonds never failed a test either. (Rollseyes)

And not that when he started makes much difference to me, how does anyone claim to know when he started using? He might've started in A-ball for anyone knows.

As for Clemens, I don't assume he took them, I'm confident he did. It's ridiculous to me that anyone could be naive enough to think he didn't. Some things are pretty apparent even if a jury of "peers" can't prove you lied about it. He got better as he got older, there was enough incriminating evidence for an indictment, Pettitte even said Clemens admitted using HGH (even if he halfass backpedalled on that)...he was in the Mitchell Report for crying out loud. But yeah, I'm sure he was totally clean. Please.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by dgo71

He got better as he got older...

And that's where you just lost your argument. You're just like Packs. You made some valid points, then say something ridiculous. Nolan Ryan got better with age too. Do you think he took steroids?

Edited to add: Contrary to what's been written in this thread, there are a lot of players that have gotten better with age. And not only baseball, other sports too. Sports like basketball and football where the game takes more of a toll on your body.

One more edit: So what if his name was in the Mitchell report. Half the names in the report I've never heard of. I guess it didn't help them much, huh? And if you want to use the Mitchell report as your standard, do we assume that anyone not named in the report is innocent? Come on!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Niekro, Spahn, and Randy Johnson all put up most of their numbers after 30, if I recall, and into their 40s were still very productive.

Just checked on Randy's 4 straight Cy Youngs -- 35-38.

[packs]

First a guy says cheating is cheating then he says when a person cheated matters. Okay. I'm not following the logic of the pine tar game either. You say that you think Bonds cheated after 1998. That means he cheated for 9 seasons and won 4 MVP awards during that time, but you're relating that to a single game and hiding a baseball bat?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

First a guy says cheating is cheating then he says when a person cheated matters. Okay.

If you're referring to me, I didn't say that, nor did I imply that.

When I say cheating is cheating, I mean if you'll cheat at the little things, you'll cheat at the big things to. If you'll steal a little item, you'll steal a big item too. If you tell a little lie, you'll tell a big lie too. You get the point.

I just don't understand how someone can say Bonds doesn't deserve to be in the HOF for cheating, when others have cheated too. What is your measuring stick? When does the cheating become a bannable offense? So, it's OK to cheat and throw a spitball, used a corked bat or whatever and get into the HOF, but it's not ok to cheat and use performance enhancing drugs and get into the Hall? What kind of stupid crap is that? Both are cheating, both have the same intent which is to get an advantage. So a spitball is OK, but steroids are a bannable offense? Gotcha. Where's the middle ground? Where's the gray area? In Packs world, where is the baseball cheating line drawn between a bannable offense and a slap on the wrist?

[packs]

Baseball has already decided when too much cheating is enough. There is a sliding scale of penalties and it ends with banishment.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Baseball has already decided when too much cheating is enough. There is a sliding scale of penalties and it ends with banishment.

So what does it say about steroids and the HOF?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

If you're referring to me, I didn't say that, nor did I imply that.

When I say cheating is cheating, I mean if you'll cheat at the little things, you'll cheat at the big things to. If you'll steal a little item, you'll steal a big item too. If you tell a little lie, you'll tell a big lie too. You get the point.

I just don't understand how someone can say Bonds doesn't deserve to be in the HOF for cheating, when others have cheated too. What is your measuring stick? When does the cheating become a bannable offense? So, it's OK to cheat and throw a spitball, used a corked bat or whatever and get into the HOF, but it's not ok to cheat and use performance enhancing drugs and get into the Hall? What kind of stupid crap is that? Both are cheating, both have the same intent which is to get an advantage. So a spitball is OK, but steroids are a bannable offense? Gotcha. Where's the middle ground? Where's the gray area? In Packs world, where is the baseball cheating line drawn between a bannable offense and a slap on the wrist?

Jenrry Mejía is currently banned for life for using steroids and would be ineligible for the HOF if he had 10 years service. Steve Howe was banned in 1992 for life for violating MLB's drug policy. If it wasn't for the player's union blocking drug testing, Bonds and Clemens and others may have been banned too. The writers are just enforcing MLB's drug policy. These guys broke the rules and hid behind the player's union. Now they are getting what they deserve. Using a spit ball or corked bat gets you a few games. Your comparison is like saying shoplifting and murder deserve the same penalty. They don't.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by rats60

Your comparison is like saying shoplifting and murder deserve the same penalty. They don't.

No, that's how you're reading it and quit putting words in my mouth. Your example has the same consequences for two different crimes.

If you want to use a shoplifting comparison, then I would say it's like stealing a $.03 piece of bubble gum or a $1000 piece of jewelry. In my opinion, there's no difference. A thief is a thief. If you'll steal something little, you'll steal something big. The consequences may be different, but it's still stealing.

[EvilKing00]

both should get. both were the best (among the best) of their era.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

And that's where you just lost your argument. You're just like Packs. You made some valid points, then say something ridiculous. Nolan Ryan got better with age too. Do you think he took steroids?

Edited to add: Contrary to what's been written in this thread, there are a lot of players that have gotten better with age. And not only baseball, other sports too. Sports like basketball and football where the game takes more of a toll on your body.

One more edit: So what if his name was in the Mitchell report. Half the names in the report I've never heard of. I guess it didn't help them much, huh? And if you want to use the Mitchell report as your standard, do we assume that anyone not named in the report is innocent? Come on!

No, you're right, im sure all those allegations were unfounded. Clemens was totally clean, yup. Must've just been a slow news day when he was accused of steroid use. And again when he was brought before Congress. And again when he was indicted. If you think those guys should get in because they were good enough before they cheated that's your prerogative. But to say Clemens didn't use is downright silly. It doesn't matter if you steer the conversation to Nolan Ryan or any of the unheard of names on the Mitchell Report. We're talking about Clemens and Bonds. It's delusional to think they didn't use given the amount of suspicion surrounding them. Again, where there is copious amounts of smoke...

As for the Mitchell Report, no, just because someone isn't named doesn't make them innocent. That's a ridiculous extrapolation to make. But being named sure isn't a good sign! Just because Shane Monahan didn't become an All-Star doesn't mean steroids didn't help him. Maybe he never even gets to the big leagues without help, who knows. Because everyone didn't benefit equally from PEDs doesn't negate the fact that using them was cheating. If your point is that Clemens was already better than Monahan, then my response is of course he was. So what? That doesn't absolve Clemens, or make his PED use any better than Monahan's.

You still haven't answered my question. Where does it end? Does McGwire get in? Manny? At what point should players who cheated the game and the record books stop being rewarded for their dishonesty?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by dgo71

No, you're right, im sure all those allegations were unfounded. Clemens was totally clean, yup. Must've just been a slow news day when he was accused of steroid use. And again when he was brought before Congress. And again when he was indicted. If you think those guys should get in because they were good enough before they cheated that's your prerogative. But to say Clemens didn't use is downright silly. It doesn't matter if you steer the conversation to Nolan Ryan or any of the unheard of names on the Mitchell Report. We're talking about Clemens and Bonds. It's delusional to think they didn't use given the amount of suspicion surrounding them. Again, where there is copious amounts of smoke...

As for the Mitchell Report, no, just because someone isn't named doesn't make them innocent. That's a ridiculous extrapolation to make. But being named sure isn't a good sign! Just because Shane Monahan didn't become an All-Star doesn't mean steroids didn't help him. Maybe he never even gets to the big leagues without help, who knows. Because everyone didn't benefit equally from PEDs doesn't negate the fact that using them was cheating. If your point is that Clemens was already better than Monahan, then my response is of course he was. So what? That doesn't absolve Clemens, or make his PED use any better than Monahan's.

You still haven't answered my question. Where does it end? Does McGwire get in? Manny? At what point should players who cheated the game and the record books stop being rewarded for their dishonesty?

Allegations doesn't equal guilt. There are many that were wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit (even though there were witnesses that "saw" them do it) only to be overturned years later due to DNA evidence.

This conversation is going nowhere. Look at the results of this poll. Congrats, your opinion is in the minority. Enough said.

I will answer your question though. I believe if you're going to let one cheater into the HOF, then you have to let them all in - Manny, McGwire, Sosa, etc. On the other hand, if they want to banish all the cheaters, then I'm also OK with them keeping the PED users out. Eirher way, it should just be fair. Let the cheaters in or keep them out. Doesn't matter to me, but be consistent. And IMO, as I've already said, cheating is cheating, it doesn't matter the extent of it.

[dgo71]

I guess if the HOF ever drastically changes their stance on removing plaques we'll have another lively debate to look forward to. It might be unrealistic for your idea of consistency to stretch across the 70+ years of the Hall's existence. People change their viewpoints and opinions when presented with new information and the voters are no different. I may be in the minority here but we'll see on January 24th how the voters feel.

[packs]

The HOF is not a legal process and the ideas of guilt, evidence, and proof do not apply. The only thing that applies is opinion.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by packs

The HOF is not a legal process and the ideas of guilt, evidence, and proof do not apply. The only thing that applies is opinion.

A good point. I imagine a good percentage of voters that elected Gaylord Perry aren't even alive today. Hard to have consistent results among an ever changing voting body.