POLL: IN or OUT: YES or NO

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

The OPs question was whether or not the two should be in or out (the HOF). He never mentioned anything about steroids/HGH even though other brought it up. Others also brought up altering equipment. I stand behind my point which is cheating is cheating no matter what is used or how it's done. As usual, your full of BS.

Well....Cheating isn't cheating. That's like saying a 71 Pinto and a Ferrari are the same thing because they're both cars. Amphetamines are not in the same ballpark as steroids and HGH. It's even sillier to compare Gaylord Perry or a corked bat to steroids. Jaywalking doesn't carry the same sentence as murder, there's no reason modern steroid users can't be held to a different standard given the impact of their particular indiscretion. What Clemens and Bonds did was unequivocally worse than Mantle popping uppers to shake off a late night of drinking. I will never understand why there are those that think these guys should be rewarded for what they did. In the Olympics they strip users of medals and records. Nobody is rewriting the baseball books, those guys are losing absolutely nothing. They're just not getting anything more than what they've already stolen from the game. I'm quite fine with that. No and No for me.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Well....Cheating isn't cheating. That's like saying a 71 Pinto and a Ferrari are the same thing because they're both cars. Amphetamines are not in the same ballpark as steroids and HGH. It's even sillier to compare Gaylord Perry or a corked bat to steroids. Jaywalking doesn't carry the same sentence as murder, there's no reason modern steroid users can't be held to a different standard given the impact of their particular indiscretion. What Clemens and Bonds did was unequivocally worse than Mantle popping uppers to shake off a late night of drinking. I will never understand why there are those that think these guys should be rewarded for what they did. In the Olympics they strip users of medals and records. Nobody is rewriting the baseball books, those guys are losing absolutely nothing. They're just not getting anything more than what they've already stolen from the game. I'm quite fine with that. No and No for me.

Yes, cheating is cheating. The consequences may depend on the severity, but its still cheating. It's like stealing is stealing. Stealing a loaf of bread doesn't have the same consequences as grand theft auto, but they're both stealing. A thief is a thief. A cheater is a cheater. A liar is a liar even if it is just a little white lie.

So Brett and Perry belong in the HOF even though they cheated, but not Clemens and Bonds? How do you decide which cheaters get in and which cheaters are left out?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Yes, cheating is cheating. The consequences may depend on the severity, but its still cheating. It's like stealing is stealing. Stealing a loaf of bread doesn't have the same consequences as grand theft auto, but they're both stealing. A thief is a thief. A cheater is a cheater. A liar is a liar even if it is just a little white lie.

So Brett and Perry belong in the HOF even though they cheated, but not Clemens and Bonds? How do you decide which cheaters get in and which cheaters are left out?

By an arbitrary scale of impact, I guess. Did anyone follow the Clemens trial by the way? Where was this incontrovertible evidence that he used, I may have missed it?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Yes, cheating is cheating. The consequences may depend on the severity, but its still cheating. It's like stealing is stealing. Stealing a loaf of bread doesn't have the same consequences as grand theft auto, but they're both stealing. A thief is a thief. A cheater is a cheater. A liar is a liar even if it is just a little white lie.

Bolded and underlined...bingo. We're talking about consequences here, right? So yes, Bonds and Clemens being kept out while Perry is in is completely fair in my opinion. What they did was of a much greater magnitude than throwing a spitball.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

By an arbitrary scale of impact, I guess. Did anyone follow the Clemens trial by the way? Where was this incontrovertible evidence that he used, I may have missed it?

I don't think it's arbitrary at all to understand that the effects of metabolic steroids are far greater than throwing a spitball. Particularly when everyone in the world knows the player throws spitballs. That's just common sense to me.

Did you follow the Clemens case? He was on trial specifically for perjury. That's the hardest thing in the justice world to prove, since it's pretty hard to prove what someone knew when they said or did something. Being found "not guilty" of perjury is nowhere close to the same thing as being found "innocent" of using steroids. You really think all that evidence was just circumstancial? Just a big misunderstanding, right? OK...I choose to believe that where there's smoke there's fire, and Clemens and Bonds were layered in smoke.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Bolded and underlined...bingo. We're talking about consequences here, right? So yes, Bonds and Clemens being kept out while Perry is in is completely fair in my opinion. What they did was of a much greater magnitude than throwing a spitball.

Actually, I wasn't even talking about a spitball. I was referring to him trying to cover up Brett's pine tar bat incident by hiding the bat.

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Actually, I wasn't even talking about a spitball. I was referring to him trying to cover up Brett's pine tar bat incident by hiding the bat.

I don't see how that changes anything but ok.

So let's say for a minute that all cheating is equal. Is your basis for enshrining Clemens and Bonds that mistakes have already been made, so we need to keep making them? You asked me what cheaters are in and which are out. I say the ones who are in are in, unless they drastically change the line of thinking and start removing plaques. And I'd be ok with that btw. But the ones who are not in, should stay out. I don't see the sense in continually permitting cheaters to reap the rewards of receiving the highest honor the game can give. They chose To cheat and should have to now live with the repurcussions of that choice. So my question to you would be, where does it end? Does 3x cheater Manny Ramirez need a plaque before people start to think the whole thing is ridiculous?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by dgo71

I don't see how that changes anything but ok.

It doesn't really change anything, but my personal opinion is that the cover up (Perry hiding Brett's pine tar bat) was far worse than the cheating itself.

Originally Posted by dgo71

Is your basis for enshrining Clemens and Bonds that mistakes have already been made, so we need to keep making them?

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by dgo71

Bolded and underlined...bingo. We're talking about consequences here, right? So yes, Bonds and Clemens being kept out while Perry is in is completely fair in my opinion. What they did was of a much greater magnitude than throwing a spitball.



I don't think it's arbitrary at all to understand that the effects of metabolic steroids are far greater than throwing a spitball. Particularly when everyone in the world knows the player throws spitballs. That's just common sense to me.

Did you follow the Clemens case? He was on trial specifically for perjury. That's the hardest thing in the justice world to prove, since it's pretty hard to prove what someone knew when they said or did something. Being found "not guilty" of perjury is nowhere close to the same thing as being found "innocent" of using steroids. You really think all that evidence was just circumstancial? Just a big misunderstanding, right? OK...I choose to believe that where there's smoke there's fire, and Clemens and Bonds were layered in smoke.

You are putting more words in my mouth than I can count at this point. But the bottom line from the trial was that the government's case was based almost exclusively on a single witness, the trainer, and jurors obviously did not believe him with regard to Clemens' use as they almost immediately found Clemens not guilty. Does it mean he was innocent? No, it doesn't. But why do we so readily assume Clemens used and Piazza (HOF) did not, for example?

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You are putting more words in my mouth than I can count at this point. But the bottom line from the trial was that the government's case was based almost exclusively on a single witness, the trainer, and jurors obviously did not believe him with regard to Clemens' use as they almost immediately found Clemens not guilty. Does it mean he was innocent? No, it doesn't. But why do we so readily assume Clemens used and Piazza (HOF) did not, for example?

Maybe Piazza did use, I definitely wouldn't bet he was clean. But I wouldn't bet he used either. I guess we'll never know unless he admits to it. But there's nowhere near the amount of evidence against him (or others, I know you used him only as an example) as there is against Rocket. The guys getting held out had multiple smoking guns. Right or wrong, that's the difference.