POLL: IN or OUT: YES or NO

[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.

[packs]

The poll got brought up too. As the poll currently sits neither Bonds nor Clemens would have enough percentage of votes to be elected.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

The poll got brought up too. As the poll currently sits neither Bonds nor Clemens would have enough percentage of votes to be elected.

It's a poll of opinion, not a vote for enshtinement and your opinion is in the minority.