whats your HOF philosophy???

[Kenny Cole]

I would suggest that almost everyone already in the HOF "knowingly cheated" the game in some form or fashion. Pud Galvin was an acknowledged PED user. Perry threw a spitter. Ford admittedly cut the ball. Mantle used corked bats. When he caught, Mack made a sound to try to make umps think that a ball was actually a foul tip. Impeding base runners was an art form in the 1890s. It has been a federal crime to use amphetamines without a prescription since 1970. Cocaine is obviously illegal to use as a performance enhancer. Human ingenuity being what it is, there are countless ways to cheat the game and that's always sort of been considered OK so long as you were cheating in order to try to win. Therein lies the huge difference that keeps Jackson out.

To those who want to talk about "integrity," I don't understand that argument very well. If player A cheats by using steroids and hits 70 homers, and player B cheats by using greenies and only hits 30 homers, which one has less integrity? In that example, it is my belief that the integrity of those two players is exactly the same. They both cheated, they both tried to get an unfair advantage, and one of the two was simply more successful. In that same vein, why is cheating more effectively now deemed worse than a less effective method of cheating? If two kids cheat on a test and once makes an A and the other a C, which kid has less integrity? The integrity argument has never made any sense to me and still doesn't.

Steroids happened, just as amphetamine usage and cocaine usage happened, just as corked bats, spitters, cutters, sign stealing, etc. still happen. Saying that steroid users shouldn't be elected because they are cheats is really just a way to try and avoid dealing with the issue, particularly when those who are making that claim seem to have absolutely no issue with any of the other methods of cheating employed by those who have already been elected.

I suspect that part of the reason why some people are more incensed at steroid usage is that there is a perception, valid or not, that the steroid usage type of cheating allowed cherished records to be broken. If so, all I can say, like I have already said, is that I cannot see any logical link between integrity and breaking records. If you tried to get an unfair advantage and simply did it more poorly than someone else, that doesn't give you greater integrity.

Because the HOF has a long and vaunted history of inducting players with somewhat less than perfect integrity, I don't have a problem with inducting those who were the best of their time or, in the case of Bonds and Clemens, among the best of all time. If the HOF wants to note that their accomplishments may have been aided by PEDs, so be it. But it simply cannot be denied that, at least between the lines, some of the greatest players ever were active during a time when everyone's performance is suspect.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I would suggest that almost everyone already in the HOF "knowingly cheated" the game in some form or fashion. Pud Galvin was an acknowledged PED user. Perry threw a spitter. Ford admittedly cut the ball. Mantle used corked bats. When he caught, Mack made a sound to try to make umps think that a ball was actually a foul tip. Impeding base runners was an art form in the 1890s. It has been a federal crime to use amphetamines without a prescription since 1970. Cocaine is obviously illegal to use as a performance enhancer. Human ingenuity being what it is, there are countless ways to cheat the game and that's always sort of been considered OK so long as you were cheating in order to try to win. Therein lies the huge difference that keeps Jackson out.

To those who want to talk about "integrity," I don't understand that argument very well. If player A cheats by using steroids and hits 70 homers, and player B cheats by using greenies and only hits 30 homers, which one has less integrity? In that example, it is my belief that the integrity of those two players is exactly the same. They both cheated, they both tried to get an unfair advantage, and one of the two was simply more successful. In that same vein, why is cheating more effectively now deemed worse than a less effective method of cheating? If two kids cheat on a test and once makes an A and the other a C, which kid has less integrity? The integrity argument has never made any sense to me and still doesn't.

Steroids happened, just as amphetamine usage and cocaine usage happened, just as corked bats, spitters, cutters, sign stealing, etc. still happen. Saying that steroid users shouldn't be elected because they are cheats is really just a way to try and avoid dealing with the issue, particularly when those who are making that claim seem to have absolutely no issue with any of the other methods of cheating employed by those who have already been elected.

I suspect that part of the reason why some people are more incensed at steroid usage is that there is a perception, valid or not, that the steroid usage type of cheating allowed cherished records to be broken. If so, all I can say, like I have already said, is that I cannot see any logical link between integrity and breaking records. If you tried to get an unfair advantage and simply did it more poorly than someone else, that doesn't give you greater integrity.

Because the HOF has a long and vaunted history of inducting players with somewhat less than perfect integrity, I don't have a problem with inducting those who were the best of their time or, in the case of Bonds and Clemens, among the best of all time. If the HOF wants to note that their accomplishments may have been aided by PEDs, so be it. But it simply cannot be denied that, at least between the lines, some of the greatest players ever were active during a time when everyone's performance is suspect.

This post makes no sense. The player hitting 30 hrs taking greenies did so when it wasn't against the rules. McGwire hitting 70 home runs on steriods was. Comparing them is apples to oranges.

The best comparison that I can make is the Tour de France. In the 50s and 60s, doping was allowed. Most if not all riders were doing it. Just because Lance Armstrong doped and was stripped of his titles doesn't mean that a 60s rider who admitted to doping should be stripped of his title.

Let me ask you this. If what Bonds, Sosa, Clemens ect did wasn't wrong, why are they still lying about what they did? The guys that took greenies aren't denying what they did, because it was not against the rules. The PED guys are denying they doped, because they knew the rules and chose to dope. Now they are getting their just due by being kept out of the hof. To allow them in would be telling all future players that it is OK to cheat. Just like letting Rose in would make it ok to bet on games or fix games. I don't want that version of baseball.

[Kenny Cole]

Rats60,

They took greenies until at least 2004. That is 34 years after they were illegal. In 2007, Eric Chavez wondered what the replacement would be, because he didn't think players could go without them for a season. I hesitate to call you an idiot, but you are clearly clueless about the legality of amphetamines or their effect.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm not going to pretend that I know everything about this steroid era, but I get the feeling that the powers that be look at cheaters in different ways. The cheaters from the old days, for the most part, did it for the team and winning was all that mattered. But the PED users of the 1990's-2000's did it for themselves. Hitting the farthest home runs and being on Sportscenter every night came first-team success was second. And of course the big contracts that came with all those homers. Same with some of the pitchers. Strike outs were the only outs that mattered to them. Again, I'm not saying that I personally believe this, but it's just the overall feeling I get. However, if some of these PED guy would have just come out and admitted it immediately and addressed the reasons why they did it, maybe it would be a different story at election time. If nothing else you could at least respect them more. Just my two cents.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Graham

I'm not going to pretend that I know everything about this steroid era, but I get the feeling that the powers that be look at cheaters in different ways. The cheaters from the old days, for the most part, did it for the team and winning was all that mattered. But the PED users of the 1990's-2000's did it for themselves. Hitting the farthest home runs and being on Sportscenter every night came first-team success was second. And of course the big contracts that came with all those homers. Same with some of the pitchers. Strike outs were the only outs that mattered to them. Again, I'm not saying that I personally believe this, but it's just the overall feeling I get. However, if some of these PED guy would have just come out and admitted it immediately and addressed the reasons why they did it, maybe it would be a different story at election time. If nothing else you could at least respect them more. Just my two cents.

good post.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Graham

I'm not going to pretend that I know everything about this steroid era, but I get the feeling that the powers that be look at cheaters in different ways. The cheaters from the old days, for the most part, did it for the team and winning was all that mattered. But the PED users of the 1990's-2000's did it for themselves. Hitting the farthest home runs and being on Sportscenter every night came first-team success was second. And of course the big contracts that came with all those homers. Same with some of the pitchers. Strike outs were the only outs that mattered to them. Again, I'm not saying that I personally believe this, but it's just the overall feeling I get. However, if some of these PED guy would have just come out and admitted it immediately and addressed the reasons why they did it, maybe it would be a different story at election time. If nothing else you could at least respect them more. Just my two cents.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said. I don't imagine they will ever publicly discuss their reasoning though. Here's my take for what its worth: You are talking about elite athletes who are competing against other elite athletes. The difference is razor thin between an all star and a bench guy.

If one of those guys can do something that gives them a small advantage and keeps them in the league, they will take it. They have to. If they can do something that gives them a big advantage, they will absolutely take it. They view it as necessary. From their perspective, its a no-brainer. That keeps them in the league, making money, and feeding their family. Not defending it, but I sort of understand how that could end up happening.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Graham

I'm not going to pretend that I know everything about this steroid era, but I get the feeling that the powers that be look at cheaters in different ways. The cheaters from the old days, for the most part, did it for the team and winning was all that mattered. But the PED users of the 1990's-2000's did it for themselves. Hitting the farthest home runs and being on Sportscenter every night came first-team success was second. And of course the big contracts that came with all those homers. Same with some of the pitchers. Strike outs were the only outs that mattered to them. Again, I'm not saying that I personally believe this, but it's just the overall feeling I get. However, if some of these PED guy would have just come out and admitted it immediately and addressed the reasons why they did it, maybe it would be a different story at election time. If nothing else you could at least respect them more. Just my two cents.

Regarding the 'old days' cheaters, please give examples of their 'doing it for the team'. All the cases I can think of were totally self-serving: Cobb,Speaker and Wood betting, the Black Sox. And while yes, for PED users it was about stats, stats ultimately mean more money. Also, I think people forget that many PED users were doing it as minor leaguers, just so they could make it to the majors….at the expense of clean minor leaguers who, as a result, had just one more obstacle (steroid users) to get by. It has always been about money, but PED users got some glory from their cheating as well.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Rats60,

They took greenies until at least 2004. That is 34 years after they were illegal. In 2007, Eric Chavez wondered what the replacement would be, because he didn't think players could go without them for a season. I hesitate to call you an idiot, but you are clearly clueless about the legality of amphetamines or their effect.

You want to compare Mantle and Mays taking greenies with Bonds taking steroids aND you call me clueless? You are the definition of clueless. Those guys were retired long before greenies were outlawed. If you have evidence of players from the 80s forward post it. You'll get no argument from me. However, you posts are extremely ignorant. To call me names just proves that. How about sticking to facts instead of resorting to personal attacks?

[EvilKing00]

cheating is cheating - if its coke, (YES COKE will enhance performance as long as its not over done), speed, greenies, steroids, hgh, corking bats, scuffing balls, etc, etc - how one of these effects mantle and another effects bonds or mays or perry, its all ENHANSING your performance through means that aren't your own. (TJ surgery is also a topic we can get into) but since the inception of the game players cheat and will continue to do so.

Best of their era should get in the HOF IMO - do we know if Thomas didn't use hgh? was he tested every day? every week? did Nolan ryan do steroids? do we only punish the ones we catch? or the ones we suspect too? What about the ones that did it but got away with it?

[bcbgcbrcb]

You can't really compare today's situation to what Rose did. He was one single individual and thus easy enough to single out. It is believed that as many as 75% of players between 1986 - 2006 used PED's at some point during the era. Much easier to get rid of one person than the majority of players in an era.....