Pete Rose Poll

[mattsey9]

Originally Posted by rats60

What players are you talking about? I am not aware of any evidence against existing members of the hof. I have heard acquisitions against Henderson without proof, like Piazza and Bagwell. Barry Bonds admitted under oath that he used steroids, the clear and the cream. If you can provide similar evidence that any current hofer used steroids, then I would favor removing them. Even though I doubt it would ever happen. I don't think there is even a way to expel members from the hof.

Players in the 50s, 60s, and 70s were eating Greenies like they were candy. Several players from that era in the HOF have been linked to their use.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by mattsey9

Players in the 50s, 60s, and 70s were eating Greenies like they were candy. Several players from that era in the HOF have been linked to their use.

Greenies aren't PEDs. It's apples and oranges. You cannot compare the two. Also, there was no drug policy in mlb until the late 70s when steroids and greenies were banned. So, players who used them prior to the policy cannot be compared to players who knew they were banned, but chose to dope anyway. That is cheating and they deserve to be kept from the hof.

Similarly, Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker bet on baseball prior to the 1919 World Series and a ban on gambling. Pete Rose bet knowing the rule and punishment and he deserves his permanent banishment while Cobb and Speaker were easily elected. We evolve as a society and make rules that improve us, but we don't punish those who didn't have foreknowledge of those rules.

[Kenny Cole]

More like oranges and grapefruits -- one is just seen as a much bigger member of the same family. Greenies have been banned by MLB since, I believe, 1971. Yet they were commonly used at least into the mid-80's. A number of those in the hallowed HOF, including Mays, Aaron, Schmidt and Stargell, to name a few, took them precisely to improve their performance. That's why when any HOF player from the 1970's gets on their soapbox about PEDs it makes me think they are probably a bit hypocritical and makes me want to call bullshit on them for that reason.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

More like oranges and grapefruits -- one is just seen as a much bigger member of the same family. Greenies have been banned by MLB since, I believe, 1971. Yet they were commonly used at least into the mid-80's. A number of those in the hallowed HOF, including Mays, Aaron, Schmidt and Stargell, to name a few, took them precisely to improve their performance. That's why when any HOF player from the 1970's gets on their soapbox about PEDs it makes me think they are probably a bit hypocritical and makes me want to call bullshit on them for that reason.

This. And baseball drug policy or not, since 1970 it has been a federal crime to use amphetamines without a prescription. Similarly with providing them to someone else. There have performance enhancements going on since the days of Pud Gavin.

I thought the HOF were supposed to honor the best players from their era? So why wouldn't this be someone like Bonds? I'm still waiting for someone to explain their reasoning of WHY the banishment for PED users (during the "PED era"). Because they cheated? Because what they did was illegal? Because it gave them an edge?

What is you view on existing members of the HOF who cheated, were involved in illegal activities, or did something to give them an edge? Should they be removed?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

More like oranges and grapefruits -- one is just seen as a much bigger member of the same family. Greenies have been banned by MLB since, I believe, 1971. Yet they were commonly used at least into the mid-80's. A number of those in the hallowed HOF, including Mays, Aaron, Schmidt and Stargell, to name a few, took them precisely to improve their performance. That's why when any HOF player from the 1970's gets on their soapbox about PEDs it makes me think they are probably a bit hypocritical and makes me want to call bullshit on them for that reason.

In any sport where there is a lot of money involved, there are going to be players -- lots of them -- who push the limit of the rules and then some to gain an edge.

Why is it by the way that people are so holy about PED in baseball but it's barely discussed in football, where usage is and has been likely much more pervasive?

http://www.vpxsports.com/article-det...use-in-the-nfl

[Joshchisox08]

"Why is it by the way that people are so holy about PED in baseball but it's barely discussed in football, where usage is and has been likely much more pervasive?"


THANK YOU!!! About time someone other than myself asks this question.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

"Why is it by the way that people are so holy about PED in baseball but it's barely discussed in football, where usage is and has been likely much more pervasive?"


THANK YOU!!! About time someone other than myself asks this question.

Because the NFL started testing in 1987 and MLB took another 15 years to start chasing dopers. Their failure to act has brought deserved criticism. Both leagues are fighting a losing battle against dopers, but at least they are now trying.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Because the NFL started testing in 1987 and MLB took another 15 years to start chasing dopers. Their failure to act has brought deserved criticism. Both leagues are fighting a losing battle against dopers, but at least they are now trying.

Does anyone seriously believe there isn't rampant drug use in the NFL despite the testing? The size and agility and speed of the linemen for example are quantum leaps ahead of just a couple of decades ago, this is not just better training methods IMO.