Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens don�t have the integrity, sportsmanship or

seanofjapan · #1 01-04-2022, 04:43 AM

To me it makes zero sense to be excluding Bonds and Clemens from the hall due to PED, it�s just a no brainer that they should be in regardless based on their accomplishments.

That said, I don�t think PED is irrelevant to Hall consideration in some cases. It�s really a question of how much weight is put on that factor, which I don�t think should be so high as to offset the accomplishments of a Barry Bonds. It seems it should really just be a major factor in those cases where you�ve got a borderline candidate, Where PED use could be a significant factor in excluding them. Like Jose Canseco, who without the PED use might have had a shot, I think it makes sense to take that as a factor that moves him solidly into the �no� column.

Bonds and Clemens are just so far beyond that level though that it doesn�t make sense to be barring them though.

It�s a tougher question for guys like Palmeiro and McGwire though, a fair bit lower on the achievement scale than Bonds/Clemens, but also high enough above a Canseco that they can�t be so easily dismissed.

ClementeFanOh · #2 01-04-2022, 05:54 AM

seanofjapan- you are right that Bonds/Clemens certainly had HOF level
potential prior to PED use, when they were younger. The problem is that the
use makes folks wonder if the PEDs put them over the top from "hall of
very good" to "Hall of Fame". The blatant PED abuse causes voters to
hesitate- for VERY good reason.

A side issue is that, as also was mentioned earlier, the voting process itself
is skewed. Sadly, I do think a number of players who were utterly dependent
on PED use, will eventually make it due to the uneven nature of the voting
process. I mean, Harold Baines somehow got in, right? It's probably a matter
of time before "the clear and the cream" crowd slithers it's way in. Trent King

ClementeFanOh · #3 01-04-2022, 06:10 AM

Clarification- before I get mauled by White Sox/Baines fans, I was NOT
suggesting that Harold Baines used PEDs. My point is that the HOF voting
itself sometimes allows for a questionable admission- which I think most
serious fans consider him to be. So, if Baines can make it in, then it's
possible the PED guys can as well. Trent King

seanofjapan · #4 01-04-2022, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

seanofjapan- you are right that Bonds/Clemens certainly had HOF level
potential prior to PED use, when they were younger. The problem is that the
use makes folks wonder if the PEDs put them over the top from "hall of
very good" to "Hall of Fame". The blatant PED abuse causes voters to
hesitate- for VERY good reason.

A side issue is that, as also was mentioned earlier, the voting process itself
is skewed. Sadly, I do think a number of players who were utterly dependent
on PED use, will eventually make it due to the uneven nature of the voting
process. I mean, Harold Baines somehow got in, right? It's probably a matter
of time before "the clear and the cream" crowd slithers it's way in. Trent King

I think with both Bonds and Clemens they were the among the best players of their generation long before they are suspected of starting PED use and there seems little question that absent career ending injury (which neither ultimately suffered) they were on their way to HOF careers regardless. Bonds already had almost 500 career home runs by 2001 when he is believed to have started using.

With other guys the case is way less clear and I could see using PED use as a factor in voting against them on that basis.

Jim65 · #5 01-04-2022, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

I think with both Bonds and Clemens they were the among the best players of their generation long before they are suspected of starting PED use and there seems little question that absent career ending injury (which neither ultimately suffered) they were on their way to HOF careers regardless. Bonds already had almost 500 career home runs by 2001 when he is believed to have started using.

With other guys the case is way less clear and I could see using PED use as a factor in voting against them on that basis.

To me, it makes no difference when a player started taking Steroids, that they took them should be all that matters. It was against the rules, period.

seanofjapan · #6 01-04-2022, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim65

To me, it makes no difference when a player started taking Steroids, that they took them should be all that matters. It was against the rules, period.

That is fair and I respect that opinion, but I find myself swayed by the arguments earlier posters made noting that applying the same standard to everyone in the Hall would probably result in half the guys in there getting kicked out for amphetamines, spitballs, etc. For that reason, I think PEDs should be treated as a factor to consider, but not necessarily a "everyone involved is out, period" sort of thing.

bnorth · #7 01-04-2022, 01:40 PM

Where the hell is all the outrage against David Ortiz in this thread from all you PED haters? Maybe having a very good year at 38, a even better year at 39, and an amazing year at 40 is normal for PED free players.

The picking and choosing of what cheaters should be punished is the worst part for me.

I get it, I really do. I give Clemens a free pas but fricken hate 2 HOFers that IMO done a LOT of PEDs that got free passes.

One thing is for sure correct or wrong we are passionate about our opinions.

butchie_t · #8 01-04-2022, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth

Where the hell is all the outrage against David Ortiz in this thread from all you PED haters? Maybe having a very good year at 38, a even better year at 39, and an amazing year at 40 is normal for PED free players.

The picking and choosing of what cheaters should be punished is the worst part for me.

I get it, I really do. I give Clemens a free pas but fricken hate 2 HOFers that IMO done a LOT of PEDs that got free passes.

One thing is for sure correct or wrong we are passionate about our opinions.

Has he been exposed as a user of PEDs then noted and added. I don't pick and choose frankly. I paint with a broad PED brush. Did not know he was in the mix too. So thanks. I am a no for him as well if he has been identified.

Jim65 · #9 01-04-2022, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth

Where the hell is all the outrage against David Ortiz in this thread from all you PED haters? Maybe having a very good year at 38, a even better year at 39, and an amazing year at 40 is normal for PED free players.

The picking and choosing of what cheaters should be punished is the worst part for me.

Like I said in an earlier post, if you are likable, cheating is OK, ex. Pudge Rodriguez.

steve B · #10 01-06-2022, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim65

To me, it makes no difference when a player started taking Steroids, that they took them should be all that matters. It was against the rules, period.

before 2004 it was only sort of against the rules.
For other sports yes, baseball had no specific rules and no testing program.
Steroids were made illegal in the early 90's, and Fay Vincent sent a memo that basically said "hey this stuff is illegal now so don't do it" But without a testing program that's pretty much meaningless.

That being said, it is cheating whether the rules haven't caught up to disallow it or not.

Eric72 · #11 01-04-2022, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

I think with both Bonds and Clemens they were the among the best players of their generation long before they are suspected of starting PED use and there seems little question that absent career ending injury (which neither ultimately suffered) they were on their way to HOF careers regardless. Bonds already had almost 500 career home runs by 2001 when he is believed to have started using.

With other guys the case is way less clear and I could see using PED use as a factor in voting against them on that basis.

Let me preface this by stating that I am in favor of Bonds and Clemens making the Hall of Fame.

The idea that their early-career accomplishments would have gotten them in the Hall doesn't work for me, though. It's analogous to saying Pete Rose's early-career record should have gotten him in. It's almost like suggesting we can ignore a portion of someone's resume.

While I'm on the topic, Pete belongs in the hall, too.

Holding professional athletes to incredibly high moral and performance standards would make for a very "Small Hall." As someone wrote earlier, it would basically be Christy Mathewson and a handful of others. While I can see the appeal of having only the best-of-the-best-of-the-best enshrined in the HOF, my personal preference is a bit different.

I'm more of a "Big Hall" fan. The game is over 150 years old. Let's celebrate more than the half-dozen or so from that span who are (quoting Tom Hulce) "people so lofty they sound as if they shit marble."

Seven · #12 01-04-2022, 07:31 PM

I'm not sure if Ortiz was confirmed to be in the Mitchell Report, then again, the man who made the report was a minority owner in the Red Sox, who knows if he had any sort of agenda.

It's sort of disheartening that we have to have these debates. We all fully know the owners could care less about their players juicing. Whatever put more asses in the seats, and lined their pockets with money, was fine by them.

bnorth · #13 01-04-2022, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven

I'm not sure if Ortiz was confirmed to be in the Mitchell Report, then again, the man who made the report was a minority owner in the Red Sox, who knows if he had any sort of agenda.

It's sort of disheartening that we have to have these debates. We all fully know the owners could care less about their players juicing. Whatever put more asses in the seats, and lined their pockets with money, was fine by them.

According to a interview I watched of Pedro when he was trying to sell his book the whole team was on PEDs. He told a story of how Manny mixed up cocktails of PEDs he got in the DR before a playoff game. He said everyone but one person(can't remember who) lined up to do them and they teased the one guy who didn't till he finally gave in and done the PEDs also.

Peter_Spaeth · #14 01-04-2022, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth

According to a interview I watched of Pedro when he was trying to sell his book the whole team was on PEDs. He told a story of how Manny mixed up cocktails of PEDs he got in the DR before a playoff game. He said everyone but one person(can't remember who) lined up to do them and they teased the one guy who didn't till he finally gave in and done the PEDs also.

But nobody before 1980 did anything to enhance performance, just ask the nostalgia crowd. Everyone up to that point was pure and natural and moral as hell too. Those were the days.

butchie_t · #15 01-04-2022, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

To me it makes zero sense to be excluding Bonds and Clemens from the hall due to PED, it�s just a no brainer that they should be in regardless based on their accomplishments.

Bonds and Clemens are just so far beyond that level though that it doesn�t make sense to be barring them though.

It�s a tougher question for guys like Palmeiro and McGwire though, a fair bit lower on the achievement scale than Bonds/Clemens, but also high enough above a Canseco that they can�t be so easily dismissed.

PED use is akin to gambling. Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, McGwire and many more gambled to �be better� by PED use. Sweet mother, look at a Canseco, McGwire, Bonds or a Sosa card in their rookie seasons. They were all sticks compared to cards towards the end of their career. Some of that was due to being and maintaining fitness, granted. But these guys bulked up unnaturally and due to what? The example of McGwire is a shocking example, at least to me it is.

No, none get in and should never get in. Those that either got caught or came forward and admitted their PED use should not even get a ballot sniff of any sort.

jiw98 · #16 01-04-2022, 03:45 PM

[QUOTE=butchie_t;2181853] Sweet mother, look at a Canseco, McGwire, Bonds or a Sosa card in their rookie seasons. They were all sticks compared to cards towards the end of their career.

I'm not saying that there was steroid use here, but Mike Trout is listed at 45 lbs heavier than his rookie year, Miguel Cabrera at 65 heavier. Both HOF caliber players.

Yes I believe Bonds etc used steroids, but I also believe that steroids were used by a lot more players than we think. These guys did not fail a MLB drug test so they should be eligible for the HOF. JMO

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sammy Sosa	Jim65	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	15	01-29-2018 06:43 PM
Sammy Sosa Inscribed 609 HR & Barry Bonds 762	dirdigger	Autographs & Game Used B/S/T	0	04-23-2016 10:24 AM
Ken Griffey RC Lot & Sammy Sosa RC Lot F/S	g&m sales	1980 & Newer Sports Cards B/S/T	0	03-30-2015 08:44 PM
OT: Bonds, Clemens, Sosa to be on HOF ballot	t206blogcom	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	144	12-01-2012 05:15 AM
Roger Clemens Vs Barry Bonds???	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	19	12-19-2007 03:52 PM