Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens don’t have the integrity, sportsmanship or

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

Character aside, Belle was also a known cheat, remember his infamous corked bat incident? And what about someone like Gaylord Perry throwing spitballs during his career, and he's in the HOF? Those are both instances of cheating, but you never hear much about it in those forms, but the PEDs yes. Why is one form of cheating so much worse than the other? Cheating is cheating, right?

And speaking of cheats, what about what the Astros did a few years ago? I felt what they did was way more reprehensible than any PED user. Yet they did virtually nothing to the players involved. If I had a say, I'd tell each one of them that was in on it that they are now and forever banned from ever getting into the HOF. And I probably would have banned them all for at least a year. Problem is it is all about the money, as usual, and they couldn't afford to alienate an entire city and team. Had it only been a player or two involved, I bet there was would have been some significant punishment after all. But when it turned it to be to so many players, they couldn't punish them all without alienating the entire city and region.

They didn't punish Astros players because they gave them immunity in return for their testimony. And I'm sure Manfred didn't want to have to deal with the players union, it would have dragged out forever, JMO.

Sammy Sosa was suspended for using a corked bat also.

I can't answer about Gaylord but I don't think the solution is putting more cheaters in the HOF.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by BobC

Character aside, Belle was also a known cheat, remember his infamous corked bat incident? And what about someone like Gaylord Perry throwing spitballs during his career, and he's in the HOF? Those are both instances of cheating, but you never hear much about it in those forms, but the PEDs yes. Why is one form of cheating so much worse than the other? Cheating is cheating, right?

This (while hilarious) sums up how steroids conjure up a whole different sinister image than anything but the Black Sox. Sadly perception is what mostly matters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_pHrZuGyS4

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BobC

Never said my suggestion was great, just someplace to maybe start from.

One big difference from the All-Star selections back then was that everyone was on the ballot, right? If you tried this for the HOF, there would only be a limited number of players considered worthy of selection, and thus listed on the ballot to be voted on. There wouldn't be write-ins for the fan vote. Something to maybe think about and kick around though.

Not all players, but pretty close to all the starters, usually 9 at each position and 27 Outfielders. No DH. You could write in a player, but the ballots only had room for three in each league. The AS ballots probably read like the HOF ballots roughly 10 years later.

I guess it's something to consider, but it hardly ever goes as expected, and securing an online vote is a challenge. Which is why a rap artist called pitbull played Kodiac Alaska. Online voters decided to send him someplace strange. He was offered a chance to decline, but went through with it, becoming one of the few rap artists I like (And I haven't really heard much of his music at all )

The change I would make would be not eliminating a player getting below a certain precentage of votes. A player shouldn't be penalized just because 4-4 superstars decided to retire in the same year.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Jim65

They didn't punish Astros players because they gave them immunity in return for their testimony. And I'm sure Manfred didn't want to have to deal with the players union, it would have dragged out forever, JMO.

Sammy Sosa was suspended for using a corked bat also.

I can't answer about Gaylord but I don't think the solution is putting more cheaters in the HOF.

Absolutely agree with you, but think about it, we'll give you immunity and then you tell us you did it so we can't due anything about it. They probably set that up like you said to appease the players union, as well as not ticking off the city of Houston and basically destroying the Astro's team for a season or two.

Forgot about Sosa, so he was juicin' and corkin'!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

Not all players, but pretty close to all the starters, usually 9 at each position and 27 Outfielders. No DH. You could write in a player, but the ballots only had room for three in each league. The AS ballots probably read like the HOF ballots roughly 10 years later.

I guess it's something to consider, but it hardly ever goes as expected, and securing an online vote is a challenge. Which is why a rap artist called pitbull played Kodiac Alaska. Online voters decided to send him someplace strange. He was offered a chance to decline, but went through with it, becoming one of the few rap artists I like (And I haven't really heard much of his music at all )

The change I would make would be not eliminating a player getting below a certain precentage of votes. A player shouldn't be penalized just because 4-4 superstars decided to retire in the same year.

That is a good point about what happens when several great players all retire in the same year. There is no perfect answer. Maybe what they're doing now isn't so great, but what else can we do? Oh well.

[Frank A]

Bullshit that only stats should apply. This is not only about stats, it's also about the records that were broken because of CHEATING. What is it that you guys don't understand? It's all fake production and they should not ever be allowed in the hall. Frank

[butchie_t]

Hank Aaron - STILL All-Time Home Run KING
Roger Maris - STILL Single Season Home Run Record Holder (asterisk or not).

Until someone breaks the above records, and are not all juiced up when they do, these are the current record holders and will remain until such time that someone does them clean.

Regardless of how MLB wants to handle it.

[GasHouseGang]

Anyone ever heard about this article that appeared in USA Today and the SF Chronicle? I have no idea about the validity about what Tom House claims.

Posted 5/3/2005 12:27 PM Updated 5/3/2005 3:58 PM

Former pitcher Tom House describes past steroid use
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Former major league pitcher Tom House used steroids during his career and said performance-enhancing drugs were widespread in baseball in the 1960s and 1970s, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday.
House, perhaps best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run ball in 1974 in the Atlanta Braves' bullpen, said he and several teammates used amphetamines, human growth hormone and "whatever steroid" they could find in order to keep up with the competition.

"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey," House said. "We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses. That was the '60s, when nobody knew. The good thing is, we know now. There's a lot more research and understanding."

House, a former pitching coach with the Texas Rangers and co-founder of the National Pitching Association near San Diego, is one of the first players to describe steroid use as far back as the 1960s.

He was drafted in 1967 by the Braves and pitched eight seasons for Atlanta, Boston and Seattle, finishing his career with a 29-23 record and 3.79 ERA.

House, 58, estimated that six or seven pitchers per team were at least experimenting with steroids or human growth hormone. He said players talked about losing to opponents using more effective drugs.

"We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed," he said. "And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."

House said he gained almost 30 pounds while using steroids, blaming the extra weight for contributing to knee problems. He said the drugs helped improve recovery time and conditioning but did not add velocity to his fastball.

"I tried everything known to man to improve my fastball, and it still didn't go faster than 82 miles per hour," House said. "I was a failed experiment."

House said he stopped using steroids after learning about the long-term harm they could cause.

"I'd like to say we were smart, but we didn't know what was going on," he said. "We were at the tail end of a generation that wasn't afraid to ingest anything. As research showed up, guys stopped."

[ClementeFanOh]

I'm with Butchie T and Frank all the way- Trent King

[Seven]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Hank Aaron - STILL All-Time Home Run KING
Roger Maris - STILL Single Season Home Run Record Holder (asterisk or not).

Until someone breaks the above records, and are not all juiced up when they do, these are the current record holders and will remain until such time that someone does them clean.

Regardless of how MLB wants to handle it.

Aaron Took amphetamines once so I guess the record reverts to Ruth? Oh wait Ruth injected himself with sheep testosterone, so Mays is the record holder I guess? Oh wait Mays took liquid amphetamines during his days with the Mets, guess it's not his record either. We should just give it back to Roger Conner at this rate.

No one is a saint in this sport, almost all of the greats have done something wrong either on or off the field. Performance Enhancing Drugs have been apart of the game for a better portion of it's existence, and will continue to be apart of it, going forward.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Seven

Aaron Took amphetamines once so I guess the record reverts to Ruth? Oh wait Ruth injected himself with sheep testosterone, so Mays is the record holder I guess? Oh wait Mays took liquid amphetamines during his days with the Mets, guess it's not his record either. We should just give it back to Roger Conner at this rate.

No one is a saint in this sport, almost all of the greats have done something wrong either on or off the field. Performance Enhancing Drugs have been apart of the game for a better portion of it's existence, and will continue to be apart of it, going forward.

Keep digging. One can find something if they truly wish to.

I stand by my previous post.

Cheers.

Butch Turner

[ClementeFanOh]

Bonds, Sosa, etc in the Hall or not? The debate that won't die, appearing in
multiple recent threads...

I'll start by saying everyone gets an opinion. The problem is that someone's
right to opinion, does not carry with it a right of legitimacy. Anyone who
tries to equate caffeine pills with back room HGH injections and physically
mutated players, is a person who is desperately trying to make his own
bias work. Sosa was a horrid outfielder and even worse teammate, whose
15 minutes of "fame" is directly tied to PEDs and cork. He's a joke, a
sideshow.

I get the feeling that many posters somehow feel that their fandom, as it
was tied to the fake home run race of 98 and fake HR totals after, has been
cheapened. Those fans don't like it- they want their time, their energy, their
passion to be worth something. Problem is you were wrong, it was a sham.
So, to mitigate this let down, people justify the cheating because it
somehow makes it easier to live with inside. I'm lucky that I was never a
fan of these dudes or their teams- it would stink for sure. But the truth is
they were sneaky, malicious, self serving at the expense of others- and
TOTALLY outside MLB's bylaws. The argument for PED guys is pretzel logic.

Trent King

[bnorth]

I think it is so sweet when people think their favorite player didn't cheat or only took caffeine(LOL) pills.

[ClementeFanOh]

Ben North- we have agreed more than once in the past, I am disappointed
at your take...

To put a bow on this, I'll reveal that I am an Ohio State football fan. There is
a LOT to be proud of as an OSU fan. There are also, however, realities that
I'm not proud of (Woody Hayes staying too long and going out ingloriously,
Jim Tressel lying to NCAA, Urban Meyer's transgressions, etc). The difference
is that I won't sugarcoat them...

So, you can lose the snarky remark about how it's "sweet" how others
think their favorites are somehow perfect. Your argument/logic is faulty. I
didn't say it, didn't even imply it, and don't believe it. Odds are you are a
McGwire/Bonds homer (yes, that was on purpose) and are butthurt that
their undeniable (important!) cheats have been exposed. Don't care to read
your exposition or deflections of the point. The steroid boys went WAY out
of bounds, got caught with their pants down, and now fanboys are doing
everything they can to normalize the behavior. Hard pass. Trent King

[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.

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]

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]

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

[butchie_t]

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.

[seanofjapan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[butchie_t]

This is not rocket science folks.

If you use PEDs and you get caught, your HOF eligibility is should be DEAD.

End of line.....


Butch Turner

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I think it is so sweet when people think their favorite player didn't cheat or only took caffeine(LOL) pills.

Reminds me of Shoeless Joe Jackson fans, they like him and won't admit its possible that he threw WS games.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

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.

Ortiz was named in the Mitchell Report.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Ortiz was named in the Mitchell Report.

Thank you, there were a bunch in that report.

Regards,

B. T.

[egri]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I think it is so sweet when people think their favorite player didn't cheat or only took caffeine(LOL) pills.

Or when they decide steroids are a no-no, but amphetamines, sheep testosterone and who knows what else are A-OK.

[butchie_t]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Reminds me of Shoeless Joe Jackson fans, they like him and won't admit its possible that he threw WS games.

Shoeless Joe took the money, no pass from me.

Pete Rose gambled on his team to win, no pass from me.

Pick anyone from the Houston Astros a couple of years ago. They all should be banned. No pass from me.

:shrug:

B. T.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Ortiz was named in the Mitchell Report.

Source? It was a 2009 anonymous nyt article which linked him

[jiw98]

[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

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Source? It was a 2009 anonymous nyt article which linked him

Has any of the leaked players names proven to be false? Asking because I truly don't know.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Has any of the leaked players names proven to be false? Asking because I truly don't know.

I dont see his name in the report whatsoever

"The argument can be made that this was the case with Mitchell as well, despite his claims. He was a director for the Boston Red Sox at the time of his investigation, and no high profile Red Sox players were listed in the report. David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez, two star sluggers on the team, were later accused of using PEDs by a New York Times article in 2009"

[ClementeFanOh]

To Egri- I suppose I am one of the "they" you mention, who have "randomly" decided
that amphetamines , sheep testosterone, and apparently animal sacrifice (since you
included "whatever else" as a possible enhancer) to get more hits, are somehow the
same as PROVEN PED abuse...

The problem with the "____" 50s superstar took stimulants" argument is that it is
based on anecdotal or 2nd hand (or worse) memory/speculation/rumor. Was it even
against MLB policy back then? (Serious question, I'm not privy to policy from 60+
years ago). The PED stuff, however, is NOT. It is within our memories and a matter of
formalized MLB conclusion. We all watched Bonds' head grow larger and Sammy Sosa's
bat give birth to cork- after his body shape changed completely. It's not rumor or 60
year old folk tale- it's provable and most certainly against MLB policy, which EVERY ONE
of those guys knew...

So, the extent to which permissive people like you will do all you can to justify the
PED crowd- "everyone was doing it so it's okay", or "I heard from my uncle's best
friend that ____ used to sniff jet fuel before games in 1960" is actually the amusing
thing here. You keep on justifying and speculating, have at it- the PED crowd actually
did what they have been accused of doing. Good luck with that argument! Trent King

[Eric72]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Ortiz was named in the Mitchell Report.

But he's likeable as hell whereas Bonds and Clemens and ARod are not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[GasHouseGang]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

See post #58 in this thread.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by GasHouseGang

See post #58 in this thread.

Yes I saw that. My cynical view, every generation has had a lot of guys who would do whatever is available to them, it's just the nature of sports. I don't think human character suddenly deteriorated in the 1980s, such that we should be worshipping the players of the past uncritically as clean heroes and vilifying anyone who ever took HGH.

From the LA Times about a player we all idolize: For two seasons he had been able to pitch only with cortisone shots, codeine pills and other drugs that made him high between games.

Then there is this. Did Mickey Mantle use amphetamines?
In 1961 Mickey Mantle was believed to have injected himself with a chemical cocktail that included steroids and amphetamines in an effort to keep up with Roger Maris during their famous home run competition.

Oh wait it's unproven. Well, how did the government's case against William Roger Clemens trying to prove HE used (and therefore perjured himself) go?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by butchie_t

Shoeless Joe took the money, no pass from me.

Pete Rose gambled on his team to win, no pass from me.

Pick anyone from the Houston Astros a couple of years ago. They all should be banned. No pass from me.

:shrug:

B. T.

Astros, yes, 100% should be banned. That immunity garbage MLB gave them is a joke.

Rose, he supposedly never tried to throw a game and lose, which is really what the gambling rule was put in place to stop. But it was and still is the rule, and Rose knew it. So agree as well.

Jackson my be a little more complicated. To this day, no one really knows exactly everything that occurred. There is evidence that Jackson didn't necessarily willingly agree to accept and keep the money, and supposedly the money primarily went to benefit a sick relative in need of surgery and care. His stats and play during the 1919 WS certainly seem to belie the argument that he was actively trying to throw the WS. And there was no specific gambling rule in place at that time for MLB as there is today. So Jackson was permanently banned by the retroactive application of a rule that didn't exist at the time of the alleged transgression. I'd love to see how that would have held up in today's courts, and how fast the lawsuits to stop it would have been filed. Not so sure Jackson was fairly treated by MLB back then, which had their own agenda they were keeping to at the time.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by BobC

Astros, yes, 100% should be banned. That immunity garbage MLB gave them is a joke.

Rose, he supposedly never tried to throw a game and lose, which is really what the gambling rule was put in place to stop. But it was and still is the rule, and Rose knew it. So agree as well.

Jackson my be a little more complicated. To this day, no one really knows exactly everything that occurred. There is evidence that Jackson didn't necessarily willingly agree to accept and keep the money, and supposedly the money primarily went to benefit a sick relative in need of surgery and care. His stats and play during the 1919 WS certainly seem to belie the argument that he was actively trying to throw the WS. And there was no specific gambling rule in place at that time for MLB as there is today. So Jackson was permanently banned by the retroactive application of a rule that didn't exist at the time of the alleged transgression. I'd love to see how that would have held up in today's courts, and how fast the lawsuits to stop it would have been filed. Not so sure Jackson was fairly treated by MLB back then, which had their own agenda they were keeping to at the time.

I'm not going to argue whether Jackson is guilty or not, I've done it dozens of times and nobody ever gets swayed to the other side. This is just what I believe. Jackson took money, lied multiple times about taking it. Complained that he was being double-crossed when more money failed to come, if he was playing to win, how was he getting double-crossed? After Jackson's Civil Trial against Comiskey, he was charged with perjury by the judge, the charge was never pursued but its easy to see he did lie under oath. I believe Jackson participated in the fix but played to win after he realized there was no more money coming. Look at his BA in wins vs loses. If he didn't run after 1 ball or made one out on purpose, hes as guilty as the rest.

[egri]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

To Egri- I suppose I am one of the "they" you mention, who have "randomly" decided
that amphetamines , sheep testosterone, and apparently animal sacrifice (since you
included "whatever else" as a possible enhancer) to get more hits, are somehow the
same as PROVEN PED abuse...

The problem with the "____" 50s superstar took stimulants" argument is that it is
based on anecdotal or 2nd hand (or worse) memory/speculation/rumor. Was it even
against MLB policy back then? (Serious question, I'm not privy to policy from 60+
years ago). The PED stuff, however, is NOT. It is within our memories and a matter of
formalized MLB conclusion. We all watched Bonds' head grow larger and Sammy Sosa's
bat give birth to cork- after his body shape changed completely. It's not rumor or 60
year old folk tale- it's provable and most certainly against MLB policy, which EVERY ONE
of those guys knew...

So, the extent to which permissive people like you will do all you can to justify the
PED crowd- "everyone was doing it so it's okay", or "I heard from my uncle's best
friend that ____ used to sniff jet fuel before games in 1960" is actually the amusing
thing here. You keep on justifying and speculating, have at it- the PED crowd actually
did what they have been accused of doing. Good luck with that argument! Trent King

I’m going to ignore your ridiculous ad hominem and straw man arguments, and just observe that Hank Aaron admitted to taking amphetamines in his autobiography. That’s not “ I heard from my uncle's best friend that ____ used to sniff jet fuel before games in 1960" or “anecdotal or 2nd hand (or worse) memory/speculation/rumor“; that’s straight from the man himself. As for MLB policy, the federal government had made amphetamines illegal without a prescription in the early 1960s; Aaron’s use occurred in 1968. When the feds say it’s illegal, MLB policy goes out the window.

[Republicaninmass]

I still dont see Ortiz mentioned in the mitchell report. This was just more n54 idiots allowing their own narrative to change the data.

"Manfred deferred to Hall of Fame voters to make judgments on Ortiz's career. But he did note that Ortiz "has never been a positive at any point under our program." MLB's drug-testing program was implemented in 2004."

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I still dont see Ortiz mentioned in the mitchell report. This was just more n54 idiots allowing their own narrative to change the data.

"Manfred deferred to Hall of Fame voters to make judgments on Ortiz's career. But he did note that Ortiz "has never been a positive at any point under our program." MLB's drug-testing program was implemented in 2004."

Do you think David Ortiz was PED free or just calling out one guy that messed up on him being in the Mitchell report?

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I still dont see Ortiz mentioned in the mitchell report. This was just more n54 idiots allowing their own narrative to change the data.

"Manfred deferred to Hall of Fame voters to make judgments on Ortiz's career. But he did note that Ortiz "has never been a positive at any point under our program." MLB's drug-testing program was implemented in 2004."

I read the story saying Ortiz name was on the list, why shouldn't I have believed it? Because Ortiz said it wasn't true? The same story named Manny Ramirez and they were right about him. I assume you never believe any news stories with anonymous sources?

I don't understand why you have to make it personal by calling people names?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Jim65

I read the story saying Ortiz name was on the list, why shouldn't I have believed it? Because Ortiz said it wasn't true? The same story named Manny Ramirez and they were right about him. I assume you never believe any news stories with anonymous sources?



I don't understand why you have to make it personal by calling people names?

From what I see, He is not in the mitchell report try reading it your dam self. You lied, or you just have no reading comprehension. Maybe you saw it on facebook?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

From what I see, He is not in the mitchell report try reading it your dam self. You lied, or you just have no reading comprehension. Maybe you saw it on facebook?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I told you where the story came from, I didn't pull it out of my ass, dickhead.