FatGuyWithAMullet wrote:If substantive proof ever comes out that Bonds was on steroids through a significant part of his career then no, he should not be in the HOF.
For years, and even now to an extent Major League Baseball had/has a system that protects the guilty, nothing more than a pathetic self policing honor system.
The National Baseball Hall of Fame specifically lists integrity, sportsmanship and character as qualifications for entry. Electing Barry Bonds and other cheaters like Gaylord Perry to the Hall makes a joke of the entire process.
So I don't make the Barry supporters cry I'll preface this by saying it is nothing but pure speculation on my behalf.
Bonds willfully soiled the game. He lied about his abuse, abuse that gave him an advantage over players who didn't resort to illegal means to advance their game. Barry Bonds doesn't deserve to be in the HOF in my eyes.
On the whole, I can agree with this but consider that whatever punishment you use for Barry has got to be in place for everyone in the MLB. If you want to use banishment from the Hall then fine, but now, if you get some mediocre player that is not going to really have a shot at the HOF anyway get caught juicing and you ban him, then what have you really done to deter him? See what I mean?
I'm not all for putting BB in the Hall if all comes true with his use, believe me. But neither can I strike out all his stats when clearly he hasn't been juicing his whole career. Instead, I'd wipe out his stats for whatever seasons he admits to using and use his remaining stats to decide Hall worthiness. If he is currently tested and is positive then he should face a one season ban. Does this sound reasonable?