Punishable? Under the incredibly stringent drugs testing policy instituted by baseball? What a joke! Baseball, owners and union, knew exactly what was going on. They are at least as responsible as the players who chose to use those substances. There was clear encouragement to the players on the part of baseball. Home run races...etc are good for TV and advertising dollars. As for McGwire, it was/is common knowledge that Andro was/is a steroid. Just because it wasn't specifically banned doesn't make it OK. He still used steroids like the current fall-guys, had an unfair advantage over his peers, and should be treated the same way in public opinion. Using steroids is not the same as using equipment...etc that is not technically against the rules. The man altered his body beyond it's natural capacity, which is different than lifting weights. If it was all good, then why did he stop once it came out? It wasn't banned then.
sisyphus wrote:Instead of hammering Bonds and other players maybe we should take a look at how baseball and other sports got in this situation, instead of being pollyanish and moral about certain athlete's choices.
I like some of your points, but my intent on this thread was not to judge, but to debate whether steroids will affect Bonds' HOF status.
I think we can all agree that there are others that have taken steroids and that MLB must shoulder some of the blame (and Donald Fehr and the Players Association for that matter). Most of the others (Sosa, Canseco, Giambi, Caminiti) are not for sure Hall of Fame candidates. Bonds is obviously a first ballot HOF'er. I think McGwire is most likely a first ballot HOF'er as well. The question remains: Will the fact that Bonds used steroids & McGwire used Andro affect peoples opinions enough to keep them out of the HOF??
I agree with your original point of the thread. I brought up the other comments because it seemed that many of the posters were missing the bigger point of how this situation fits within baseball and our national culture generally. I think that the recent events will have a significant effect on their prospects for the HOF, at least in terms of public opinion. Additionally, I think his prospects among the voters, ie the media, is almost nil. They hated the guy from the beginning because he didn't kiss their ass when they asked idiotic questions. Now they have a reason to keep him out. Maybe he wouldn't have set the single season HR record, and possibly the career record, without the assistance of steroids, but the guy deserves to be in the HOF for his performance over his career. Reduce his recent years to more career type averages and he is still one of the better outfielders that played. In contrast, I am not so certain about McGwire. I don't think his overall career warrants HOF status if you take away his andro induced seasons. The guy was not a good defensive player and added nothing beyond natural power.
Last edited by sisyphus on Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sisyphus wrote:Punishable? Under the incredibly stringent drugs testing policy instituted by baseball? What a joke!
I agree their policy was a joke but it doesn't mean steroids were condoned. Bonds broke the rules if he took steroids, and McGwire didn't because andro wasn't banned. You wanted to know why nobody is saying to ban McGwire, well that's why.
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
Condoned does not necessarily mean openly. Of course they were not openly condoned. But I think it is a difficult argument to differentiate between Bonds and McGwire. They both used steroids to improve their performance beyond their bodies capabilities. They should be judged the same at this point.
I skimmed through these posts, so I'm sorry if my argument is redundant......My take is that Bonds should be allowed into the HOF and there should be no * next to any of his records.
First of all THE DRUGS WEREN'T ILLEGAL WHEN BONDS TOOK THEM! I believe "clear", "cream", and THG were all banned by MLB for the 2004 season and not before. How can you cheat by taking a legal substance? That just doesn't make sense to me.
Secondly, all the people out there that said he was the greatest player ever, voted for him in the MVP race all these years, and are now saying that he has no place in the record books are hypocrites. We all knew that Bonds was on steroids. Anyone who says that they JUST found that out last week is either a liar, doesn't follow baseball very closely, or is VERY naive.
Third, even if Bonds did KNOWLINGLY take steroids, who cares? Cheating has been going on in baseball as long as the sport has been played professionally. Willey Mays took "red juice" (a liquid form of an amphetamine). Pete Rose and most of the guys from his era wouldn't suit up with out taking their "greenies" (same as red juice, but in pill form). There are even some reputable baseball sources that say the HR king himself, Hank Aaron, liked to juice up on a regular basis. Hell we should go all the way back to 1919 and discuss the Black Sox scandal, if we want to talk about some serious cheating.
Why are we being so harsh on these players all of the sudden? Why is the stupid government getting involved? I just don't understand all the attention this is getting, when players have been using drugs to enhance their performance for as long as the game's been around.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit.
wkelly91 wrote:A passage from a CBS sportsline article:
But with possible steroid use and BALCO affiliation casting a shadow over Bonds' recent accomplishments, Fantasy owners are likely beginning to worry about the end of an incredible era.
Guilty or not, Bonds' accomplishments are definitely jaw-dropping, if not eyebrow-raising. Stats, Inc. noted that Bonds had never hit a home run longer than 450 feet before the 2000 season when he hit a career-high 49 homers. Since that season, in which he turned 36, Bonds has hit at least 21 home runs of 450 feet or farther.
More evidence. I think if Barry Bonds is innocent then someone needs to apologize to Scott Peterson.
wrveres wrote:Scott Ostler of the inamous San Fransico Chronicle is allready on record saying that he would not vote Barry Bonds 1st ballot.
And that is before this Illegal leak came out.
aint that something???
His hometown paper would not vote for him. And you wonder why I say that the Chronicle hates Barry
I don't live in the area anymore... but I'm sure the Mercury News isn't being to kind to him either... I remember all the negative press they would write if he dared to not be in camp the first day of spring training
Bonds was arguably a HOF'er anyway before he likely started to use roids. I have no problem with him being put into the HOF and given a plaque.
In fairness and true testimonial to his career though, a special exhibit should be added in a new wing of the Hall. It should include things like a set of his baseball caps over his career with the various hat sizes clearly noted. Next to that should be pictures of some of Bond's greatest HRs including his Ruth and Aaron record breakers. In addition, next to those should be some pictures of Bonds injecting roids (err vitmains) into his butt...some pictures of him popping pills (err food suppliments)... some pictures of him applying the clear, the cream (oh I forgot, flaxseed oil). Then some special photos of Bond's family and friends watching him perform his HR feats...along with some of his supplier (err trainer).
Next to this, a special area for Sosa, which should include the same sort of stuff with some exhibits on cork.
Next one for McGwire, who can not be forgotten.
All this in a special Wing of the HOF called the "Hall of the Workout Program and Food Suppliment". Cost for the building of this Hall should be done strictly through private contributions made by the Halls co-sponsers, namely the makers of Preperation-H and the movie "Spiderman".