PDA

View Full Version : Would you vote for these juicers??



cle12152433
06-17-2009, 10:30 PM
I wouldnt vote for any of them....

redsox0717
06-17-2009, 10:47 PM
They'll get my vote for the Hall of Shame, but keep the roiders out of the HoF please

Les Cowboys
06-17-2009, 11:00 PM
They'll get my vote for the Hall of Shame, but keep the roiders out of the HoF please

How can you tell who is and isn't a roider? In 2003, MLB players were warned they were going to be tested. Plus the test didn't even test for HGH and many forms of steroids. Yet more than 3 players per team tested positive on average.

jgthealpha2
06-17-2009, 11:20 PM
Who gives a **** if someone took steriods. It shouldn't be banned in the first place. Professional sports has everyone tricked into thinking it is bad. As long as it is prescribed by a physician it should be allowed. I am not a user of steriods, HGH, or any other banned steriod. These guys get paid an absurd amount of money to play a game. Let them hit the ball so high and far that Jesus catches it. Legalize freedom and open up you mind...so yes vote them all in. What a mess baseball.

MaHaRaJaH
06-17-2009, 11:30 PM
Nothing can change the numbers they put up, if you wanna start taking away their homeruns. Go for it.

justndav
06-18-2009, 03:41 AM
IMO it would be a travesty to let Clemens, McGwire, Bonds, and ARod in and not let Pete Rose in. The other guys above cheated by padding their stats big time whereas as, OMG, Rose bet on some games- Rose is MLB's alltime hit leader yet he is not in the HOF. If Rose cannot be in then neither can Clemens- cheater, Bonds- cheater, ARod- cheater, McGwire- cheater, etc etc etc (Sosa- also cheater and Im a huge Cubs fan).

Gigantes4Life
06-18-2009, 04:00 AM
It's part of the era, if their numbers were good enough, then they should get in.

abe_froman
06-18-2009, 04:11 AM
just glad i'm not a voter

this has to be the hardest issue they've ever had to deal with

i mean no matter what you choose your going to catch so much crap by tons of fans if they get in or not.(way beyond the scale of the normal they've gotten)

LetsGoA's
06-18-2009, 04:18 AM
No to all accept mac and conseco who for some reason is not on this list

Sosa? That guy had a corked bat man how is he on this list?

LAFord
06-18-2009, 05:28 AM
As long as Gaylord Perry is in there, every cheater should be welcome.

thefeckcampaign
06-18-2009, 07:32 AM
For those of you who voted, "Of course! Steroids were legal and really boosted the game" you forgot steroids were AGAINST THE LAW!


As long as Gaylord Perry is in there, every cheater should be welcome.Difference is that could be caught during the game in the act by an umpire. What is an ump suppose to do, take a urine/blood test between every at-bat?

Matt-the-great
06-18-2009, 07:58 AM
you needed to give us the option to choose multiple options in the poll....

i would vote for A-Rod, Bonds, and Clemens....

-IMO they deserve it, because their performances were so special in a time where so many others were also taking steroids...did they do something wrong? yes...but so did so many other players who didn't perform nearly as well as those 3.

Matt-the-great
06-18-2009, 08:00 AM
No to all accept mac and conseco who for some reason is not on this list

Sosa? That guy had a corked bat man how is he on this list?

are you kidding? you would only let Mac and Canseco in? the 2 least worthy candidates?

wow, you are an A's homer...a major A's homer....probably the biggest i have ever seen....those losers do not deserve to sit on the steps of the hall.

donnie23
06-18-2009, 08:20 AM
Yes to Rodriguez (assuming his career continues to be successful), Bonds, and Clemens. No to the rest. If you are a juicer you have to be a no-doubter.

donnie23
06-18-2009, 08:21 AM
For those of you who voted, "Of course! Steroids were legal and really boosted the game" you forgot steroids were AGAINST THE LAW!

Difference is that could be caught during the game in the act by an umpire. What is an ump suppose to do, take a urine/blood test between every at-bat?

It is aginst the law to acquire steroids in the US without a prescription. That's not the same thing as being illegal, but I know what you meant.

Pinstripe pride
06-18-2009, 08:43 AM
I'd say most of the era was using steriods. This in my opinion is all or nothing. If you let 1 guy who used steriods in, then their is no basis to exclude anyone else for using steriods. If its ok for one its ok for all.

thefeckcampaign
06-18-2009, 09:07 AM
Nothing can change the numbers they put up, if you wanna start taking away their homeruns. Go for it.I am not looking to take away any numbers. I find it silly that NCAA tries to deny what has happened by erasing the history books. All I want is for them not to be acknowledge as one of the best ever. I want people to question why does someone who may have more HRs than someone else not be in the HOF. If the question is brought up, then that person who has the lesser numbers will be acknowledged properly.

salto
06-18-2009, 09:54 AM
How can you tell who is and isn't a roider? In 2003, MLB players were warned they were going to be tested. Plus the test didn't even test for HGH and many forms of steroids. Yet more than 3 players per team tested positive on average.

The players were not "warned", they were promised that the tests would be anonymous and that any positive samples were not to be used to incriminate. I hope Bud Selig and the Players Union employees that are leaking these lists get sued and thrown out of baseball. They are the real criminals here. Selig used McGwire and Sosa to bring fans back to baseball. The steroid era is a part of the game that should be mentioned in the HoF, Selig is trying to come out of this with some kind of legacy regarding cleaning up the sport. In reality he is a egomaniac who needs to leave the game before he finds a way to give the MLB a final death blow.

Testing is in place now. Throw out all this B.S. and move on. Baseball doesn't need the fall out from Selig trying to save face.

The Schmooze
06-18-2009, 10:29 AM
IMO, The more big names that come out to have done steroids, the more compelling the arguement is to let Pete Rose in the HOF

donnie23
06-18-2009, 10:33 AM
I'd say most of the era was using steriods. This in my opinion is all or nothing. If you let 1 guy who used steriods in, then their is no basis to exclude anyone else for using steriods. If its ok for one its ok for all.

Fernado Vina used steroids, is he a HOFer? Why can't you factor that in? If you were a 1 trick pony ala McGwire, then steroids can certainly play a role in whether or not you belong in the HOF.

MooseWithFleas
06-18-2009, 10:33 AM
I'd vote for all of them.

Pinstripe pride
06-18-2009, 10:49 AM
Fernado Vina used steroids, is he a HOFer? Why can't you factor that in? If you were a 1 trick pony ala McGwire, then steroids can certainly play a role in whether or not you belong in the HOF.

they still have to be hal of fame deserving. My example applie sto guys like bonds and arod. Theyw ere sure fire hall of famers, thent he steriod issue came out and now maybe not. If they deserve to go in, and other steriod users are going in, then yes those players should be voted in. Example, you can't say arod is a hall of famer because of his number, but bonds isn't because he juiced. If one goes in, both should. And so forth

LetsGoA's
06-18-2009, 02:39 PM
Mac and Conseco are the two who used steroids when they were not illegal, everyone else is a liar and a criminal

CityofTreez
06-18-2009, 02:48 PM
Barry Bopnds was the greatest hitter of our era, sterioids or not, he makes it into the HOF!

IDK, what ya'll say: he was 1 of the best contact hitters in the sport, so he's the only guy!

Ivan Rodriguez,Lenny Dykstra are some others i'd vote for

LetsGoA's
06-18-2009, 02:51 PM
It must be easy to hit when your head is the size of a beach ball and your eyes are the size of little golf balls

Mr Wonderful
06-18-2009, 02:58 PM
Considering steriods just got into baseball in the 90's I just don't know. :rolleyes:

whitesoxfan83
06-18-2009, 03:00 PM
Im going to say of course for a different reason...

At some point, it will happen (if it already hasnt) that someone who was juicing will get elected to the hall of fame without anyone knowing...

Here's my point:

Lets say hypothetically Ken Griffey Jr gets inducted into the Hall of Fame and 5 years after his induction its discovered he is one of the 104 names in the 2003 testings.

All of the sudden people are going to realize... whoops we inducted a steroid user not knowing he was a steroid user

This will lead to people to go... Well if we inducted one then whats the harm in inducting another? If Griff was so great and he cheated shouldnt we induct Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, etc etc

And eventually people will realize the Hall has been tainted by players who cheated but were not known to be cheaters until after their induction...

Then the cheaters will start to go in by the barrel full and the steroids era will be looked at like all the other eras in baseball history....

pf289
06-18-2009, 03:03 PM
Yes to all but Palmero, Sosa, Mcgwire. They cheated but also were playing in an era where a large amount of players cheated. No its not right but just asterisk it an say yes they were among the most talented players ever an used steroids to add to it but played in the steroid era. You know i heard something last night on espn i think about how the players in the 60s an 70s use to use prescription drugs to help hide heir injuries. they got doctors to write them prescriptions an that helped them tremendously. Now sure its not illegal like steroids an im not trying to put it on that level but they had an advantage back then also. Mcgwire more than any on that list though should never ever ever get in.

LetsGoA's
06-18-2009, 03:05 PM
Conseco should be put into the hall of fame for being right about everyone whos name he put out there, tho i dont approve of snitching

pf289
06-18-2009, 03:05 PM
I would be shocked more about Griffey than any player in the history of the league if he was proven to use steroids. Even more than Ripken. Griffey was never healthy an was an elite player when he was young. He was looked at an talked about when he was a young teenager. I just dont think he has ever taken them. Health reasons mainly an also he is a legitimately genuine person. I know i may be an ignorant idiot but I just dont think he ever did.

degnor
06-18-2009, 04:41 PM
The title of the thread kind of lends bias to the concept, but i voted yes, with an *.

degnor
06-18-2009, 04:43 PM
I would be shocked more about Griffey than any player in the history of the league if he was proven to use steroids. Even more than Ripken. Griffey was never healthy an was an elite player when he was young. He was looked at an talked about when he was a young teenager. I just dont think he has ever taken them. Health reasons mainly an also he is a legitimately genuine person. I know i may be an ignorant idiot but I just dont think he ever did.

Griffey was just such a decent guy. Most of the guys who have been implicated haven't really crushed me, because they came off as arrogant *******s anyway.

People linking Piazza to steroids hurt me, till I looked at the actual "proof" and realized it was all hearsay.

So I would say if Griffey came out as dirty, that would crush me as a baseball fan. More than anyone else I can think of. You just want to trust the guy because he seems like an ordinary guy with extraordinary talent.

hawks1723
06-18-2009, 04:55 PM
Not enough options here. I would have voted for a few like Clemens and Arod. I mean anyone that says they wouldn't vote for them no matter what because they cheated is naive. Over half the league was using and players have found ways to cheat for the entire existence in baseball. You can't tell me what Clemens did when he was with the Astros those 2 seasons when he was over the age of 40 isn't and indication of his Hall of Fame status. And you cant use roids as an argument because 1 there's still no real proof he used and 2 those seasons were after steroid testing were in place.

jim51990
06-18-2009, 05:07 PM
barry should be a 1st ballad. great fielder, 500 steals 500 hrs prior to any steroid use
top 5 player of all time steroids or not

PhillyBoomerang
06-18-2009, 05:25 PM
its hard but.. no they should not be in Hall.. a big reason for their success is the roids..

degnor
06-18-2009, 05:34 PM
its hard but.. no they should not be in Hall.. a big reason for their success is the roids..

What about Bonds? There's no evidence he used before 2001 or w/e, and he was nearly at 500 HRs then, not to mention all his SBs and Gold Gloves. He was a 1st ballot HOF if he retired the day before he took his first steroid.

I got no problem with you keeping him out, but what about the guys who were good enough without steroids? It's hard to know with some, but Bonds is pretty obvious. That's the saddest part of the whole Bonds story. He would have already been an all-time great.

Havoc Wreaker
06-18-2009, 06:00 PM
One Vote

Barry Lamar Bonds

LeoGetz
06-18-2009, 06:02 PM
Conseco should be put into the hall of fame for being right about everyone whos name he put out there, tho i dont approve of snitching

Even with the use of steroids his entire career Canseco doesn't have the stats to be in the hall. By the way his name is Canseco not Conseco, I would think an A's fan would know that.

RamOG
06-18-2009, 06:41 PM
Even with the use of steroids his entire career Canseco doesn't have the stats to be in the hall. By the way his name is Canseco not Conseco, I would think an A's fan would know that.

Nah, he had it half right. ConSico

kmo429
06-18-2009, 07:16 PM
I wouldvote for all of them, and Manny Ramirez too

djeller1139
06-18-2009, 07:41 PM
If you vote for one, you should vote for all.

You can't keep some out for steroids and allow some in. Unless there are other reasons (statistical reasons) why someone else shouldn't be allowed in, then you either need all steroid users allowed or all not allowed.

nikefreek220
06-18-2009, 10:16 PM
I'd vote for all.
Baseball has to realize, when all these players STARTED juicing the MLB was i a hole. The strike destroyed baseball and no body was really watching. Then came Sosa, McGwire, Bond etc.. they all put on shows. They hit a ton of home runs and brought fans to Ball parks. It got people interested.

In a really weird way, it actually helped baseball alot. But now its taking its toll and hurting baseball.

CAIN=FUTURE
06-19-2009, 02:46 AM
For those of you who voted, "Of course! Steroids were legal and really boosted the game" you forgot steroids were AGAINST THE LAW!
Difference is that could be caught during the game in the act by an umpire. What is an ump suppose to do, take a urine/blood test between every at-bat?

So is weed. The point is, who cares? lol

mlbsniper1
06-19-2009, 03:29 AM
Come on guys, stop with all the denial! Big Papi is the big has-been! Maybe if you throw pork chops at him perhaps he can hit those. Sorry to bust your chops, but the BIG PAPI, has become the tiny little pap smear! How long can the Redsox pretend to be a contender? No Manny, and no more Big pork-chop Papi! Real soon, too soon Boston will fade like a baloon without air and all that will be left is that wonderful flatulating sound that beantown is famous for! Good night and goodbye chowderville USA! Give Boston credit for over achieving, but like all sad endings Redsox will just fade away!

thefeckcampaign
06-19-2009, 08:22 AM
So is weed. The point is, who cares? lolThe point is, people like yourself who feel MLB is above the law is beyond me. Regardless of whether or not MLB had a testing policy placed or not, it was against the law to use steroids in the manner these players chose to do it. Unlike smoking weed, it was to deliberately to cheat the game.

That is why I care. I want the game to have integrity. Sorry you and so many others don't.

Sockeye
06-19-2009, 09:31 AM
For those of you who voted, "Of course! Steroids were legal and really boosted the game" you forgot steroids were AGAINST THE LAW!

Difference is that could be caught during the game in the act by an umpire. What is an ump suppose to do, take a urine/blood test between every at-bat?

I don't believe that rape and murder are actually addressed in baseball's rules, but that doesn't mean it's OK, only if you do it on the field of play......So I agree with the above....

Sockeye
06-19-2009, 09:36 AM
IMO it would be a travesty to let Clemens, McGwire, Bonds, and ARod in and not let Pete Rose in. The other guys above cheated by padding their stats big time whereas as, OMG, Rose bet on some games- Rose is MLB's alltime hit leader yet he is not in the HOF. If Rose cannot be in then neither can Clemens- cheater, Bonds- cheater, ARod- cheater, McGwire- cheater, etc etc etc (Sosa- also cheater and Im a huge Cubs fan).

Excellent point......as a matter of fact, I'd vote in Rose before these guys. What he did, in general, is not against the law, other than the tax evasion part. Also, Rose didn't create an unfair advantage on the field, which these other guys did.....

I BLEED GREEN
06-19-2009, 10:31 AM
No to juicers in the HOF they had to cheat to get the records and that robbs the hard working ones that put there time in and truly deserve to be in the HOF like ken griffy jr,jim thome,ect,ect.

Dark Donnie
06-19-2009, 10:57 AM
I'd vote for them all except for Sosa.

I believe (maybe I'm wrong) that guys like Bonds and Clemens would have been HOF's even without using PED's. Sosa was not even close.

mavwar53
06-19-2009, 11:05 AM
yes to bonds for sure because he would have been 500/500 club even without the juice, now clemens has been taking it for a long time according to conseco and sosa would have been nothing without it, A-rod probably took it for a long time and big mac of course. The other thing to think about is how many players were actually taking it and so roids vs. roids = even playing field.

kbaxter34
06-19-2009, 11:30 AM
It has been estimated that as many as 80% of players were using PEDs. Is it still cheating if the majority of players were doing it. At this point I no longer care. Every era in baseball has its own + and -, the long ball era will go down as being an era where the use of PEDs was rampant. With or without roids Bonds, Clemens, and Arod are great players and should be in the HOF. If not then we need to take out ever pitcher that pitched in the dead ball, or every hitter in the lively ball era, or perhaps every white player before integration. The commissioner of baseball is to be blamed here not the players, it is human nature to try to gain a competitive advantage over your opponent and it is Bud Selig who failed to place rules and regulations in place to prevent the use of PEDs. I say let em use PEDs. Baseball is entertainment. Everyone like HRs. Let them all get roided up. They are only hurting themselves. For all of you who claim that taking steroids is illegal, show me the law that states that.

natepro
06-19-2009, 11:30 AM
are you kidding? you would only let Mac and Canseco in? the 2 least worthy candidates?

wow, you are an A's homer...a major A's homer....probably the biggest i have ever seen....those losers do not deserve to sit on the steps of the hall.

Canseco, okay... but how is McGwire the "least worthy?" Unless my mind is completely failing me, he's the only guy on the list who hasn't tested positive.

kbaxter34
06-19-2009, 12:52 PM
^Career .263 avg dosnt help

Tragedy
06-19-2009, 12:54 PM
No, I would not vote for any one of them. Then again, it's very annoying to black list these guys yet not the others who were steroid users that we do not know about. There is a very good chance there is at least ONE player in the Hall already that used steroids some point in his career.

However, if a known steroid user is allowed in, then Pete Rose should be in.

MaHaRaJaH
06-19-2009, 01:16 PM
I am not looking to take away any numbers. I find it silly that NCAA tries to deny what has happened by erasing the history books. All I want is for them not to be acknowledge as one of the best ever. I want people to question why does someone who may have more HRs than someone else not be in the HOF. If the question is brought up, then that person who has the lesser numbers will be acknowledged properly.

Assuming the PEDs does affect your numbers.

thefeckcampaign
06-19-2009, 02:23 PM
Assuming the PEDs does affect your numbers.Spoken like a true Barry Bonds fan. ;)

thefeckcampaign
06-19-2009, 02:28 PM
I'd vote for them all except for Sosa.

I believe (maybe I'm wrong) that guys like Bonds and Clemens would have been HOF's even without using PED's. Sosa was not even close.That's the sad part. They could have been good guys and let their egos go to the side and really set an example here but they chose not to. They felt they needed to let everyone know they were better than all the cheaters by cheating too. It's sad really that they did see the cream would eventually rise to the top be it while their career was happening or after they retired. Players like Griffey & Maddux will know the difference. Hopefully, unless we all have been fooled.

abe_froman
06-19-2009, 02:38 PM
No, I would not vote for any one of them. Then again, it's very annoying to black list these guys yet not the others who were steroid users that we do not know about. There is a very good chance there is at least ONE player in the Hall already that used steroids some point in his career.

However, if a known steroid user is allowed in, then Pete Rose should be in.

but thats the thing.baseball is ok/even sometimes likes cheating,the sin comes from getting caught.take gambling where there are guys who gambled on the game that are in the hall(cobb),but its rose/jackson,ect...who have better numbers than half the guys in there,are out,because they got caught

you can only deal in whats known

07MVPPatBurrell
06-19-2009, 03:08 PM
Who gives a **** if someone took steriods. It shouldn't be banned in the first place. Professional sports has everyone tricked into thinking it is bad. As long as it is prescribed by a physician it should be allowed. I am not a user of steriods, HGH, or any other banned steriod. These guys get paid an absurd amount of money to play a game. Let them hit the ball so high and far that Jesus catches it. Legalize freedom and open up you mind...so yes vote them all in. What a mess baseball.

......ok.

Driven
06-19-2009, 03:15 PM
I'd vote for all of them.

YayBoston
06-19-2009, 05:22 PM
Im going to say of course for a different reason...

At some point, it will happen (if it already hasnt) that someone who was juicing will get elected to the hall of fame without anyone knowing...

Here's my point:

Lets say hypothetically Ken Griffey Jr gets inducted into the Hall of Fame and 5 years after his induction its discovered he is one of the 104 names in the 2003 testings.

All of the sudden people are going to realize... whoops we inducted a steroid user not knowing he was a steroid user

This will lead to people to go... Well if we inducted one then whats the harm in inducting another? If Griff was so great and he cheated shouldnt we induct Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, etc etc

And eventually people will realize the Hall has been tainted by players who cheated but were not known to be cheaters until after their induction...

Then the cheaters will start to go in by the barrel full and the steroids era will be looked at like all the other eras in baseball history....

:clap:
Let's be realistic. Cheating and drugs are a part of baseball's history. This isn't the first imperfect era. Voters can either forget the whole era or risk what you're talking about if they don't want to elect steroid users.

goldenstater
06-19-2009, 05:45 PM
i would vote for them but i would have to put an asterisks on the era. i dont see how you can and cannot vote for some in this era simply because they didnt get caught. sucks for the ones who didnt do steroids but thats life and its not fair. just give them there own separate wing with an * in the Hof and be done with it. just because you cheat does not totally mean you did not earn a hof spot fairly. IMO people like bonds and clemens cheated but were hof's before this whole steroids thing started for them. tainted legacy yes but i believe still earned there spot.

DodgersFanFor23
06-19-2009, 06:01 PM
One guy can't be accepted just because he was better it's either no one gets accepted or everyone.

goldenstater
06-19-2009, 06:16 PM
One guy can't be accepted just because he was better it's either no one gets accepted or everyone.

i totally agree with that.

YayBoston
06-19-2009, 08:29 PM
i would vote for them but i would have to put an asterisks on the era. i dont see how you can and cannot vote for some in this era simply because they didnt get caught. sucks for the ones who didnt do steroids but thats life and its not fair. just give them there own separate wing with an * in the Hof and be done with it. just because you cheat does not totally mean you did not earn a hof spot fairly. IMO people like bonds and clemens cheated but were hof's before this whole steroids thing started for them. tainted legacy yes but i believe still earned there spot.

I agree that juicers should be elected, but with *'s, I feel like you're belittling someone's achievements. By giving it to everyone from the era, you belittle the accomplishments of those who didn't juice. By giving it to those who were caught, you belittle their accomplishments because there's likely someone in the HOF who wasn't caught.

StevenStrasburg
06-19-2009, 08:33 PM
It's getting to the point where you either have to say: yes, I will vote for them, or no I will not vote for anybody from this era. Personally, if there is even the slightest hint of steroid use, I wouldn't vote for them at all. They ruined the game.

goldenstater
06-19-2009, 11:28 PM
I agree that juicers should be elected, but with *'s, I feel like you're belittling someone's achievements. By giving it to everyone from the era, you belittle the accomplishments of those who didn't juice. By giving it to those who were caught, you belittle their accomplishments because there's likely someone in the HOF who wasn't caught.

its not to belittle everyone esp. those that didnt do it but i just dont see how you can only give *'s for those who were just caught, cause there is probably alot that were not caught. i mean this steroid era goes as far back as the mid 80's most likely. it is unfortunate that those who didnt cheat get an asterisk but this is the era they belong to where they like it or not.Imo i just dont see how you can give it to just those who were just caught cause we flat out dont know who did it.example: i mean we all think griffey(and probably is clean) didnt do them but do we really know for sure? no. i just dont see personally how you can give someone an * and not someone else just cause the fact that there is still so much uncertainty about these last 15-20 or so?

goldenstater
06-19-2009, 11:39 PM
It's getting to the point where you either have to say: yes, I will vote for them, or no I will not vote for anybody from this era. Personally, if there is even the slightest hint of steroid use, I wouldn't vote for them at all. They ruined the game.

not just steroids ruined the game it def. probably brought it to the breaking point. you could almost argue though that the steroid induced homerun race in 98' actually saved the game in a lot of ways. but a lot of things ruined the game: steroids, extreme salaries, no salary cap, the strike pre-modona players, owners who dont give a **** but making the mighty dollar, a coward for a comissioner, media that pumps as much negative media as they can to get a story cause drama sells, and probably a lot of other factors that we are no aware of are ruining the game. i dont actually believe its ruined yet. i mean you turn on sportcenter and for sports in general there is nothing but negative **** on tv, i dont know about every one else but i watch sports to get away not to be bombarded my negativity. life already has enough negative stuff in it. sorry for the tangent. lol:D

StevenStrasburg
06-20-2009, 06:26 AM
not just steroids ruined the game it def. probably brought it to the breaking point. you could almost argue though that the steroid induced homerun race in 98' actually saved the game in a lot of ways. but a lot of things ruined the game: steroids, extreme salaries, no salary cap, the strike pre-modona players, owners who dont give a **** but making the mighty dollar, a coward for a comissioner, media that pumps as much negative media as they can to get a story cause drama sells, and probably a lot of other factors that we are no aware of are ruining the game. i dont actually believe its ruined yet. i mean you turn on sportcenter and for sports in general there is nothing but negative **** on tv, i dont know about every one else but i watch sports to get away not to be bombarded my negativity. life already has enough negative stuff in it. sorry for the tangent. lol:D


Hahahaha....

Yeah, absolutely. The setoid-induced home run race definitely saved baseball. And yes, not steroids, but all the above is helping to corrode baseball as well.

Bud Selig knew about steroids but didn't want to do anything about them. He knew the second he saw people hitting 60 and 70 home runs.
I mean, seriously, you could land a helicopter on Barry Bond's forehead.

But one of my biggest issues with the whole steroid fiasco is the MLBPA's association with it. They want to protect the players who are using (as in currently) illegal drugs. Not just illegal in baseball but illegal in America. The Union is too powerful.

fanofclendennon
06-20-2009, 07:20 AM
Who gives a **** if someone took steriods. It shouldn't be banned in the first place. Professional sports has everyone tricked into thinking it is bad. As long as it is prescribed by a physician it should be allowed. I am not a user of steriods, HGH, or any other banned steriod. These guys get paid an absurd amount of money to play a game. Let them hit the ball so high and far that Jesus catches it. Legalize freedom and open up you mind...so yes vote them all in. What a mess baseball.

No licensed physician could ever prescribe steroids in the way they are used in professional sports without losing his/her license. Doctors can only prescribe these drugs to treat a medical condition. Helping a baseball player to hit a ball farther or more consistently, or to throw a ball faster obviously doesn't qualify.

Any athlete who uses steroids or HGH as a PED is doing so illegally.

As for "allowing them to hit the ball so high and far that Jesus catches it," I'm sure Jesus Alou caught many balls in the outfield without needing PEDs. Whether Jesus Flores used these substances to become a starter for the Nationals is anyone's guess.

But there's a larger issue: If we do it your way, any athlete wanting to play professional sports would have to become a junky just to be able compete. Is this the standard we want to set?

fanofclendennon
06-20-2009, 07:30 AM
:clap:
Let's be realistic. Cheating and drugs are a part of baseball's history. This isn't the first imperfect era. Voters can either forget the whole era or risk what you're talking about if they don't want to elect steroid users.

Sometimes I think that we should just say F-it, ignore the whole issue since we don't know who used and who didn't, and just vote in those who were truly the greatest players of their day as was always the case.

But then I imagine Barry Bonds getting up to the podium and making his speech with that arrogant, smug, "ha-ha-you-couldn't-get-me" grin and I think, no way in hell.

thefeckcampaign
06-20-2009, 08:40 AM
For those that are concerned about someone getting in who may be found out later to be a steroid user, who's to say you can't throw him out?

Lionsforlife
06-20-2009, 09:25 AM
What's upsetting to me is that the MLB (along with other professional sports) did not have a policy in place until fairly recently about steroids. I guess my opinion is that if they failed a test while the policy was in place, then no, they shouldn't have a future in the HOF no matter how great their career was. However, if they failed a test prior to the policy being in place then shame on MLB for not having the policy.

I think it's insane that people are getting blacklisted from the HoF for a supposedly anonymous test.

Yes, they somewhat cheated the game. But that has been going on for years (corked bats, pine tar, etc.) The problem is we have no way of knowing who has all taken steroids or for how long. So I don't believe they should even have an asterik to their name.

I guess I kind of try to put myself in their shoes. If my work put in a new policy and then call me in and tell me that 5 years ago I violated their new policy (that was not in place then) so they are terminating me, I would be a little upset.

If they put up the numbers, let them in the hall. If they failed a test during the policy then no, if they did it prior, then let them in. It cracks me up though, that all of us knew that this was going on, and most of us just turned a blind eye. Now all of a sudden, MLB wants to crack down and suddenly although everyone knew it was going on and DID NOTHING, we are supposed to take away the careers of these guys. It's ridiculous to me.

fanofclendennon
06-20-2009, 11:08 AM
I guess I kind of try to put myself in their shoes. If my work put in a new policy and then call me in and tell me that 5 years ago I violated their new policy (that was not in place then) so they are terminating me, I would be a little upset.



No one's getting terminated. On the other hand, if what you did five years ago broke the law (even though your company had no written policy about it at that time), I'm sure you could understand why your industry wouldn't give you any special awards upon retirement.

goldenstater
06-20-2009, 11:09 AM
Hahahaha....

Yeah, absolutely. The setoid-induced home run race definitely saved baseball. And yes, not steroids, but all the above is helping to corrode baseball as well.

Bud Selig knew about steroids but didn't want to do anything about them. He knew the second he saw people hitting 60 and 70 home runs.
I mean, seriously, you could land a helicopter on Barry Bond's forehead.

But one of my biggest issues with the whole steroid fiasco is the MLBPA's association with it. They want to protect the players who are using (as in currently) illegal drugs. Not just illegal in baseball but illegal in America. The Union is too powerful.

ya i agree the players union is way to powerful. its like the nuts running the insane asylum.

PJAF
06-20-2009, 11:16 AM
First, to answer your question, Yes I would vote them all in. Players should not be punished for a substance that was not banned because they were trying to physically make themselves better athletes. Secondly, Mark McGuire was never proved to have taken steroids. He was mentioned in canseco's book but never tested positive for roids. And if you think over the counter GNC androstenendione is a steroid then you are really ignorant.

The L Train
06-20-2009, 04:52 PM
For those of you who voted, "Of course! Steroids were legal and really boosted the game" you forgot steroids were AGAINST THE LAW!

Difference is that could be caught during the game in the act by an umpire. What is an ump suppose to do, take a urine/blood test between every at-bat?


didnt forget, just dont care... i would vote guys in based on what they did on the field, period... its not, or at least it's not supposed to be, a popularity contest...

Its not the Hall of I Didnt Break The Law, its the Hall of Fame, and the best baseball players should be voted in, purely based on the numbers they put up...

UNETOWNBAYAREA
06-20-2009, 05:18 PM
for some of them yes.. most of these guys were hall of famers before they started juicing up

carson005
06-20-2009, 06:26 PM
I voted of course.

Born a Brave
06-20-2009, 06:58 PM
Intriguing article that dicusses the parallel between A-Rod's awful start to 2009 and the revelation on his steroid use prior to the start of the season...

http://www.atlantabravesnews.com/bornabrave/weblog/7737/fatigued-a-rod-benched-two-games.html

MaHaRaJaH
06-20-2009, 08:10 PM
Spoken like a true Barry Bonds fan. ;)

Oh I'm no giants fan, or much of Bay Area Baseball like my signature may suggest, from science POV it's more harder to correlate.

whitesoxfan83
06-20-2009, 08:14 PM
For those that are concerned about someone getting in who may be found out later to be a steroid user, who's to say you can't throw him out?


After the ceremony, after the speech, after the plaques place in the hall we are just going to erase it like it never happened?

Mark my words someone is going to get elected that no one knew was a steroid user and the writers are going to have their hands full.

MaHaRaJaH
06-20-2009, 08:15 PM
but thats the thing.baseball is ok/even sometimes likes cheating,the sin comes from getting caught.take gambling where there are guys who gambled on the game that are in the hall(cobb),but its rose/jackson,ect...who have better numbers than half the guys in there,are out,because they got caught

you can only deal in whats known

it's fair game so long as nobody catches you?

MaHaRaJaH
06-20-2009, 08:20 PM
its not to belittle everyone esp. those that didnt do it but i just dont see how you can only give *'s for those who were just caught, cause there is probably alot that were not caught. i mean this steroid era goes as far back as the mid 80's most likely. it is unfortunate that those who didnt cheat get an asterisk but this is the era they belong to where they like it or not.Imo i just dont see how you can give it to just those who were just caught cause we flat out dont know who did it.example: i mean we all think griffey(and probably is clean) didnt do them but do we really know for sure? no. i just dont see personally how you can give someone an * and not someone else just cause the fact that there is still so much uncertainty about these last 15-20 or so?
Steroids is no "new" thing, it's been around WAY longer.

Ian.
06-21-2009, 01:49 AM
Can we please stop with the 'roid talk? We have no way of knowing how many used during this time and who they faced that may have been juicing. Give it up.

fanofclendennon
06-21-2009, 08:26 AM
First, to answer your question, Yes I would vote them all in. Players should not be punished for a substance that was not banned because they were trying to physically make themselves better athletes. Secondly, Mark McGuire was never proved to have taken steroids. He was mentioned in canseco's book but never tested positive for roids. And if you think over the counter GNC androstenendione is a steroid then you are really ignorant.

Androstenedione promotes the production of testosterone. That makes it a steroid. For your reading pleasure:

http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/andro.html

No, he never tested positive for steroids. He was also out of baseball before testing was instituted. That's like saying George Washington didn't have DNA because he never tested positive for having any DNA.

Ignorance is as ignorance does.

Funny thing, when you're not wasting everyone's time as a McGwire apologist, you make some salient points. As far as we know, he never did anything illegal. Andro was not a banned substance by MLB and there was nothing illegal about buying an OTC product.

Of course, he could have made these points in his congressional testimony but chose not to, other than to say he's not interested in talking about the past. I wonder why that was, by the way? Fear of perjury perhaps?

thefeckcampaign
06-21-2009, 09:43 AM
No one's getting terminated. On the other hand, if what you did five years ago broke the law (even though your company had no written policy about it at that time), I'm sure you could understand why your industry wouldn't give you any special awards upon retirement.Nailed it!

thefeckcampaign
06-21-2009, 09:48 AM
Its not the Hall of I Didnt Break The Law, its the Hall of Fame, and the best baseball players should be voted in, purely based on the numbers they put up...But if the numbers are put up with "help" then how do you know they are the best? Especially compared to other players in the Hall that have not used a thing.

fanofclendennon
06-21-2009, 10:19 AM
But if the numbers are put up with "help" then how do you know they are the best? Especially compared to other players in the Hall that have not used a thing.

For the purposes of full disclosure*, everyone who posts in this thread needs to say which team their a fan of. I've a feeling that a large contingency of the "just vote for the numbers" group are Cardinal, Giants, and Cubs fans.

Call it a hunch.

*I'm a Mets fan. It's very easy for me to be objective here since no one wearing a Met hat will be going in any time soon.

MaHaRaJaH
06-21-2009, 03:13 PM
For the purposes of full disclosure*, everyone who posts in this thread needs to say which team their a fan of. I've a feeling that a large contingency of the "just vote for the numbers" group are Cardinal, Giants, and Cubs fans.

Call it a hunch.

*I'm a Mets fan. It's very easy for me to be objective here since no one wearing a Met hat will be going in any time soon.

I had the same feeling, despite what my signature may suggest. I am a Blue Jays fan.

MaHaRaJaH
06-21-2009, 03:17 PM
But if the numbers are put up with "help" then how do you know they are the best? Especially compared to other players in the Hall that have not used a thing.

But there are number of things different from back then and now. IE ground rule doubles were home runs. Then there's all white players etc etc. Obviously that's not the case today, but it's something that MAY OR MAY NOT help them, and of course assuming steroids *does* help.

ccspence8
06-21-2009, 05:23 PM
Bonds and Clemens should be HOF, even though I hate Bonds b4 he started using roids he was gonna be one anyways...and Clemens didn't take them til he got a fat head in NY.

wowzman
06-21-2009, 08:53 PM
I would not vote for any of them.

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/rules.jsp

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any "integrity" these players may have had disappeared the moment they began cheating, and they are only now being shown for what they are. Cheaters

You can argue whether PED's increase performance or not. It doesn't matter. If the athlete used illegal and/or banned substances in an attempt to circumvent the rules, they still cheated, whether the PED's worked or not. These individuals have shown their "character" is one quite willing to break laws, abuse rules and lie.

They also fail to make the grade in "sportsmanship". Trying to obtain an unfair advantage over ones fellow competitiors and to disregard clean, honest competition fails them in that category.

The "playing ability" is problematic because how much or how little one ability may or may not have been enhanced by PED's is difficult to measure.

"Contributions to the team" is probably the easiest to determine based on stats alone. However, the stats may or may not have been inflated. There is also more to a team than stats, as we must consider the effect a cheater may have in the clubhouse on other players.

There is no need to expunge records or use an asterisk. The stats will always and forever be associated steroids and never be able to stand on their own merits. We can talk about the names on that list and can say "He led the league in this stat" and "He is the All Time leader in that stat". Yet, there will inevitably be another who says "yes, but..." and the steroid discussion begins anew. The stats are tainted and the users reputation is damaged. I think even 20 years from now when the names on the list are mentioned, they will still be associated with PED's.

IMO To rate so poorly with regard to integrity, character and sportsmanship it doesn't matter whether they put up monster stats or not. They do not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

They may have been great baseball players. They may have put up big numbers over a long career. They may have been great even before the advent of steroids. That still doesn't mean that they are Hall of Fame players

My two cents worth.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Nice piece here (http://http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9573384/Hall-of-Fame:-Some-tough-calls-must-be-made) on the subject by Ken Rosenthal

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9573384/Hall-of-Fame:-Some-tough-calls-must-be-made

uwish1127
06-21-2009, 09:16 PM
Obama

thefeckcampaign
06-21-2009, 09:16 PM
But there are number of things different from back then and now. IE ground rule doubles were home runs. Then there's all white players etc etc. Obviously that's not the case today, but it's something that MAY OR MAY NOT help them, and of course assuming steroids *does* help.Not to get into the details but how many ground rule doubles really happened with a softer ball and ground with longer grass? And with just white players, there also were not as many teams either.

Anyway... :)

papipapsmanny
06-21-2009, 09:33 PM
none of them, they cheated so they don't deserve it, joe jackson and rose should be put in before them with out a doubt.

So absolutely none of them should get in the hall of fame.

I don't want to hear boost the game crap, I watched baseball to watch baseball, not to watch the mlb make money

MaHaRaJaH
06-21-2009, 09:45 PM
Not to get into the details but how many ground rule doubles really happened with a softer ball and ground with longer grass? And with just white players, there also were not as many teams either.

Anyway... :)

The point is, the nature of the game changes so to will the statistics.

thomasa2324
06-21-2009, 10:15 PM
put manny in ther he did them he tryd 2 say it waz 4 the bed but it waz rlly roids

Rdy2PlayBall
06-21-2009, 10:40 PM
I REALLY think A-Rod should get in. Without the 3 years he'd probably still get in so I think this whole thing about him is a joke. Who cares what record he beats, look at the stats.

fanofclendennon
06-21-2009, 10:43 PM
I would not vote for any of them.

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/rules.jsp

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Probably the most unsavory character in the history of the game, one who didn't give a damned about integrity and sportsmanship so long as his team won the game, was Ty Cobb.

By your standards, he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame and I've a feeling many others would have to be kicked out as well.

thefeckcampaign
06-21-2009, 11:03 PM
The point is, the nature of the game changes so to will the statistics.But is you look at the statistics, for the most part, you could compare era to era without much difference. That was part of the thing that made this game so great. The fact that Ty Cobb's All-Time hits record lasted for nearly 60 years and Babe Ruth's All -Time HR record lasted for 40 let's you know that when played fairly this game can really hold it's own decade to decade.

Is it by accident that in just in last era alone 5 players have claimed a spot in the Top 10 of the All-Time HR Leaders including the top spot? How is that is that considered just nature of [How] the game changes? It was pretty well balanced for nearly 100 years before.

MaHaRaJaH
06-22-2009, 01:09 AM
Probably the most unsavory character in the history of the game, one who didn't give a damned about integrity and sportsmanship so long as his team won the game, was Ty Cobb.

By your standards, he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame and I've a feeling many others would have to be kicked out as well.

Lol borderline Demntia.

MaHaRaJaH
06-22-2009, 01:14 AM
But is you look at the statistics, for the most part, you could compare era to era without much difference. That was part of the thing that made this game so great. The fact that Ty Cobb's All-Time hits record lasted for nearly 60 years and Babe Ruth's All -Time HR record lasted for 40 let's you know that when played fairly this game can really hold it's own decade to decade.

Is it by accident that in just in last era alone 5 players have claimed a spot in the Top 10 of the All-Time HR Leaders including the top spot? How is that is that considered just nature of [How] the game changes? It was pretty well balanced for nearly 100 years before.

but that didn't mean during each respective era's there were NO players who had: 400+ career homeruns, 3000+ hits and other such milestones. It's hard to claim something as fact when the tests to prove it are banned. The congress are basing their entire assumption on correlation which violates the point of Testing. Not every single pitcher pitches the exact same way every single time, and no batter swings the same way every single time. It's hard to prove that there is a difference in power.