PDA

View Full Version : Who gets your HOF vote: Bonds or Rose?


WhiteSoxFan84
02-24-2005, 01:46 AM
Assuming Barry Bonds either admits to or is proven to be on steroids, which player would you vote into the Baseball Hall of Fame first?

The all-time hits leader, Pete Rose, who admitted to betting on sports including baseball?

Or, Barry Bonds, who has a realistic chance to become baseball's all-time home run king, already is the all-time single season home run record holder, and who potentially will either admit to steroid use or be proven guilty of steroid use?

Now, we already know that Rose is guilty of his "crime". We are assuming Bonds is guilty of his as well (and I know that might be a little unfair, but let's play pretend).

Before you vote, please allow yourself to think this through and ask yourself if your voting based on what's more recent or based on what you really believe.

So it's time to cast your vote, who do you put in? The juiced up slugger? Or the gambling addicted grinder?

BTW, I was thinking of adding the options "None" and "Both" but I really want to see which "crime" is worse in your eyes.

MUsoxfan
02-24-2005, 01:53 AM
I'm gonna vote Rose because nothing he did tainted his records. Steroids didn't help him get more hits than anyone else ever. I'd still vote for Rose to be in regardless except for the fact that he stopped lying. You can't lie for 25 years and then "come clean". If he would have kept denying the gambling I'd pioneer an effort to get him in the HOF. Bonds on the other hand is just record greedy and an unlikable human being that took supplements he knew were steroids (Bonds defender- I know he CLAIMS it was flaxseed oil). My vote is for Rose because he committed the lesser of two evils

HomeFish
02-24-2005, 01:55 AM
What Rose did didn't effect the game. I haven't heard of him ever throwing a game in order to make some money.

He played the game the right way. He deserves to be in the Hall.

munchman33
02-24-2005, 06:50 AM
What Rose did didn't effect the game. I haven't heard of him ever throwing a game in order to make some money.



Except as a manager. Those are the allegations against him.

OG4LIFE
02-24-2005, 07:06 AM
i accidentally voted for pete rose, i meant to vote for bonds, but here's why:

bonds did not break any rules (at the time, there was no regulation of steroids in baseball, as far as baseball was concerned him and all the other juicers were playing fair)

rose broke the cardinal rule of baseball as a manager

pretty easy. :cool:

munchman33
02-24-2005, 07:15 AM
i accidentally voted for pete rose, i meant to vote for bonds, but here's why:

bonds did not break any rules (at the time, there was no regulation of steroids in baseball, as far as baseball was concerned him and all the other juicers were playing fair)

rose broke the cardinal rule of baseball as a manager

pretty easy. :cool:

Exactly...I'll never like Barry Bonds. But I'll never forgive Pete Rose.

Jabroni
02-24-2005, 07:17 AM
Ron Santo!

Seriously, I would say Pete Rose. His numbers are the real deal, while Bonds numbers were "juiced" by roids (pun intended).

daveeym
02-24-2005, 08:46 AM
i accidentally voted for pete rose, i meant to vote for bonds, but here's why:

bonds did not break any rules (at the time, there was no regulation of steroids in baseball, as far as baseball was concerned him and all the other juicers were playing fair)

rose broke the cardinal rule of baseball as a manager

pretty easy. :cool: THIS IS SO BLANTANTLY WRONG THOUGH. MLB didn't have a testing program, but steroids are illegal in the US just like cocaine or other narcotics. And use of those substances WAS illegal and against the rules in MLB. Please people quit with the BS that it wasn't against the rules because there wasn't testing and they wink wink, weren't looking.

vance
02-24-2005, 09:00 AM
I voted for Bonds. While I may despise Bonds the person, Bonds the ball-player was likely a HOFer long before he injected or rubbed any steroids on or into his body. Bonds was a remarkable player and an MVP player long before steroids. Added to this fact, steroids were not against the rules. While maybe they should have been, they weren't.

On the other hand, gambling strikes at the very integrity of the game. The Black Sox scandal proved this. Even if a player or manager never bets against his team, the days he bets for or doesn't bet at all in turn can give gamblers "inside" information. One is being naive if they think that gambling debts could not lead to the poisoning of the game. Also, the rule against gambling has been posted in every MLB clubhouse. It is the cardinal sin and every ballplayer knows that. Pete Rose broke that rule and tarnished the integrity of the game. While I do think that Rose has served his time and should be allowed into the HOF, if I had to choose one: Bonds or Rose. I choose Bonds.

munchman33
02-24-2005, 09:01 AM
THIS IS SO BLANTANTLY WRONG THOUGH. MLB didn't have a testing program, but steroids are illegal in the US just like cocaine or other narcotics. And use of those substances WAS illegal and against the rules in MLB. Please people quit with the BS that it wasn't against the rules because there wasn't testing and they wink wink, weren't looking.

The Hall of Fame is full of guys who did tons of stuff that was illegal to the government and not to baseball rules. You should reassess where the BS is coming from.

eastchicagosoxfan
02-24-2005, 09:03 AM
Both will be in Cooperstown. I voted for Rose; there were several Rose's before Pete. Before Landis became commissioner, baseball was full of gamblers, just as it was full of steriods. Players threw games. Allegations abound today about events 80-100 years ago. Cobb, Speaker, McGraw, to name three, are all associated with gambling on the national pastime. All Bonds has to do is come clean. Tell the truth, whatever it may be. Americans love to forgive people. Bonds will be no different.

soxfan26
02-24-2005, 09:31 AM
Worst. Poll. Ever.

nccwsfan
02-24-2005, 09:39 AM
bonds did not break any rules (at the time, there was no regulation of steroids in baseball, as far as baseball was concerned him and all the other juicers were playing fair)

rose broke the cardinal rule of baseball as a manager

pretty easy. :cool:

Dead on accurate- great post!

daveeym
02-24-2005, 09:49 AM
The Hall of Fame is full of guys who did tons of stuff that was illegal to the government and not to baseball rules. You should reassess where the BS is coming from. That's a completely different point. So go back to filtering BS. I made no hall call, just commented on the misinformation that roids weren't against the rules.

daveeym
02-24-2005, 09:55 AM
This "it wasn't against the rules" thing is starting to get to me. Murder isn't "against the rules" in baseball's CBA either, so I guess if Bonds knifes somebody while he's rounding the bases it's ok since it's "not against the rules in baseball". Yes it's an extreme comparison but the logic to me is the same. So Romanowski is a jag and Bonds is a saint just because the rules of their respective sports are different? No, they both broke the LAW as far as I'm concerned, and as someone said earlier, Rose got his 4000-some hits naturally so in my mind he's more deserving. They're both less than desireable human beings but I'd have to go with Rose. No kidding. Plenty of guys got kicked out of the game because of cocaine as well when they couldn't handle it and made fools of themselves, it was still against the rules, now it may or, more likely, may not affect their hall of fame standing but cocaine and roids WERE against the rules.

idseer
02-24-2005, 10:04 AM
C. none of the above

duke of dorwood
02-24-2005, 10:08 AM
Of these 2, Pete Rose-

mantis1212
02-24-2005, 10:12 AM
What Rose did didn't effect the game. I haven't heard of him ever throwing a game in order to make some money.

He played the game the right way. He deserves to be in the Hall.

Rose bet on his own team, this most definitely affects the game. When he didn't place a bet, he was essentially betting against them. You don't think he saved his best bullpen guys for those games with $$$ riding on them?

I voted for Bonds, he would have been a hall of famer if he retired in 1998.

ma_deuce
02-24-2005, 10:45 AM
Neither.

jake27
02-24-2005, 11:38 AM
i would have voted for both of them, but that wasnt an option

ChiSoxRowand
02-24-2005, 12:17 PM
I voted for Bonds. Like someone else said, he would have been a hall of famer if he retired in 1998. There wasn't testing until a couple of years ago either.

DC Sox Fan
02-24-2005, 12:19 PM
Where's the neither option? Neither one of them deserves it, IMO.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-24-2005, 12:36 PM
I voted for Bonds. Like someone else said, he would have been a hall of famer if he retired in 1998. There wasn't testing until a couple of years ago either.

WHAT?

That's bass ackwards thinking. Rose was 100-times the HOFer Bonds was until *after* he became manager. Furthermore unprescribed steroid use that Bonds already confessed to is against the law every bit as much as any gambling Rose did.

In fact Rose served no time for gambling and was never convicted of any such offense in court. He went to jail for tax evasion.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-24-2005, 01:41 PM
THIS IS SO BLANTANTLY WRONG THOUGH. MLB didn't have a testing program, but steroids are illegal in the US just like cocaine or other narcotics. And use of those substances WAS illegal and against the rules in MLB. Please people quit with the BS that it wasn't against the rules because there wasn't testing and they wink wink, weren't looking.

You're absolutely right but here's the thing; what Rose did is against MLB rules and regulations. What Bonds did, technically, wasn't in the books. I blame the steroid use all on baseball. They made it possible for players to use'em by not putting together a serious testing system a while ago.

Rose also bet on games he managed, which is a HUGE no-no.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-24-2005, 01:45 PM
C. none of the above

Neither.

i would have voted for both of them, but that wasnt an option

Where's the neither option? Neither one of them deserves it, IMO.


Come on people, read the first post like the poll asks you to....

BTW, I was thinking of adding the options "None" and "Both" but I really want to see which "crime" is worse in your eyes.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-24-2005, 01:51 PM
You're absolutely right but here's the thing; what Rose did is against MLB rules and regulations. What Bonds did, technically, wasn't in the books. I blame the steroid use all on baseball. They made it possible for players to use'em by not putting together a serious testing system a while ago.

Rose also bet on games he managed, which is a HUGE no-no.

The only thing your poll is good for is illustrating just how misinformed you and the rest of baseball fandom is about gambling and steroids, U.S. criminal statutes and MLB rules, and the unique circumstances of Rose's and Bonds' cases.

You haven't got a clue about any one of these three subjects.

Stop whining when people take you to task for your own ignorance.

D. TODD
02-24-2005, 01:55 PM
No Doubt Bonds In! Rose Out!

DC Sox Fan
02-24-2005, 02:08 PM
I really want to see which "crime" is worse in your eyes

That's like having a poll saying "Which is better- stabbing or shooting someone to death"

They're both crimes.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-24-2005, 02:25 PM
The only thing your poll is good for is illustrating just how misinformed you and the rest of baseball fandom is about gambling and steroids, U.S. criminal statutes and MLB rules, and the unique circumstances of Rose's and Bonds' cases.

You haven't got a clue about any one of these three subjects.

Stop whining when people take you to task for your own ignorance.

I don't think I'm misinformed nor am I whining. Everything I said holds water. Baseball quietly encouraged steroid use to make the game more enjoyable and to make more money. You're telling me GMs, owners, and commissioners of past and present didn't have a clue about all this stuff going on? Tony La Russa admitting to knowing about Jose Canseco's drug abuse but what did he do about it?

Gambling, however, is something else. Now if you're a baseball player or manager and you gamble on football or basketball, I, personally, see nothing wrong with it. But when you start betting on your own sport, especially games you're involved in, you've gone too far. Rose, as a manager betting on his own games, made the game a joke. He could have made the whole game a joke in the minds of many. Steroid use, an obvious form of cheating, is just that, cheating. Bonds is not being accused of possibly rigging the game. He's being accused of gaining an advantage which may or may not help him out. There are games he goes 0-4 and there are games hes goes 3-3. When you bet on your own team, you will do whatever you can to make sure your team wins the game. That means using your best relief pitchers, putting in your closer in a non-save situation, keeping your players in a blow-out, etc.

That's why I asked you guys not to use the whole "well, the Bonds issue is more recent and it seems to be more of a big deal so maybe Rose's issue wasn't as big as this" argument.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-24-2005, 02:32 PM
I don't think I'm misinformed nor am I whining. Everything I said holds water. Baseball quietly encouraged steroid use to make the game more enjoyable and to make more money. You're telling me GMs, owners, and commissioners of past and present didn't have a clue about all this stuff going on? Tony La Russa admitting to knowing about Jose Canseco's drug abuse but what did he do about it?

Gambling, however, is something else. Now if you're a baseball player or manager and you gamble on football or basketball, I, personally, see nothing wrong with it. But when you start betting on your own sport, especially games you're involved in, you've gone too far. Rose, as a manager betting on his own games, made the game a joke. He could have made the whole game a joke in the minds of many. Steroid use, an obvious form of cheating, is just that, cheating. Bonds is not being accused of possibly rigging the game. He's being accused of gaining an advantage which may or may not help him out. There are games he goes 0-4 and there are games hes goes 3-3. When you bet on your own team, you will do whatever you can to make sure your team wins the game. That means using your best relief pitchers, putting in your closer in a non-save situation, keeping your players in a blow-out, etc.

That's why I asked you guys not to use the whole "well, the Bonds issue is more recent and it seems to be more of a big deal so maybe Rose's issue wasn't as big as this" argument.

Thank you for confirming that this poll is nothing but a popularity contest. The "facts" are irrelevant. Just hold your nose and pick the one that's less offensive for the HOF.

You are a very confused person.

Come on everyone! Step right up and cast your vote. Our next poll by 84...
"Who would you let date your daughter, Rose or Bonds? (No "both" or "neither" choices, please.)
:cool:

WhiteSoxFan84
02-24-2005, 02:43 PM
Thank you for confirming that this poll is nothing but a popularity contest. The "facts" are irrelevant. Just hold your nose and pick the one that's less offensive for the HOF.

You are a very confused person.

Come on everyone! Step right up and cast your vote. Our next poll by 84...
"Who would you let date your daughter, Rose or Bonds? (No "both" or "neither" choices, please.)
:cool:

First of all, where do you even stand in all of this? You're calling me confused, I have no idea who you're defending.

Second, how am I confused? How is this a popularity contest? I personally don't like either one of these two guys but I'd quickly vote for Bonds before I'd vote for Rose. Why? Because Bonds was an MVP before he even started using steroids. He was an effective player before using steroids, IF he used them at all (and that's a small if). For all YOU and I know, in 25 years, we'll find out that baseball supported Bonds' steroid use to give the game a huge star who challenges the most sacred record every kept. When it comes to the Bonds situation, you don't know all the facts, I sure as hell don't either. Rose's situation on the other hand, all the skeletons are out of the closet. Everything is out there. The man lied, over and over, for years and years, about not betting on baseball. Then he comes out, admits to it, and writes a book about it? Yes, let's just forgive him for all of that and jump on Rose's bandwagon? Another example of the old school way of thinking being just that, old.

Now if you're saying that neither one of them deserves to be in the HOF, I understand. But what I'm asking you, is if you HAD to pick one of these two, based on the things they did and the facts presented to you, whom would you let in?

SOXintheBURGH
02-24-2005, 02:44 PM
Thank you for confirming that this poll is nothing but a popularity contest. The "facts" are irrelevant. Just hold your nose and pick the one that's less offensive for the HOF.

You are a very confused person.

Come on everyone! Step right up and cast your vote. Our next poll by 84...
"Who would you let date your daughter, Rose or Bonds? (No "both" or "neither" choices, please.)
:cool:

I'd let Pete Rose date my daughter.

DC Sox Fan
02-24-2005, 02:53 PM
Burgh, I think you'd reconsider that if you'd seen the masterpiece known as "Hu$tle"

:cool:

SOXintheBURGH
02-24-2005, 03:01 PM
Burgh, I think you'd reconsider that if you'd seen the masterpiece known as "Hu$tle"

:cool:

LOL... well, I'd have to make him get a haircut first. And, have a daughter.

daveeym
02-24-2005, 03:03 PM
LOL... well, I'd have to make him get a haircut first. And, have a daughter. New Poll, Palehosegeorge or Voodochile - which would you let date your daughter?

idseer
02-24-2005, 03:11 PM
Come on people, read the first post like the poll asks you to....

i'm trying to let you know that i'd vote neither in ... an option you didn't give. my only other option is to not vote.
a LOT of people would have not voted. is that what you wanted?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-24-2005, 03:14 PM
New Poll, Palehosegeorge or Voodochile - which would you let date your daughter?

Hmm... this is a tough one...
:D:

If the choice was Bonds or Rose dating my daughter, I'm guessing I would vote Ellen DeGeneres. At least she's harmless.
:wink:

Here comes 84 to tell us we're not following the rules...
:cool:

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2005, 03:19 PM
This sounds like one of those dopey questions we used to ponder when we were in third grade.
Which would you rather have,

1. a red-hot poker rammed in your eye and then have acid poured in the hole or
2. an elephant stand on your testicles?

ChiSoxRowand
02-24-2005, 03:22 PM
Regardless of what anyone here thinks, Bonds will probably get into the Hall and Rose will probably never get in.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-24-2005, 03:25 PM
This sounds like one of those dopey questions we used to ponder when we were in third grade.
Which would you rather have,

1. a red-hot poker rammed in your eye and then have acid poured in the hole or
2. an elephant stand on your testicles?

How are these two alike? It's funny how many of you will have this talk WHEN Bonds is elected into the hall of fame. A lot of you will bring up the whole WELL IF BONDS IS IN, PETE ROSE SHOULD BE IN.

Whatever, a lot of you are steering this in the wrong direction. I didn't want to make a mockery. I actually intended on making a solid poll leading to solid opinions. Boy was that a mistake.

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2005, 03:26 PM
How are these two alike? It's funny how many of you will have this talk WHEN Bonds is elected into the hall of fame. A lot of you will bring up the whole WELL IF BONDS IS IN, PETE ROSE SHOULD BE IN.

Whatever, a lot of you are steering this in the wrong direction. I didn't want to make a mockery. I actually intended on making a solid poll leading to solid opinions. Boy was that a mistake.If you want my opinion they should burn down the HOF before they let either one of these guys in.

daveeym
02-24-2005, 03:27 PM
Hmm... this is a tough one...
:D:

If the choice was Bonds or Rose dating my daughter, I'm guessing I would vote Ellen DeGeneres. At least she's harmless.
:wink:

Here comes 84 to tell us we're not following the rules...
:cool: I was thinking of putting palehose13 in, knowing she'd at least treat my daughter (if i had one) better than you 2 clowns.:wink: But i didn't want to see the mods get embarrassed and for palehose13 to win in a landslide.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-24-2005, 03:28 PM
If you want my opinion they should burn down the HOF before they let either one of these guys in.

That's an opinion, that's what I wanted to hear when I made this thread. Thank you. :smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
02-24-2005, 03:29 PM
Whatever, a lot of you are steering this in the wrong direction. I didn't want to make a mockery. I actually intended on making a solid poll leading to solid opinions. Boy was that a mistake.

Did someone say TRAVES-SHAM-MOCKERY!

Yeah, the guy who started the poll in the first place.

I'll take red hot poker through the eye, No.2. Elephant stepping on my testicles? That's gotta hurt! Hell, I hate getting shots from the nurse... even the pretty ones wearing white stockings.
:cool:

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2005, 03:31 PM
Did someone say TRAVES-SHAM-MOCKERY!

Yeah, the guy who started the poll in the first place.

I'll take red hot poker through the eye, No.2. Elephant stepping on my testicles? That's gotta hurt! Hell, I hate getting shots from the nurse... even the pretty ones wearing white stockings.
:cool:And I forgot to point out, either of those choices would be preferable to voting for Bonds OR Rose.:angry:

WhiteSoxFan84
02-24-2005, 03:33 PM
And I forgot to point out, either of those choices would be preferable to voting for Bonds OR Rose.:angry:

I can see your anger for Rose. But Bonds, he cheated, aren't there a number of cheaters in the HOF already?

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2005, 03:36 PM
I can see your anger for Rose. But Bonds, he cheated, aren't there a number of cheaters in the HOF already?Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't see the difference between taking steroids and scuffing a baseball?

ja1022
02-24-2005, 03:58 PM
Because Bonds was an MVP before he even started using steroids. He was an effective player before using steroids, IF he used them at all (and that's a small if). For all YOU and I know, in 25 years, we'll find out that baseball supported Bonds' steroid use to give the game a huge star who challenges the most sacred record every kept.


With all due respect young 84, I am a dumber person for having read the above.

"He was an effective player before using steroids, but, ahh, he really probably never ever used steroids, but, umm, baseball maybe supported his steroid problem that he probably maybe never had."

*****. Does anybody other than WSF84 really believe this guy didn't knowingly juice? C'mon.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-24-2005, 04:18 PM
With all due respect young 84, I am a dumber person for having read the above.

"He was an effective player before using steroids, but, ahh, he really probably never ever used steroids, but, umm, baseball maybe supported his steroid problem that he probably maybe never had."

*****. Does anybody other than WSF84 really believe this guy didn't knowingly juice? C'mon.

? I do think he knowingly juiced. What did I say that makes you think otherwise? I said "IF he juiced (and that's a small if)" because he's denying it and people are innocent until proven guilty. I still think he's guilty.

Whitesox029
02-24-2005, 04:27 PM
Exactly...I'll never like Barry Bonds. But I'll never forgive Pete Rose.
In order to answer this question, simply look at how things would be if each of these men hadn't done what they did. Rose got his all-time hit record. Had he not bet on baseball, he STILL would have had that record. As for betting, I believe that he only bet on the team he was managing, meaning that he was trying to win--no different from any other time.
Had Bonds not done steroids, who knows where his numbers would be. He might have started and ended his career with Rowand-like numbers every year. He has a certain amount of talent that makes him a good hitter, but all that power was not naturally achieved.
Hall of Famers are Hall of Famers because of their achievements in the game of baseball, not their morals. Bonds' achievements are in doubt. Rose's are not.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-24-2005, 04:34 PM
In order to answer this question, simply look at how things would be if each of these men hadn't done what they did. Rose got his all-time hit record. Had he not bet on baseball, he STILL would have had that record. As for betting, I believe that he only bet on the team he was managing, meaning that he was trying to win--no different from any other time.
Had Bonds not done steroids, who knows where his numbers would be. He might have started and ended his career with Rowand-like numbers every year. He has a certain amount of talent that makes him a good hitter, but all that power was not naturally achieved.
Hall of Famers are Hall of Famers because of their achievements in the game of baseball, not their morals. Bonds' achievements are in doubt. Rose's are not.

GREAT points.

Personally, I don't see why the HOF takes personal lives/off-field behavior of players into account. When you compare HOF players with each other or with active HOF calibur players, what do you compare? Stats. That's all that should matter. There's awards for how good of a person you are. MVPs and Cy Youngs don't take that into account.

idseer
02-24-2005, 05:45 PM
In order to answer this question, simply look at how things would be if each of these men hadn't done what they did. Rose got his all-time hit record. Had he not bet on baseball, he STILL would have had that record. As for betting, I believe that he only bet on the team he was managing, meaning that he was trying to win--no different from any other time.


not so. i believe voodoo has pointed this out several times that he would have been tempted to do things a good manager wouldn't do if he had money on his own team. things like perhaps using your best closer when he needs the rest or playing someone who is slightly injured when they need the rest.
just like a manager manages differently in a world series than he does during the regular season. you need every game in a ws and you use your players more vigorously than you do otherwise.

there is no rule that i'm aware of that says it's ok to bet on your own team to win.

Jerome
02-24-2005, 05:53 PM
Bonds. He was a HOF before he became the Hulk. Rose betted on baseball, the number one violation the game has.

kittle42
02-24-2005, 06:35 PM
Bonds. He was a HOF before he became the Hulk. Rose betted on baseball, the number one violation the game has.

Betted?

MRKARNO
02-24-2005, 06:45 PM
Bonds: Like him or hate him, he's the greatest offensive player of all time.

Jabroni
02-24-2005, 06:49 PM
Bonds: Like him or hate him, he's the greatest offensive player of all time.I guess the fact that he took steroids shouldn't matter, huh? :rolleyes: I think Mr. Ruth would disagree.

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2005, 11:17 PM
Bonds: Like him or hate him, he's the greatest offensive player of all time.No he's not. This is.
http://naturalhealthline.com/newsletter/15nov02/syringe.jpg

MRKARNO
02-24-2005, 11:38 PM
I guess the fact that he took steroids shouldn't matter, huh? :rolleyes: I think Mr. Ruth would disagree.

Well I dissagree with your assertion of the facts and I know and accept that I'm in the minority on this, but all we know or at least what Bonds said is that he used them accidentally in the recovery of an injury. Now a lot of people don't believe that, but I'm going to take his assertion at face value, at least for now and I would ask that you respect my opinion on that matter, whether or not you agree with it.

BTW No one has talked about the craphead who released the Grand Jury testimony to the public. What ever happened to confidentiality? Bonds' confidentiality was blatently violated, but everyone hates him so much outside of SF and a few others on the side of the entirely unobjective national media. No one, but Joe Sheehan: (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3778)

I refuse to jump on the bandwagon. My position on steroids in baseball is the same as it's been all along: we don't have enough information, and the hysteria over the issue is a media creation. The things we do know for sure--that survey testing in 2003 showed 5-7% of players were using steroids, that random testing in 2004 actually coincided with a higher level of offense, that the players who have been known to test positive, or been associated with BALCO, are far from an All-Star team--would not lead to the conclusion that steroids are a rampant, game-warping problem.

I have to say that it's no fun to hold these opinions. I would much rather be able to make definitive statements and reach satisfying conclusions about Bonds, about performance-enhancing drugs, about how baseball has been affected. I can't. I do not have nearly enough information to reach these conclusions, and I have no problems saying that no one else does, either. We don't know who took what substances when, save for a small handful of examples. We don't know what effects taking steroids has on baseball performance, and I'd argue that the limited information we have is conflicting at best.


This is essentially where I stand on the issue and I don't see why it's reprehensible to hold this view. What is reprehensible is the absolute demonization of those who hold this unpopular, but not illogical view by some on this board.

BTW I would let Rose into the Hall as well. What he did was wrong, but there are plenty of people of worse character that are in the Hall of Fame (see Cobb, Ty).

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2005, 11:41 PM
Well I dissagree with your assertion of the facts and I know and accept that I'm in the minority on this, but all we know or at least what Bonds said is that he used them accidentally in the recovery of an injury. Now a lot of people don't believe that, but I'm going to take his assertion at face value, at least for now and I would ask that you respect my opinion on that matter, whether or not you agree with it.

BTW No one has talked about the craphead who released the Grand Jury testimony to the public. What ever happened to confidentiality? Bonds' confidentiality was blatently violated, but everyone hates him so much outside of SF and a few others on the side of the entirely unobjective national media. No one, but Joe Sheehan: (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3778)




This is essentially where I stand on the issue and I don't see why it's reprehensible to hold this view. What is reprehensible is the absolute demonization of those who hold this unpopular, but not illogical view by some on this board.You're right. I'm sure he really thought it was flaxseed oil. Those trainers can be so sneaky that way.
http://www.twaze.com/aolpix/ostrich.gif

MRKARNO
02-24-2005, 11:48 PM
You're right. I'm sure he really thought it was flaxseed oil. Those trainers can be so sneaky that way.
http://www.twaze.com/aolpix/ostrich.gif

I'll quote another paragraph from Joe Sheehan and then I'm probably done for the night:

The issue is that it's just a belief. If we're going to have these conversations, we need more than that. We should expect a higher standard than, "Well, he's a jerk, and he got bigger, and he hit a bunch of home runs, so he did it." Until we have more information, all the information, and can analyze this issue with the same rigor that we do this trade or that free-agent signing, it's incumbent upon us to make that most dissatisfying of statements:

munchman33
02-25-2005, 07:44 AM
You're right. I'm sure he really thought it was flaxseed oil. Those trainers can be so sneaky that way.
http://www.twaze.com/aolpix/ostrich.gif

Ol', you can't ban a guy from the Hall of Fame on suspicion that he might have known his trainer was giving him steroids. Especially when his trainer is going along with the story that he didn't.

Personally, do I believe him? Hell no. But this is America. The burden of truth is on the state (or in this case, baseball).

idseer
02-25-2005, 08:48 AM
You're right. I'm sure he really thought it was flaxseed oil. Those trainers can be so sneaky that way.
http://www.twaze.com/aolpix/ostrich.gif

love the pic! and it's SOOooo appropriate too. :smile:

Ol' No. 2
02-25-2005, 09:43 AM
Ol', you can't ban a guy from the Hall of Fame on suspicion that he might have known his trainer was giving him steroids. Especially when his trainer is going along with the story that he didn't.

Personally, do I believe him? Hell no. But this is America. The burden of truth is on the state (or in this case, baseball).This is not a court of law. HOF nominees are voted on and if I had a vote I wouldn't vote for Bonds if you put a gun to my head.

Besides, everyone seems to be missing a key point. In every sport where there's drug testing, not knowing is NOT A DEFENSE. Just ask Jim Miller.

http://baltimore.orioles.mlb.com/images/players/mugshot/ph_122544.jpg No kidding, man. They didn't buy it when I said I didn't know about the bat, either.

Jerome
02-25-2005, 02:52 PM
Betted?

whoops

haha I meant bet.

I'm not really that stupid.

MRKARNO
02-25-2005, 03:15 PM
This is not a court of law.

You're right. It's the court of the opinion of the voters and they will decide on their own and set their own terms. We cannot make the terms, but if it theoretically was up to us we can decide the terms on an individual basis. If one doesnt mind making definitive statements, that's up to you, but if someone else choses to be more careful, they deserve the right to that opinion.

Dan H
02-26-2005, 11:01 AM
Worst. Poll. Ever.

I agree. I wouldn't lose any sleep if neither made it. Right now I don't care what accomplishments they have made on the field. I can't stand either.

munchman33
02-26-2005, 02:37 PM
Besides, everyone seems to be missing a key point. In every sport where there's drug testing, not knowing is NOT A DEFENSE. Just ask Jim Miller.


Bonds never failed an MLB drug test.

idseer
02-26-2005, 03:05 PM
Bonds never failed an MLB drug test.

did giambi ever fail a drug test? did cansaco ever fail a drug test?
of all the admitted users ... did any of them fail a drug test?

munchman33
02-26-2005, 03:16 PM
did giambi ever fail a drug test? did cansaco ever fail a drug test?
of all the admitted users ... did any of them fail a drug test?

No. That's why baseball didn't punish any of them. Thank you for spelling out my point though.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-26-2005, 05:13 PM
No. That's why baseball didn't punish any of them. Thank you for spelling out my point though.

What point would that be, munch? That U.S. criminal statutes don't apply to baseball?

:kukoo:

Brian26
02-26-2005, 06:49 PM
I'm gonna vote Rose because nothing he did tainted his records. Steroids didn't help him get more hits than anyone else ever.

Interesting discussion. Let's think out of the box a little on this...

How many players during the 70's were popping pills and doing speed to try to get up for the games? How did that effect their performace comapred to, say, the players of the 40's and 50's? Do you think Charlie Hustle would have ever engaged in any of that stuff?

Just something to think about. To be honest, if I had to pick between Bonds and Rose for the HOF, I'd go with Shoeless Joe Jackson.

munchman33
02-26-2005, 08:47 PM
What point would that be, munch? That U.S. criminal statutes don't apply to baseball?

:kukoo:

Well, they certainly don't apply to the Hall of Fame.

Whitesox029
02-26-2005, 09:53 PM
not so. i believe voodoo has pointed this out several times that he would have been tempted to do things a good manager wouldn't do if he had money on his own team. things like perhaps using your best closer when he needs the rest or playing someone who is slightly injured when they need the rest.
just like a manager manages differently in a world series than he does during the regular season. you need every game in a ws and you use your players more vigorously than you do otherwise.

there is no rule that i'm aware of that says it's ok to bet on your own team to win.
You make a good point about Rose, but what Bonds did affected every game he has played since he started juicing, while Rose only affected those on which he bet. If you think about it, the argument for Joe Jackson and the other Black Sox is much closer to the argument for Rose than for Bonds. Again, I point to Rose's incredible and genuine achievements as a player. You get canonized as a saint for having good morals. You go the hall for your Baseball achievements. It should be cut and dry.

idseer
02-26-2005, 10:50 PM
You make a good point about Rose, but what Bonds did affected every game he has played since he started juicing, while Rose only affected those on which he bet. If you think about it, the argument for Joe Jackson and the other Black Sox is much closer to the argument for Rose than for Bonds. Again, I point to Rose's incredible and genuine achievements as a player. You get canonized as a saint for having good morals. You go the hall for your Baseball achievements. It should be cut and dry.

i follow what you're saying.
i still don't want either one in. their offenses were different, it's true, but i don't think it's necessary to classify the offenses. bonds is a cheater and doesn't deserve the hall. rose is a swine who broke the rules and doesn't deserve the hall. (i call him a swine because i know something about him personally that's never been publicized as far as i know and it occured early in his career. please don't ask as i cannot post it here.)

soxwon
02-27-2005, 12:54 AM
assuming sammy sosa goes in the hall, do you think he just might wear a sox cap to the hall just to get back at the flubs?

or do you think things will blow over as they usually do?

WhiteSoxFan84
02-27-2005, 01:09 AM
assuming sammy sosa goes in the hall, do you think he just might wear a sox cap to the hall just to get back at the flubs?

or do you think things will blow over as they usually do?

The Hall chooses his hat, he's going in as a Cub no matter what.

Whitesox029
02-27-2005, 01:10 AM
i follow what you're saying.
i still don't want either one in. their offenses were different, it's true, but i don't think it's necessary to classify the offenses. bonds is a cheater and doesn't deserve the hall. rose is a swine who broke the rules and doesn't deserve the hall. (i call him a swine because i know something about him personally that's never been publicized as far as i know and it occured early in his career. please don't ask as i cannot post it here.)
Rose is definitely not a model citizen, and everytime he opens his mouth makes me dislike him even more as a person. But as a ballplayer, he is unmatched, and he belongs in the hall. If they want to punish him for it, they will simply give him the plaque he deserves as a player without any of the other honors that come with it (i.e., he won't participate in an induction ceremony or anything like that). Unless the unknown incident you speak of means that he wouldn't have broken Cobb's record had it not happened, his achievements stand. Just so we're clear, I would feel the same way even if WhiteSoxFan84 had not set the "no both or neither" parameter on this thread, that is, I genuinely feel Rose should be in the hall.

Cubbiesuck13
02-27-2005, 01:14 AM
assuming sammy sosa goes in the hall, do you think he just might wear a sox cap to the hall just to get back at the flubs?

or do you think things will blow over as they usually do?

Even if he could choose, I wouldn't want him wearing a Sox cap. It's bad enough that he was on our team at all. He could wear a Rangers or an O's cap for all I care.

idseer
02-27-2005, 10:00 AM
... But (rose) as a ballplayer, he is unmatched, and he belongs in the hall. ...

i'm taking this to slightly off topic , but ...

rose is unmatched? he has one achievement that is unmatched. total number of hits. but, just how big a deal is that? when you look a little closer you find it took him over 14,000 ab's to do it. almost 2000 more than the next closest hitter! the man still only has a .303 lifetime average (never even reached .350) and that's not even close to being in the top 100. he wasn't a run producer or a great fielder. he walked only once every 12+ ab's.

in my opinion he's one of the all time over-rated players in the history of the game. don't misunderstand me, i think he's hall worthy if he hadn't been so stupid as to break the rules ..... but without a doubt over-rated. he simply lasted a long time.

there are a LOT of things i would take over that hit record in a player.
i don't believe that rose not being in the hall is that big of a glaring hole.