- 2,350
- 270
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2001
I could see them both elected into the HOF, but it would be after the die, same with Pete Rose IMO.
Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens...do they get put in the HOF?
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by stillin729,
- Start date
- 2,721
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2007
If Bonds doesn't deserve to get in then almost nobody else after him deserves it IMO , with the exception of a few.
- 601
- 11
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
To answer OP, Bonds and Clemens should be in the HoF. Steroids are overblown anyway, as some of the most beloved players "cheated", as Mantle/Mays/Aaron took greenies and there's a pitcher in the HoF who used spitballs. Baseball voters are idiots, and I hope they get new voters who don't refernce wins to peg a pitchers' success.
- 1,988
- 68
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2003
So by that standard, are we going to keep people out that used greenies? Because in my eyes, you can't have it one way without the other just because you perceive one to be MORE performance enhancing than the other.
- 32,516
- 27,020
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
That has never precluded the entry of all the entrants who took amphetamines.Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN
I always get a kick out of people saying it wasn't banned in MLB
- 21,151
- 37
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh
That has never precluded the entry of all the entrants who took amphetamines.Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN
I always get a kick out of people saying it wasn't banned in MLB
Greenies were "legal" by MLB standards up until 1996, I believe. On top of it all, you can still take forms of amphetamines if you can show proof of an actual need.
Anyways, I know I'm in the minority on this one but I don't think anyone should be admitted to the hall if found guilty of using PEDs after MLB instituted the ban. I know they didn't start testing until 2003, but still...if you're cheating the system after MLB says you SHOULDN'T be taking something, why should you get to the HOF if found guilty cheating? I don't care if you think "everyone else" was doing it too. There are plenty of guys who don't have this cloud of suspicion over their heads (Jim Thome comes to mind) that should be rewarded for playing the game the right way, until proven otherwise. It's a shame, too. Barry was on his way to becoming one of the all-time greats without the aid of PEDs.
- 21,948
- 1,377
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2003
I hope they are made an example of.
- 22,885
- 2,317
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2000
I never said they shouldn't get in...
I'm was just pointing out that MLB doesn't need to specify what's illegal when the law said it was. Otherwise their rule book would be ridiculous
I'm was just pointing out that MLB doesn't need to specify what's illegal when the law said it was. Otherwise their rule book would be ridiculous
- 60,034
- 50,947
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
Watching Bonds those last few years was like putting the difficulty on very easy while playing video games. I liked Bonds as a kid but his last few years were a guaranteed HR or walk, that wasn't exciting because it was strictly steroids. He was a great player for the Pirates and his early years in SF.
- 22,885
- 2,317
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2000
He was the classic '5 tool player' though his arm in the field was questionable so maybe just 4
darthska
Staff member
- 44,832
- 28,547
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Just answering the question in the title: no, to both. Will never happen.
I would like to add this, though: these responses about "He was already an HOFer before his sin"...
And if your response is just going to be "Different situation completely. He admitted and made a deal and the commish died" and blah, blah, blah, just save it. My point isn't to compare/contrast the two situations.
JUST on the logic that a player should be in based on accomplishments prior to 'being bad', would you put Charlie Hustle in under the same logic?
I would like to add this, though: these responses about "He was already an HOFer before his sin"...
And if your response is just going to be "Different situation completely. He admitted and made a deal and the commish died" and blah, blah, blah, just save it. My point isn't to compare/contrast the two situations.
JUST on the logic that a player should be in based on accomplishments prior to 'being bad', would you put Charlie Hustle in under the same logic?
- 12,209
- 277
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
What I came to say.
- 1,402
- 491
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- 25,831
- 15,061
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
Co-sign. Baseball writers won't vote them in now or while they're alive.
- 13,432
- 224
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
this
- 32,516
- 27,020
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
I still don't understand the distinction your making, the amphetamines that those players were taking whether it was "greenies" or "red juice" it was not for need, it was for performance enhancing benefits. Steroids were not banned by baseball until recently so they were just as legal as greenies.Originally Posted by DoubleJs07
Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh
That has never precluded the entry of all the entrants who took amphetamines.Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN
I always get a kick out of people saying it wasn't banned in MLB
Greenies were "legal" by MLB standards up until 1996, I believe. On top of it all, you can still take forms of amphetamines if you can show proof of an actual need.
Anyways, I know I'm in the minority on this one but I don't think anyone should be admitted to the hall if found guilty of using PEDs after MLB instituted the ban. I know they didn't start testing until 2003, but still...if you're cheating the system after MLB says you SHOULDN'T be taking something, why should you get to the HOF if found guilty cheating? I don't care if you think "everyone else" was doing it too. There are plenty of guys who don't have this cloud of suspicion over their heads (Jim Thome comes to mind) that should be rewarded for playing the game the right way, until proven otherwise. It's a shame, too. Barry was on his way to becoming one of the all-time greats without the aid of PEDs.
Guys who spit on baseballs are in the hall of fame, baseball is a game of cheaters, it's entrenched in the history of the game, there is no "right way"
The HOF should not be a moral stick for sports writers, it's museum to tell the history of the game, and if the history of the game omits the great players from the 90's to eaqrly 2000's then it is worthless.
- 21,151
- 37
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
Again..."greenies" weren't a banned substance until 1996 in MLB. MLB BANNED steroids in 1991. Yes, it is their fault that the actual testing didn't happen until 03', but it was still prohibited. Anything that happened prior to 1991 was by all accounts, "fair game" if it wasn't deemed illegal by MLB. The guys who used in the 12 year time-frame between the banning and when they started testing are nothing but cheats, IMO. They went against what MLB said and bostered their #'s. Let them fry.
- 7,800
- 4,744
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2003
Not until the old guard of baseball voters passes.
This is the answer.
Right or wrong they will both eventually get in and it will likely be as the old timer voters leave or die off. Their numbers are too gigantic.
It is unrealistic obviously but I have said many times both players should have to at least admit things before elected. Because both are walking Pinocchios we all laugh at when they talk. Both players juiced out of their minds and prolonged their careers for years and years and reaped the accolades and more importantly the pay checks. For them to sit here in 2012 still saying they "did nothing" and deny deny deny tells us all we need to know about how important that aspect was. Their doctors and trainers created the second half of their careers in the lab and they know it....and yet they both want us to still think that it didn't happen. Laughable.
This has been brought up before but it still is going to be fascinating to see what these voters are going to do in the near future with this roster of candidates coming through
Current: Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Jeff Bagwell
2013: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mike Piazza, Sammy Sosa, Curt Schilling, Craig Biggio
2014: Frank Thomas, Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Mike Mussina
2015: Gary Sheffield, John Smoltz, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson
We're going to know real soon how these guys are going to be treated.
- 601
- 11
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
Bonds didn't have an all-time eye or bat speed, yep not at all.
Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh
That has never precluded the entry of all the entrants who took amphetamines.Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN
I always get a kick out of people saying it wasn't banned in MLB
Exactly. Some people can't get it through their head that there has been cheating in EVERY era of baseball, not just the steroid era. But we celebrate guys like Aaron and destroy guys like Bonds because of what? They weren't nice to media? They weren't nice to the fans? $%++$!@ crybabies. They should both be first ballot HOF'ers. But these idiotic writers like to think they're above the game and like to make it known that's their way of thinking.
- 53,284
- 20,850
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
People always make this argument. Yeah steroids don't help with that. They help you get stronger, recover from injuries, and prolong your career. Bonds was a HOF'er before he started taking, but he did take and shouldn't get in. You make the decision to cheat, then prepare to face the consequences of your decision. I don't think the HOF should have a bunch of cheaters.
jumpmanfromdabay
Banned
- 25,730
- 2,900
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
Originally Posted by Proshares
Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh
That has never precluded the entry of all the entrants who took amphetamines.Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN
I always get a kick out of people saying it wasn't banned in MLB
Exactly. Some people can't get it through their head that there has been cheating in EVERY era of baseball, not just the steroid era. But we celebrate guys like Aaron and destroy guys like Bonds because of what? They weren't nice to media? They weren't nice to the fans? $%++$!@ crybabies. They should both be first ballot HOF'ers. But these idiotic writers like to think they're above the game and like to make it known that's their way of thinking.
This
- 11,588
- 837
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
Originally Posted by Oasis
Bonds didn't have an all-time eye or bat speed, yep not at all.
Don't pay this guy no mind.
- 22,885
- 2,317
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2000
Are we really comparing the effects of 'greenies' vs steriods and HGH type substances? Maybe some can paint the broad stroke of 'cheating is cheating' but the degree of the effects are pretty obvious to me
- 32,516
- 27,020
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
Disagree with this completely.
1. The benefits of taking HGH for baseball are dubious at best, in fact most scientists would tell you that if you bough HGH hoping to become bigger, stronger and hit the ball farther you wasted you money.
2. In baseball, a sport where the main crux involves repeating complex bio mechanical motions like (swinging a bat, repeating delivery) mental fatigue is just as damaging if not more so than physical fatigue, in fact If I had the choice between simply taking a pill that would insure that I was mentally locked and better able to execute my swing better, focus better at the plate. vs taking a substance that, if I kill myself in the gym for months at the end of it I may be able to hit the ball farther?...give me the pill.