One or the Other: Barry Bonds vs Pete Rose
 

If you had only one vote for the Hall of Fame, who would you pick? The admitted gambler in Pete Rose or the alleged steroid abuser in Barry Bonds? It's the hit king vs the home run king and both men are shrouded in controversey.

If it were up to FOFC who would go to the HOF? Or would either one of them have a shot?

Bonds. Gambling is *the* cardinal sin in baseball. This isn't even close in my eyes, and I pretty much despise Bonds. Let Canseco in before Rose.

I think if you look at Bonds numbers pre 2000 when this whole mess seems to have started he's already a no doubt hall of famer. If he would have retired then he'd have 2010 hits in 6976 at bats for a 288 average with 445 home runs, 460 steals and 3 MVP's. Not to mention 9 gold gloves and 9 all star apperances in only 14 seasons. Maybe a better question would be Sammy Sosa/Rafael Palmeiro/Gary Sheffield vs Pete Rose

Yep. Barry, if he was a user (and it seems 99.9% likely he was), was still attempting to help his teams win.

Anyone involved with gambling on their own sport and especially their own team carries the potential to rig the outcome. To me (and I think to most people), cheating to gain a competitive advantage (as is the case with using performance enhancers) is preferable to rigging the outcome of a game.

How can you say one or the other and then give a neither option? :confused:

I said you only get one vote between two guys or you just can decided F it and say neither one should get it and not vote.

Fuck Pete Rose, and the horse he bet to ride in on.

Bonds. Steroid use is comparable to throwing spitballs, and we have several suspected spitballers in the HOF (Perry, Sutton, and I think Whitey Ford, to name three right off the top of my head). It's a minor infraction compared to gambling on the game.

Definitely.

Bonds is a cheater. Baseball can, and always has, survived cheaters of various forms.

Screwing with the integrity of the game itself is 1000X worse. Even "betting on your own team" does that (and I believe 100% that the "he only bet to win" theory on Rose is bullshit anyway.)

Both...I kow not an option.
But I have no argument againsst eeither

I would never, never vote Rose into the hall of Fame. (assuming ihad a vote :) )

That's where I stand, though I'd use the word "sports" instead of baseball.

rose only gambled as a manager, yes?

the way i look at it, rose never cheated on the field. as a manager is one thing, but its a lot tougher to affect a game than if you are out there playing.

bonds cheated during the game.

i vote rose.

Oh, ok.. .he ONLY dragged the reputation of the results of the games into disripute as a manager... where of course he can't control anything (not lineups, when to pull pitchers, etc).

>4000 hits != >756 homers

Rose supposedly only bet his team to win, right?

While that isn't right, he bet to win, he played to win, he managed to win.

Bonds was jealous of McGuire's bloated arms and stats.

Asterisk them both.

Let them both in the hall of fame.

Place their plaques securely in urinals.

You can probably guess who I voted for.

Neither. They both should rot.

Oh, they will...in fact...we ALL will! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Is it not fair to assume that a number of pitchers that Bonds hit these homers against were also on the juice?

Lets take a look at the two issues of weight gain and longevity - Roger Clemens put on similar gains from his rookie season to current day weight and has displayed a similar ability to maintain strong performances far past a normal athlete's peak. Why do I rarely hear steroid allegations and never hear calls to keep Clemens out of the Hall?

Clemens was actually on the decline before he left Boston. The late 90's arrive and at the age of 35 he magically revives himself, dominating again for a number of years before baseball cleans itself up and he again suffers a decline in his abilities.

The same can be said for Randy Johnson. Take a look at his numbers leading up to the mid-90's and then his numbers beyond that, leading up to around 2004-2005 and then his numbers since. For his first ten years from 1988-1997, Johnson threw 300+ K's once. Starting in 1998 (at age 34) he threw 300+ K's for five straight seasons (from age 31-40, Nolan Ryan did not hit 300 K's in any season). Do we hear anything about Johnson?

As an aside, I don't believe that the FDA banned THG until 2003. So even if Bonds was on THG up until 2003, it would be akin to using creatine or protein supplements. How would that make someone ineligible for the Hall?

Rose should be a hall of famer PERIOD

Except that he violated the most fundamental rule in competitive sports PERIOD

Since I don't know how gambling can help you become the hit-king I gotta vote Rose

+1

Gambling damages the core element of sport - the idea that you're witnessing a contest where both teams/contestants are attempting to win and the results aren't jeopardized by someone attempting to fix the outcome.

Cheating, while distasteful, is still done with the intent of trying to win. Gambling could lead to one attempting to sabotage the chances of winning.

Bonds, one of the few best hitters ever, steroids or not.

Rose, roid-meister aside Bonds is just a plain jackazz to 98% of the people I've ever heard or seen him interact with. In his mind he's roids gift to baseball.

This isn't necessarily true. Betting on individual games could lead you to manage in a fashion that maximizes win potential in one game (excessive use of relievers, bringing back an injured player too soon) but sacrifices the team's long term record.

I went with Rose. I am judging this solely based on on the field performance. Bond's on the field performance was allegedly enhanced by steroids, Rose's wasn't.


I vote Rose, I wish everyone played the game the way he did.

I voted Rose because given the choice he would be it but I totally agree with this argument. I was a Bonds fan ( as much as I could be considering my waning interest in the sport over those years ). I was also a Bobby fan so I was rooting for his son.

The cheating thing though, man that's too much. It would be one thing if it didn't set a huge record but it galls me that one of baseballs most respected records will be in the hands of a cheater ( also, again, if it's never proven that he juiced of course he belongs in the hall ). See, to me, a statistician by nature, I find the records far, far more important to maintain integrity than merely gambling.

Gambling is more about the team's record and while that's pretty much conventionally thought of as the only stat that matters but baseball to me has always been more about the stats than the teams ( I never had a home team growing up ). The stats mean something to me and when I consider the history of the sport I think far more of players than teams.

We have Babe and the Georgia Peach and "lets play two" Banks and the Wizard of Oz.

With teams, not so much. We have the Miracle Mets and the Gashouse Gang and the Yankees as a collective but not as many by far or for the most part as interesting.

In fairness, I did grow up in a very gambling friendly environment ( though I turned out to not enjoy gambling at all ) so it would be odd for me to be too offput by the mere implications of the word.

[tangent]
My grandfather had one of my favorite quotes, btw. Someone was telling him how stupid he was for betting on Jai Alai because everyone knows it's rigged and he said "yes, but how am I supposed to know that the guy I'm betting on isn't the guy that's rigged to win?".
[/tangent]

I just realized actually how much this really is my issue because I've always felt Gaylord Perry belonged in the hall and he cheated but he didn't really directly damage the integrity of the game because his cheating did not directly put a tainted record in the books. Bonds, not so much but if he retired one hr shy of Aaron I'd be a Bonds apologist absolutely.

PS:

The cynical part of me wants to think that the people who get worked up about gambling questioning the integrity of the sport to be well, gamblers. Those are the guys who would really worry about stuff like this.

Fact is, I've seen so many unfair sporting results that aren't gambling related that the set of unfair sports results is far bigger than the subset unfair gambling sports results and I really don't think that gambling is over half of the bigger set. Doesn't make gambling right of course but most gamblers don't get to fix games ( which Rose wasn't accused of anyway ) and we should punish those that do but to consider even the promoting for a casino to be a bannable offense is silly.

Yep, this post rambles and is all over the map but I'm submitting anyway. :D

I dunno, aren't all 9 players on both teams attempting to fix the outcome? ;)

This argument is incredibly wierd. I'm not sure how putting a "tainted" record on the books damages the integrity of the game? One can argue that Aaron was on amphetamines, allowing him to recover much quicker, and thus 755 is a tainted record as well, and the Babe should have it instead. Then again, Babe Ruth played in an era when blacks weren't allowed to play, so that's tainted to.

Then again, I really don't see the big deal about steroids (or rather I see it, but I just don't care), so it becomes easy for me. Based solely on numbers, it is easily Bonds (and was so before 2000 as well).

Good post. I'll go a step further and make a devils advocate argument and say:

Barry Bonds did not cheat regardless of what he took.

Barry Bonds watched Mcguire and Sosa get huge beyond their build entering baseball, and saw them kill HR records in their chase for 61. Bonds watches them get treated as heroes and thinks to himself, well they are doing it and no one cares, why don't I do it as well? How did Bonds cheat the game when he saw the game celebrate steroids in the chase for 61?

Bonds use of substances that were not properly policed while athletes who took juice were/are celebrated is as much cheating as going 56 mph in a 55 while being passed by all other cars is breaking the law.

For the record, I voted neither, but the "everybody else was doing it too!" argument is not very convincing to me.

Players have been seeking a performance edge through chemical means since they started popping greenies in the '50s. The line Bonds is accused of crossing is no different than any player that used speed to improve their ability to play. I place Barry above real cheaters like Mike Scott (ball scuffer) and Albert Belle (bat corker).

Rose is just a douchebag that violated a rule the penalty for which was posted in every major league club house. Bannination for life (and beyond) is exactly what he deserves.

I agree that it seems weird and it was pretty much stream of consciousness but here's one difference I see.

Steroids do seem to be a much bigger deal because I perceive that the performance boost given for steroids is far greater than for any other cheat. Maybe that's wrong, I really don't know but that's the perception that I get about them.

Another thing is that it will create a dampening of enthusiasm for records. Really, who cares about Cy Young's win record? It was so inflated that the record itself is meaningful only for the occasional "gee whiz" stat.

Stuff like the home run record, season and career though, look at the excitement caused by these every season. It keeps up interest because it's an exciting record.

That's gone now and not because of a change in the way the game is played but because of a cheater. If steroid use is ever effectively banned from the league you'll see numbers drop back into a more normal range and you'll know that no records are going to be broken and not because of a "gee whiz" story, but of a lousy cheater. That's kinda sad. If course, this isn't exactly threatening the integrity of the game I'll admit but to me, since the numbers are my primary interest, from that viewpoint, I've lost a lot more interest but since I am not a MLB customer it's no loss to them that I'm even less of one now. :)

I used to be though.

Thats understandable, but keep in mind the argument isn't just "everybody else was doing it!" it was that "people were/are doing it and were celebrated for it by those who are suppose to police the rules; despite the obviousness that they were doing it."

Baseball didn't just police poorly, they gave medals to those that were clearly "breaking the rules." How can a person be punished, either in actuality or in public opinion, when they are just following the example of the rules as set forth by those who make the rules?

I went Bonds, but I would have rather said Both.

Rose was a lot more fun to watch.

Steroids is compared to a spitball?

I'll take Rose as a player. Most of his allegations were as a manager, not a player...

This one is easy... Bonds is in.

Rose broke the ONE rule that is plastered on every clubhouse door, you CANT BET ON BASEBALL...PERIOD. Rose is out for good.

Bonds is a AUTOMATIC 1st ballot HOFer, I cant see any logical argument against letting him in. Tell me what rule MLB had in place that he broke???
Show me the test that proves he was on something that was banded by MLB.

If you go by the suspision he was doing something wrong than EVERYONE that has this non proven suspision cant go in either which is totaly rediculas and whould never happen.

At the end of the day unless Bonds comes out and admits he broke a MLB law he will be HR king and HOF 1St Ballot .

+1

Rose admited betting on baseball as a player as well, even if he made 1 bet as player and 500000000 as manager doesnt matter. He is cooked.

Rose loves baseball with all his heart (or at least appears to). Bonds sometimes acts like he hates baseball. The right answer is neither, of course. But a hall of fame that had Rose and not Bonds is much, much closer to my idea of a hall of fame than a hall of fame that has Bonds but not Rose - the latter is just a joke and an insult to fans.

So you're cool with Bonds breaking federal laws then?

How about, he turns people off of baseball, as opposed to Rose who turned on a generation of fans.

Rose wasn't half the player Bonds was even before Bonds started taking steroids. He was a great player and fun to watch, and would be a deserving first ballot HOFer without the gambling. But he is probably also the most overrated player in baseball history. In addition to having a lot more power, Bonds was a better fielder, got on base more, and was a better base stealer than Rose. The only thing Rose could do better than Bonds was hit for average, and his hits were mostly singles. Bonds more than made up for that by getting walks with his plate discipline.

I think the thing that you (along with the rest of society) seem to be forgetting is that THG wasn't banned by the FDA (or any other agency for that matter) until 2003.

So with that in mind, an athlete could have been using the substance under the premise that it was not illegal to do so (either by MLB or federal standards) and upon declaration of its banned status in late 2003, stopped using it.

Following that, we decide to punish the athlete retro-actively for his actions by signaling him out, labeling him a cheater, demand asterisks to any records he sets, and calling to keep him out of the Hall of Fame all because he was rumoured to have used a performance enhancing drug at a time when it was not illegal to use that product, either by baseball or federal standards. Not to mention that at the time he was supposedly using it, everyone else in baseball (and sports) was using it as well.

Am I the only one missing something here?

+1

So he stopped using it in 2003?

Ok.

He has been tested. He hasn't tested positive as far as we know. So the assumption should be that he stopped.

I'm really shocked that the vote is this close - that this many people cannot see how much worse gambling is for integrity of the sport than steroid use.

the poll question never mentions anything about integrity, Bonds cheated ON the field, Rose didn't.

Who has less integrity in that scenerio?

Anyone who thinks Pete Rose didn't cheat on the field is in denial. And he cheated in a way that is far more harmful to the integrity of the game.

It's debatable whether Bonds actually cheated at all, even if he did use, since baseball did not have a rule (or, at the very least, did not have an enforceable rule with consequences) at the time he is believed to have used. And, as was pointed out, the substance he was accused of using at the time was not specifically illegal until 2003.

Even if Bonds did cheat, the kind of cheating he did helped his team win, just like the kind of cheating Gaylord Perry did helped his teams win. The kind of cheating Pete Rose did may have hurt his team's performance.

Baseball's steroid program still isn't nearly comprehensive enough to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. It's very easy to beat when you can afford cutting edge nutritionists. (Note the only people that have been caught have been fringe players)

are you a Giants fan, per chance? ;)

I am, but I feel the same way about all the other players who used steroids before 2003. Baseball did not have anything you could really call a rule, so I don't consider them cheaters. They were doing what athletes always do in any sport - exploiting loopholes wherever possible. Before 2003 - not cheaters. After 2003 - cheaters.

I'm not a Giants fan or a Bonds fan and I agree with basically what he says(although I do laugh at 'its debatable whether he cheated at all'). I'm very surprised at the results of this poll. There are countless cheaters in the hall of fame that we never question, from people running from 1st to 3rd and skipping 2nd altogether in the early days of the game when there was just one umpire... amphetamines from the 50s on, right? hall of fame pitchers doctoring the ball, this is just the latest, hi tech form of cheating. You're going to have to keep a *lot* of people out if you want to keep everyone out that cheated.

However, gambling on baseball damages the core integrity of the sport. Look at the current NBA scandal? That's some really, really serious shit. When you introduce gambling into the game you no longer have confidence that people are actually doing their best to compete and win, the integrity of the sport is ruined. Steroids has ruined the reputation of baseball in many people's opinions, but gambling harms a sport much, much more.

Rafael Palmeiro.

This is an absolutely terrible argument.

I honestly think Bonds loves all of this talk. I dont think anyone doubts he's a HOF player and just like Rose, it's sad that someone would do something like this when they already were a world class player.

Imagine if someone like Junior, whose about at the age where Barry's head and shoe size increased, were to go on the same "routine" that Barry did? Would there be any doubt on who the greatest player ever would be? At least since Bonds?

Compared to what Rose did, it's not.

Look, baseball lore is filled with examples of cheating. Besides the spitballers, you've got stories about teams putting spies in the center field bleachers to steal signs and relay them to the hitter. You've got teams turning the infield around first base into a bog in the 60s to keep Maury Wills from stealing. You've got Ty Cobb intentionally trying to injure opposing players with his spikes.

This stuff has always been part of the game, and is very, very different from what Rose did.

Just because baseball's hall of fame has always had pitiful standards is no reason to advocate maintaining them.

Fixed

I see argument here that Sosa was also juiced. I have never heard actual allegations that he was also, other than that he must have been to keep up with McGwire. I thought Sammy got his HR's the old fashioned way... a corked bat.

OK, one idiot that was using something that's been available for at least 3 decades.

It still seems incredibly naive to use negative drugs tests to support someone's innocence when that person has admitted taking masking agents that would make the substances he was taking undetectable under the current MLB tests.

But I'd still put him in the HOF over Rose.

It's worse to make allegations that have no evidence to back them up. There's absolutely no evidence Bonds has taken steroids since the MLB adopted its testing policy. Players have been tested. Some have been caught. HR totals are down. There's more evidence is that it is working than there is that it's not.

I don't see the enthusiasm for records gone at all because it is percieved that a "cheater" got them. It wasn't when Aaron was using amphetamines to break Babe Ruth's record. I'm a numbers guy as well, total sabermetic stat-head, but I haven't lost interest in the numbers or the game because, well, this sort of thing has been going on for quite a while (and I'm still not sure how people can say what Bonds has been doing is totally unlike pitchers throwing spitballs or scuffing balls after it was against the rules... is it because it is a chemical instead of actually altering the baseball?).

Besides, in 10 years or so, A-Rod will break Bonds' record. If he's "clean" (whatever that means these days), you think that it'll bring back interest in the numbers?

It's not that it's chemical it's because the level of boost totally puts the statistics out of whack. It's safe to assume that Barry got at least 100 HR's out of his cheating and I don't know if corked bats or scuffing a baseball makes that much of a difference.

The 100 is admittedly a WAG but it's based on the fact that players drop off when his power started so if he's juicing, even if he has a remarkable staying power, he's at least that many down.

I just feel that the level of cheating advantage that steroids gives ( east german swimming team? ) distorts the records enough that to me they become nigh meaningless. Maybe I just don't know enough about amphetamines but I don't believe they caused massive inflation in the cheaters numbers that caused records that surpassed anything that human beings had ever been able to achieve before. I dunno, that to me pretty much how I feel about steroids.

It's one thing if Messala bumps Ben Hur with his chariot and you lose a wheel that's kinda bad but if he's driving a corvette and just blows by him, well, that cheating is really, really hard to accept.

So what you then in take your best guess - I think this guy took steroids. What would his career look like if he hadn't taken them.

With Bonds, he's maybe 600-650 HRs, and 3000 hits (because he wouldn't have been walked as much, he'd probably have that many more hits by now). Certainly, he'd be a first ballot HOFer.

I think it's pretty well established that corked bats don't help. It's also pretty well established that scuffing and foreign substances affect the aerodynamics of the baseball enough to cause extra movement and make it harder to hit, and thus, they do work.

Amphetamines certainly helped players perform when they were tired - so at the very least, they played more and were able to put up more counting stats.

I agree with most of what clintl says and I am a Dodgers fan and certainly not a fan of Barry Bonds.

Even Dowd has said that he never thought Pete was betting on baseball during his playing days. Rose deserves to be in the hall for his playing career, without question.

ROFLMFAO

Comparable to spit balls? You're funny!!!!

Since Hall of Fame is on the field numbers and it's opne or the other this should be a no brainer for Rose as his problems occured after he was done playing.

Why? I agree with him. What would Perry's numbers be like if he never threw a spitball? Far less, I'm positive. Enough that he wouldn't be a Hall of Fame pitcher.

He's also right.

In my opinion, it's worse that he did it as a manager. A manager has ways of influencing the outcome of a game that players don't.

Look, I was for reinstating Rose and putting in the Hall if he made a contrite, genuinely remorseful confession. His confession, when he finally made it, was anything but contrite and remorseful. It was arrogant, and it confirmed that that he didn't get it.

I think you're putting too much of the stats increase on steroids. Yes, they do boost stat levels by quite a bit, but we'll honestly never know how much. The steroid era happened to coincide with shrinking ballparks, a shrinking strike zone (which probably had a bigger impact than steroids), and increased knowledge of health, nutrition, and excercise.

Unlike other Hall of Fames, I'm pretty sure that the Baseball HOF's criteria specifically instructs voters to consider "character" (though I couldn't find that criteria in a quick internet search)

I'll agree that this is possibly so but I look at other sports, like the east german womens swim team and the outrageous records they were setting.

Also, it would seem that someone has studied the rise in home runs and knows what the league average is and just how much higher the home run rate has changed for the juicers than the league average.

Bonds is a case where what he's done is not only unusual but unheard of for someone his age. Possible? Sure, but unlikely unaided by steroids because as everyone else keeps saying, the pitchers are juicing too so using that logic, how is it conceivable that he could have done something that no one else has done and done it naturally while those around him juiced? Puzzling.

This issue ( did he or didn't he ) isn't the issue with me though because if we don't get some proof that he cheated there's no way in hell he doesn't belong in the HOF, next to Pete Rose, who should already be there. :)

For those who say cheating is no biggie though , I guess we ought to give Rosie Ruiz her medal back. I mean all she did was cheat and that's no biggie. :rolleyes:

I do want to amend my stand though. I really do thing Bonds belongs in the hall of fame, behind Rose so I stand by my vote, for the impressive career he achieved legitimately but the HR record, that's another issue which I don't like. Still, I can't see that distaste as a disqualifier for the HOF but it should NOT say HR champion on his plaque no matter how many tainted dingers he hits.

If baseball has travelled so far afield from putting an asterisk on a record that was achieved legitimately under the rules of the day to now legitimatizing a cheater and his tainted record (if proven), well, I don't really need to rethink my dislike for baseball as it's been played since '94.

Dowd said that he had no evidence that Rose ever bet against the Reds. We also know that Rose accepted a VOLUNTARY ban from baseball in exchange for the investigation stopping, and that no formal finding would be made. I personally think he bet against the Reds, but that's just my opinion.

And of course, even if he only bet to win, he's essentially betting against them every time he manages a game that he doesn't have any money on.

huh?

If you have $10,000 on the Reds winning tomorrow night, but you're not betting on tonight's game, you're managerial decisions tonight will reflect that (holding back your best relievers, using tonight as the night to rest your big bat, etc.)

(It might have just been my poor typing and grammar skills - I edited my post to try to make it clearer)

It's basically what I said earlier in the thread. If he's maximizing his team's ability to win in an individual game that he's betting on, then he's acting against his team's interest in other games. He can overuse relievers, bring back an injured guy too soon, switch to a 4 man rotation to get that ace pitcher going a game earlier. His decisions will still be influenced by his betting patterns, which is exactly what baseball wants to avoid.

You know, we can say the same thing for Roger Clemens. How many pitchers have been this good, this old? Satchel Paige? (don't say Nolan Ryan, he wasn't close to the pitcher Clemens has been since they both hit 40)

As opposed to the continuing lack of a confession/admission from Bonds.
Rose should be in. Bonds is debatable, because you honestly don't know what he would have done if he never was on the juice.

I disagree with this. He had 411 HR's through 1998, when it's been rumored that he started juicing. Dude was going to the hall no matter what, and that's why I dislike him so much. I have a bit more sympathy for a guy who is struggling for that last roster spot and feels he needs to juice to keep up with the his competition, who are also juicing. However, Bonds didn't need to do that. If he never took steroids, he still would have gone down as one of the greatest players in baseball history.

As for Rose, he should not be in. He knew the rules. He knew how serious those rules were. He broke them and has acted like a complete jerk ever since. If he had shown true remorse, then I think people would be more lenient. Similarly, if Barry Bonds hadn't acted like a prick for his whole career, I think people would be more inclined to believe his story.

I would agree with that.

If he started on The Clear when he was with the Pirates, he could have thrown out Sid Bream at the plate.

Which is an interesting counterfactual. What if Bonds was more like Griffey (the Seattle years)... what would the reaction be to all of this?

Well, he'd be a lot more popular, and this poll would be a landslide.

Surprising poll results. While there is certainly room for debate on the Bonds issue, promoting Rose for the HoF is IMO indefensible. The guy knew the punishment. No way any player banned from the game for life can be feted and allowed to enter the Hall. I just can't see it.

One of the best arguments for disliking Bonds that I've seen. Bonds like the best sports athletes of all time is ultra-competitive. In the end the person Bonds cheated the most his himself, and its something he should have realized if/when he started using. Most likely he saw the chase for 61, saw two guys that appeared to have gotten bigger with the aide of substances, and waned to compete with the best HR hitters of the day on those same terms. He let his ego get the better of him, which wouldn't be a surprise to anyone obviously.

Throwing a spit ball increases one's stamina? It allows them to continue to play at a level in which they would not naturally be able to play at for a longer period of time? It quickens their recovery and helpsto avoid the late season fatigue that most players begin to hit at some point? It can help heighten a player's senses and improve vision to 20/10? It is something undetectable on the field (player's aren't injecting themselves right there on the field)? It takes years off of the player's life?


Yeah, I can see just how comparable the two are... :rolleyes:

Throwing a spit ball DOESN'T increase performance?! Give me a break. It seems a cute little distinction so that one form of cheating gets pooh-poohed, while another is grounds for a lynching?

Speaking of which, what about players who get eye surgery to increase their vision to 20/10? Isn't that a performance enhancing alteration to one's body? Or should everyone have to get surgery in order to be able to compete at the same level?

Talking about baseball is so much more fun than actually watching baseball. I'll be happy when he breaks the record, and I never have to pretend to care about watching this useless Giants team again.

Very true. Personally, I'd take Paige over Clemens but he is my favorite pitcher ever so it's not a tough decision. :D

Wait a minute now, this makes no sense. So, are you saying that you don't believe in degrees of punishment to fit the crime? Manslaughter should be punished exactly the same as first degree murder, because to me clearly a spitball is to steroids like manslaughter is to murder.

You're the one who agreed that steroids and spit balls were comparable. I guess now that you see the silliness of that arguement you need to switch to talking about eye surgery?

Barry Bonds never booed Santa Claus, so he's better than any Eagle fan could ever be. Who boos Santa Claus, besides dirty commies?