Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

[snepp]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

HOW? There was no official punishment for steriod use until 2004 so how was it banned?

No punishment does not equal not banned. They were illegal to obtain and use as well as being on the league's list of banned substances. Just because the MLB didn't have the balls to implement punishment doesn't make it any less wrong.

[Knight165]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

HOW? There was no official punishment for steriod use until 2004 so how was it banned?

Perhaps "performance enhancing drugs"?.......
I think the rule was for amphetamines......but steroids fall under the same category.
Besides....it's just semantics...these guys knew what was right or wrong.
Give me a break....

M.K.
Knight165

[mgoblue]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

Perhaps "performance enhancing drugs"?.......
I think the rule was for amphetamines......but steroids fall under the same category.
Besides....it's just semantics...these guys knew what was right or wrong.
Give me a break....

M.K.
Knight165

Exactly...they can't be punished by MLB because the league and players put their heads in the sand. Doesn't mean that the HOF voters and public opinion has to.

[NYJets]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

I think gambling is worse, but I think Rose should still be in the Hall. Don't let him play or manage, but in the Hall yes.

Steroids is different because there's the question of whether they'd still be good enough without them. I'd probably still put all of them in the Hall too though.

[Brandon13]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

True....you're right, it's not a good idea...I guess I just think that the drugs taint a player's entire season...

I personally think drugs are more of a taint on the league than gambling. I understand how gambling is so bad, but fail to understand how some people can just not care about these performance enhanced seasons and the HOF. Every pitch or swing of the bat by a player is impacted. The ball is thrown harder, or hit farther than it would have if the player was legit.

My problem with steroids and the HOF is that because we know steroid use was so widespread I just have a problem only keeping players out that were caught. I don't have a problem with the HOF implementing a policy that if you tested positive for steroids then you cannot be elected to the Hall But with the rules the way they are right now, it's wrong imo to keep anyone out because I'd be shocked if there weren't current HOF that used steroids.

Either put a rule in excluding those who were caught with steroids or judge guys on their numbers.

[RoyalBoyle78]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

You're basically asking which is worse. Betting on the game is worse. As for entry to the Hall of Fame, neither should matter IMO. The guys who put up the numbers should be in. When you've got a HOF without the greatest pitcher of the last 50-60 years in it and have kept the all time hits leader out as well then I think it's kind of lacking. It could be viewed as a kind of a Hall of Fame death sentence.

It also kind of gives the guys who get kept out this weird sort of immortality. Would anyone be talking about Pete Rose anymore? Not really. If Clemens and Bonds don't get in they'll be talked about endlessly as well. It would be best to just induct them but baseball is silly like that.

WOW, you think betting is worse then Cheating...

[Brandon13]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

WOW, you think betting is worse then Cheating...

If everyone's cheating, is it still cheating?

But really, I don't think it's crazy to think gambling is worse than steroids.

[mgoblue]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

If everyone's cheating, is it still cheating?

But really, I don't think it's crazy to think gambling is worse than steroids.

Gambling doesn't necessarily affect games until someone throws a game...

Steroids impact every damn movement, hit, pitch, catch in a game...

That's my thought...how good would Clemens or Bonds have been the past 10 years without cheating?

[Brandon13]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

Gambling doesn't necessarily affect games until someone throws a game...

Steroids impact every damn movement, hit, pitch, catch in a game...

That's my thought...how good would Clemens or Bonds have been the past 10 years without cheating?

They wouldn't have been nearly as good. But my problem is I think PED use was so rampant that Clemens and Bonds really aren't any more guilty than the 90% of other MLB players that haven't been caught. So more or less, I think it was an even playing field for the current players.

Basically I think that all of the steroid era HOF players should be let in or none of them should be let in.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

They should all be in the Hall of Fame regardless.

[TarHeelsUNC]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

The HOF should be based on accomplishments on the diamond, not what happens before or after games. Rose, Bonds, and Clemens all had great careers and deserve to be in.

BTW, if everyone used steroids, isn't it the same as no one using them at all?

[mgoblue]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

They wouldn't have been nearly as good. But my problem is I think PED use was so rampant that Clemens and Bonds really aren't any more guilty than the 90% of other MLB players that haven't been caught. So more or less, I think it was an even playing field for the current players.

Basically I think that all of the steroid era HOF players should be let in or none of them should be let in.

I can buy that....either or, just walking the middle (letting in Clemens and not Bonds, let's say) is a tough road to go down.

[TheLetterZ]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

Betting for/against your own team as a player/manager is the absolute worst thing anyone in MLB could do to their sport. It is the one thing no sport can tolerate or be soft with. I wouldn't put Bonds/Clemens/McGwire in the Hall. But I would definitely put them in before Rose.

Totally, 100% agree.

[Knight165]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

The HOF should be based on accomplishments on the diamond, not what happens before or after games. Rose, Bonds, and Clemens all had great careers and deserve to be in.

BTW, if everyone used steroids, isn't it the same as no one using them at all?

But not every player....of all time....used steroids.
The accomplishments of those in the HOF were gotten WITHOUT steroids.
It's the "benchmark" so to say, for those who will be getting into the hall.
Anyone who accomplished those statistics with peformance enhancing drugs(legal...not legal....whatever) should not be viewed as being equal with those who did not use them IMO.
THAT is the problem I have with these players going into the HOF with this hanging over their heads.
Ridiculous too....because in the case of Clemens and Bonds...they would probably been no-doubters anyway.
As for Rose....if it was up to me...he'd be in the HOF....but he knew the rules...it was very specific....NO BETTING...he also knew the possible consequences....his fault.

M.K.
Knight165

[jmood88]

Re: Ok, NOW does Pete Rose get in?

Gambling is far worse, imo.

Gambling is bad if you're throwing games but there has been nothing shown that would suggest that he was doing that so I don't see the big deal.