Hall of Fame Tuesday Morning

Kburjr said:
One small point. There was no rule stating they would lose eligibility for the HOF by using steroids.
Click to expand...

there needs to be a rule that cheating would effect your chances of getting into the HOF?
 
dbldwn711 said:
there needs to be a rule that cheating would effect your chances of getting into the HOF?
Click to expand...
I thought there was. Why are Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose not in the HOF?
 
dbldwn711 said:
there needs to be a rule that cheating would effect your chances of getting into the HOF?
Click to expand...
Taking banned substances is not the same "cheating". Is using marijuana cheating? In the roids era, they were treated the same. Is using greenies cheating? Was drinking during prohibition cheating?
 
Last edited:
Kburjr said:
Taking banned substances is not the same "cheating". Is using marijuana cheating? In the roids era, they were teated the same. Is using greenies cheating? Was drinking during prohibition cheating?
Click to expand...

stop it. Of course it’s cheating. That’s why they hid their usage of it. That’s why they initially denied using them until they couldn’t any longer. They are called PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) for a reason.
 
White Knight said:
I thought there was. Why are Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose not in the HOF?
Click to expand...
In Rose's case, there was a written rule. Not sure about Jackson. However, Landis booted him from the game which was within the power of the Commissioners Office. If the Commissioner wants to boot the 'riders from baseball, then they would be ineligible for the Hall
 
dbldwn711 said:
i disagree. They are ALL factors to be used in determining who is eligible and who is not eligible. It is definitely subjective because HOW MUCH weight you give to each factor and under what circumstances (ie gambling, steroids, sign stealing, doctoring baseballs, etc) is up to each voter.

I’ll add this about voting for the HOF and steroids. The voters have been consistent. If there’s a “body of evidence” and/or an admission of steroid use those players have been consistently left out. However, if there isn’t a direct “body of evidence” they are let in. A good example of this is Jeff bagwell. One of his best friends was Ken Caminiti who has admitted to steroid use. However, that closeness/relationship on its own didn’t keep Bagwell out. My post which you quoted attempted to illustrate that the “body of evidence” regarding alleged steroid use is very different for those 4 guys I listed. It’s much more than “this guy failed the same test that the other guy did”.

I’ll end with this point (which will also answer the question you posed to me). If I were to “rank” those 4 players I would say Clemens and bonds are clearly 1/2. I personally give the slightest of edges to Clemens simply bc pitchers control the game more than an outfielder. However, I could see myself being convinced that Bonds is 1 and Clemens is 2. Then Arod. Then Ortiz. [If I “rank” them on clutchness and/or postseason performances then Ortiz is far and away number 1 and all three of the others are a distant 2,3,4.] However, overall rank that’s how I have them. It’s pretty clear that the majority of baseball writers feel the same way. Bonds and Clemens got over 60% of the vote to be inducted into the HOF but under the rules, that’s not enough to get in. Under the rules and the voting criteria that all players knew about and hasn’t changed in decades Ortiz is in and so far the other three are out. The other three knew those rules (and the risks) when they did steroids. They knew the potential consequences if they got caught. I suspect that’s why they all initially denied it until the “body of evidence” became overwhelming such that they could no longer deny it. I’m not in favor of changing the rules just to pacify those players and/or their supporters. They still have chances to get in that don’t involve just the writers. Let’s see what they say. Several HOFers like Joe Morgan say they shouldn’t be in

Also, I’m not swayed by the argument that “everyone was doing it” or it was “conveniently ignored”. Jeter wasn’t using. Mariano Rivera didn’t use. They both got in on the first ballot and Rivera was a unanimous selection. It’s a disservice to players like them to simply say “everyone was using so let’s allow these guys in”.
Click to expand...

So a positive test isn't a body of evidence?

But like I said you cannot assume someone wasn't on steroids. Andy Pettite.
 
Kburjr said:
Taking banned substances is not the same "cheating". Is using marijuana cheating? In the roids era, they were treated the same. Is using greenies cheating? Was drinking during prohibition cheating?
Click to expand...
Why are you changing the topic?
 
Kburjr said:
In Rose's case, there was a written rule. Not sure about Jackson. However, Landis booted him from the game which was within the power of the Commissioners Office. If the Commissioner wants to boot the 'riders from baseball, then they would be ineligible for the Hall
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
 
stakesarehigh said:
So a positive test isn't a body of evidence?
Click to expand...

not that test. Not when MLB admits it’s not reliable. Not when MLB admits that legal over the counter supplements could trigger a “positive” result.
 
dbldwn711 said:
stop it. Of course it’s cheating. That’s why they hid their usage of it. That’s why they initially denied using them until they couldn’t any longer. They are called PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) for a reason.
Click to expand...
You gonna ban all Astro players involved in the garbage can scandal for cheating?

Go back and look at the players contracts back then. The agreements mentioned nothing about punishment for using banned substances.
 
dbldwn711 said:
Jeter wasn’t using.
Click to expand...
dbldwn711 said:
Mariano Rivera didn’t use.
Click to expand...
You don't know that.

I'm not saying they did, but there is not a single player from that era that would surprise me if they were doping. I also assume that 60+% of professional athletes are on some kind of PED, including MLB'ers, even to this day.
 
SlinkyRedfoot said:
You don't know that.

I'm not saying they did, but there is not a single player from that era that would surprise me if they were doping. I also assume that 60+% of professional athletes are on some kind of PED, including MLB'ers, even to this day.
Click to expand...

they said they didn’t use and theres no evidence that they used. It’s you who is making assumptions… not me
 
Kburjr said:
One small point. There was no rule stating they would lose eligibility for the HOF by using steroids.
Click to expand...
This is not a small point. It's a massive point.

Not only was there no rule like that, there was no enforcement of anything. I'd bet my middle testicle that everyone in MLB management positions knew it was going on and it was being ignored. Under those circumstances, I can understand why players would do it.
 
dbldwn711 said:
they said they didn’t use and theres no evidence that they used. It’s you who is making assumptions… not me
Click to expand...
lolz.

I didn't say they were, just that we don't know they weren't. And we don't. I wouldn't definitively say that any player wasn't (or isn't, for that matter) using PEDs.
 
Kburjr said:
In Rose's case, there was a written rule. Not sure about Jackson. However, Landis booted him from the game which was within the power of the Commissioners Office. If the Commissioner wants to boot the 'riders from baseball, then they would be ineligible for the Hall
Click to expand...
Shoeless Joe and his cohorts are the reason for the written rule.
 
SlinkyRedfoot said:
lolz.

I didn't say they were, just that we don't know they weren't. And we don't. I wouldn't definitively say that any player wasn't (or isn't, for that matter) using PEDs.
Click to expand...

what you are doing is making excuses for those who did use.
 
SlinkyRedfoot said:
This is not a small point. It's a massive point.

Not only was there no rule like that, there was no enforcement of anything. I'd bet my middle testicle that everyone in MLB management positions knew it was going on and it was being ignored. Under those circumstances, I can understand why players would do it.
Click to expand...

Then why didn’t everyone do it? Why did they hide usage of it?
 
dbldwn711 said:
they said they didn’t use and theres no evidence that they used. It’s you who is making assumptions… not me
Click to expand...
guys career takes a big jump the season he tests positive. has one of the best seasons of his career at 40 years old....

please leave go away GIF by CBC
 
Well, I for one and happy that a known juicer like David Ortiz made the HOF on the first ballot. It shows that the stigma is softening. Too bad it didn't happen fast enough to get Bonds, one of the best players in the history of the game, into the HOF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top