If you were a HOF voter...

[aTrUeCUBsFaN]

Originally Posted by HuskerFan2002 I don't know what's worse: gambling on baseball or steroid abuse? It's two completely different situations.

Steroids. Pete Rose was never found guilty in throwing the game. He bet against his own team, but he was never found guilty of lose on purpose, while steroids users use them to cheat.

I vote for no, check Hmark6's post.

[CincyRedsFan30]

Originally Posted by HollywoodLeo Pete Rose SHOULD be in.

Well, I feel the same, but until(if) Pete is in the Hall, I will always vote no on players who have used steroids. If Pete is eventually allowed in, then I might consider the steroid users. I can't stand the double standard.

[Saber]

Well, we know for a fact that the punishment for betting on one's own team is a lifetime ban, while this steroid punishment is 10 games.

[rockin500]

yep. as jayson stark said: each time and everytime. he belongs in. and character? since when has character really been used as keeping someone out? please.

and to say steroids is worse than betting on baseball is just plain dumb. on one hand you have juiced pitchers throwing to juiced batters cancels each other out. Betting on games while managing them opens the sport up to becoming the WWE. and i hope you realize that by not betting on his team, he was betting on them to lose.

[browntown653]

I definitely wouldn't vote him in first ballot, and not sure what I would do after that. But you can't tell me steroids didn't affect his performance...look at the stats before and after 1992, when Canseco said he juiced him.

[awefullspellare]

I would put him in. He was never the greatest player or anything, but to get 3000 hits and 500 HR is astounding. It will never be proven that he was using steriods the whole time, and even then it is still impressive. I would put him in based on those two things only. I don't think he's the only major player from the last few decades to be using steroids too so unless we are going to discredit almost all the stats from the last few years then he is still worthy.

[Kingdom_of_Zito]

Gambling didn't make Rose a better player though. I don't like comparing gambling to steroids. One thing is simple addiction for a gain in money. It has nothing to do with making Rose head above everyone else in talent. So Rose should be in the Hall, not punished for his personal problems. As for Raffy, I voted yes, but it's not anywhere close to as much as I originally believed he was a HoF'er. Granted he used to be a stick on the cubs, and that changed, but he's never jumped out at anyone in the homerun department- he was just consistent (things Sosa wasn't).

[Hmark6]

Originally Posted by HollywoodLeo So I guess that leaves Bonds out of the HOF as well. (wasn't Ty Cobb an @#$@#hole?)

First of all, what's done is done. Those cheaters/lowlife's already in the Hall shouldn't be kicked out. We can't un-do the past. Had I a vote when Gaylord Perry was up for induction and knowing full well that he cheated, there is no way I could cast a vote for him. I think it is embarrassing that there are guys currently in the Hall who are cheaters or whose integrity leaves some to be desired. That doesn't mean we can rationalize putting more cheaters into the Hall based on that fact that there are some already in. We can, however, set a precedent for the future. I should say: Hall of Fame voters have an opportunity to set a precedent for the future. An example needs to be made out of McGuire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and Bonds. That will determine the entrance for future players into the Hall who played during the "Steroid Era" as it is being called.

I don't think Pete Rose should get in, because its sets a rigid standard, and everyone that picks up a baseball bat at any competitive level knows Pete Rose, his gambling problem, and the consequences for those actions. How many players/managers/administration have you heard of that have bet on the game since Pete Rose? If a similar standard is set with a Rafael Palmeiro, then perhaps that will be a deterrent for young ball players. If a Rafael Palmeiro is the Pete Rose of steroids, then there will always be a standard to point to. I'm not suggesting a lifetime ban, I'm am suggesting leaving him out of the Hall of Fame.

[rockin500]

Originally Posted by Kingdom_of_Zito Gambling didn't make Rose a better player though. I don't like comparing gambling to steroids. One thing is simple addiction for a gain in money. It has nothing to do with making Rose head above everyone else in talent. So Rose should be in the Hall, not punished for his personal problems. As for Raffy, I voted yes, but it's not anywhere close to as much as I originally believed he was a HoF'er. Granted he used to be a stick on the cubs, and that changed, but he's never jumped out at anyone in the homerun department- he was just consistent (things Sosa wasn't).

but it puts the whole outcome of a game in doubt. It creates the perception that the whole thing may be fixed. I mean, do you want baseball to become like WWE?

[Hmark6]

Originally Posted by rockin500 I mean, do you want baseball to become like WWE?

That would be the best thing that ever happened to me.



Bwaa Gawd, King!! The Rocket has dun bust him wide open!! Bidness had just picked up!!!!

[rockin500]

++rep. thats good!

[HollywoodLeo]

OH MY GAWD!!! HOME RUN! HOME RUN! HOME RUN! Bonds just beat that baseball like a government mule!!!

[Fishercat]

Originally Posted by Hmark6 An example needs to be made out of McGuire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and Bonds.

I really don't see how you can punish Sosa or Bonds with no concrete or even "in all likelyhood" proof like refusing to testify. If you don't want to vote for Palmeiro due to steroids, that's your choice, I don't have the right to argue a refusal based on that. Likewise, most people believe McGwire did them due to his testimony (or lack of) in front of Congress, and while not proof, it's pretty close.

Is it likely Bonds and Sosa did roids, I'd say it's at least a good possibility. I just don't get how you can convict a person and keep a person out of the HoF without any semblance of proof.