Originally Posted by Fishercat
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.
|
I never said "punish" them. The only thing I've proposed is making Rafael Palmeiro the Pete Rose of Steroids because he was the one who tested positive. The other three may not have tested positive (yet) but they are sure losing the trial in the court of public opinion.
The example to be made should go something like this: Mark McGuire is going to be the first one up for induction. If he is an overwhelming first ballot selection, (and I'm afraid he will be) then we'll run the table on these guys, and they'll all get in on the first ballot. The numbers put up in this era will not be taken in context. 500 Homers will be what it always has been.
If McGuire gets left off of the first ballot, then the other three (and all other ball players from this era) will be evaluated with much more scrutiny. The numbers they put up will be looked at in the context of the era. 500 homeruns won't be an automatic ticket anymore. Raffy will probably be left off, and maybe Sammy as well. Bonds was a HOFer before the steroid controversy so I wouldn't be offended if he got in.
Perhaps it is time to raise the bar for entry into the Hall of Fame. Is that necessarily a bad thing?