PDA

View Full Version : Steroids and the HOF



ctyank1
03-02-04, 09:46 AM
By now you've seen the report coming out of the San Fransisco Chrolicle concerning Bonds, Giambi etc having been "given" steroids - in Bonds' case back to the 2001 (73 HR) season. Some folks on this site are still insisting that this doesn't "prove" they actually used them. WAKE UP. This report is coming out of a federal investigation and more will follow. Do you think these guys LIED to federal investigators? Think they never heard of Martha Stewart? Others are saying - "big deal". Well it IS a big deal. As Paul White said, writing for Sports Weekly, "we're talking about what's likely to be the biggest smudge on the history of baseball short of segregation. ... we'll have a scandal so deep that Pete Rose will look like the two bit punk he really was, except for a talent for hitting a baseball". Hey, baseball fans, that includes 1919.

How can you really compare the stats of these players with those of history? The timeline of baseball is a wonderful thing, and now these guys have tried to destroy that. "The one constant has been baseball" so the man said in Field of Dreams." No more. Thanks Barry.

So now does the Hall of Fame actually take a stand? Isn't it time for the Hall to state - use of steroids makes a player - REGARDLESS of stats - ineligible for the Hall.

Its time to send a clear message, and since the Hof F doesn't have to negotiate with the players association, it is in a singular position to stand up for what's right about this game we love.

KC
03-02-04, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by ctyank1
By now you've seen the report coming out of the San Fransisco Chrolicle concerning Bonds, Giambi etc having been "given" steroids

Actually, I have not. Got a link?

Irabu's Son
03-02-04, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by KC


Actually, I have not. Got a link?

www.mlb.com

Irabu's Son
03-02-04, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by ctyank1
By now you've seen the report coming out of the San Fransisco Chrolicle concerning Bonds, Giambi etc having been "given" steroids - in Bonds' case back to the 2001 (73 HR) season. Some folks on this site are still insisting that this doesn't "prove" they actually used them. WAKE UP. This report is coming out of a federal investigation and more will follow. Do you think these guys LIED to federal investigators? Think they never heard of Martha Stewart? Others are saying - "big deal". Well it IS a big deal. As Paul White said, writing for Sports Weekly, "we're talking about what's likely to be the biggest smudge on the history of baseball short of segregation. ... we'll have a scandal so deep that Pete Rose will look like the two bit punk he really was, except for a talent for hitting a baseball". Hey, baseball fans, that includes 1919.

How can you really compare the stats of these players with those of history? The timeline of baseball is a wonderful thing, and now these guys have tried to destroy that. "The one constant has been baseball" so the man said in Field of Dreams." No more. Thanks Barry.

So now does the Hall of Fame actually take a stand? Isn't it time for the Hall to state - use of steroids makes a player - REGARDLESS of stats - ineligible for the Hall.

Its time to send a clear message, and since the Hof F doesn't have to negotiate with the players association, it is in a singular position to stand up for what's right about this game we love.

Oh and by the way, great post. I agree with you 100%. I don't understand all the opposition to testing by the MLBPA. If they are so innocent like they say, what have they got to lose?

KC
03-02-04, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by ctyank1
So now does the Hall of Fame actually take a stand? Isn't it time for the Hall to state - use of steroids makes a player - REGARDLESS of stats - ineligible for the Hall.

I agree with you in theory, but how does this work in reality? The people named in the article only have proof of possesion, not ingestion. In order to get real proof, you need testing. For testing, you need the support of the MLBPA. . . It's a merry go round.

DaBomber25
03-02-04, 10:13 AM
I do somewhat agree...the only thing is, we don't know when/if Barry started taking steroids. If some people say it was around '00 or '01 there's nothing to say that IF Barry is taking steroids now, that even IF he hadn't he'd still be going into the HoF.

ctyank1
03-02-04, 10:27 AM
I know it would be difficult for the Hall - but not impossible. Yet I think the issue here is, if they come out and take a stand, that announcement, in itself, may have an impact among players. At least it would be the first clear statement from any organization connected with baseball (MLPA, owners) that this is serious and the Hall is going to at least TRY to do something about it.

Nome
03-02-04, 11:45 AM
I agree with KC and Dabomber.

I doubt if you can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that any player took Steroids. If you started testing now every day then you could build up irrefutable proof.

And as Dabomber clearly states, how can we tell when a player started using Steroids. It is probable that for those who actually use them (and my premise there isn't proof) that the bulk of that players performance likely came before steroids.

Something needs to be done, but this won't work unless we develop and use a foolproof testing program for steroids, drugs, performance enhancing vitamin supplements.etc.

Andy

ctyank1
03-02-04, 05:12 PM
The reports say Barry was getting the drugs in 2001. And, no, you don 't need proof beyond a "shadow" of a doubt - it's "reasonable" doubt. You do NOT have to actually catch someone using it for one, and secondly, the commisioner (assuming we had a real commissioner) could take action based on the following: they were provided steroids based upon testimony of the company supplying it - including when they were given them, after that they began looking like the Hulk, they then performed in a manner that is otherwise difficult to explain. CASE CLOSED - think a jury wouldn't find them guilty?

WE all know this "testing" plan is a joke. The owners don't want to know, the players certainly don't and NEITHER DO MANY FANS. There is enough evidence against Barry RIGHT NOW (see above) that he should have monthly drug testing. But what the heck, maybe you don't feel this is such a big deal, maybe the future of baseball isn't at stake, maybe our kids should grow up to be just like Barry. Think about it.