bobbob1313

Dangerous to others. If you want to kill yourself, that's your business. Steroids aren't hurting anyone but the user. And the hearts of all of the fans.

I'm a big believer in "Innocent until proven guilty". Nothing points to innocence, but the fact of the matter is, he's never been proven to have taken steroids. Obviously, he did, but there's no ban from baseball, and he's not gotten in legal trouble. If I'm a voter, the fact that none of them has been found guilty won't let me just write them off. I will take it into account, but for Bonds, he's in for me. In terms of cheating, to me doctoring a baseball is just as bad as taking steroids, if we're talking about just on the field. Semantics has nothing to do with it. And I'm not saying c

Is the fact that he admitted to using cocaine the reason why Tim Raines isn't in the hall? I don't think there is anyone out there that would use that argument, yet isn't cocaine just as illegal (if not more) than steroids. The problem I have with it is why are steroids so much worse? It's not because it's cheating, or else Gaylord Perry wouldn't be in the hall. It's not because it was and is illegal, because lots of players wouldn't be in there. And it is suspicion. He's never been caught, and he seems to be about to get off the federal case.

I didn't notice your point about shooting the pitcher? You can go to jail for stabbing people or using drugs, but there are drug users and Ty Cobbs in the Hall of Fame. There's nothing steroid users have done that numerous players already in the hall haven't done. What is it specifically about steroids that make them so bad that anyone that has any suspicions of use should be barred. Here's the question: You are a BBWAA member. You have a vote. It is 2012. Does Barry Bonds get your vote? He's never been in trouble from the law or baseball from steroid use. Does the mere suspicion keep h

Then barring anyone suspected of using steroids becomes less of a performance issue and more of a character issue. I just don't see why steroids have become the one thing you could not get in trouble for from the game and still be held out of the hall. You can have a history of recreational drug use and you have a better chance of getting in than a steroid user. It's either a performance thing, and you have to judge each by their individual record, or it's a character thing, and then it becomes hard to justify leaving them out if they've never actually gotten in trouble from the game and ma

Oh, sure. I meant from the sense that Bonds has never been caught and has maintained his innocence and has even avoided federal prosecutors, whereas Rose agreed to a lifelong ban and has since admitted that he gambled.

My problem with bonds not getting in is he has never been caught and it looks like he's going to escape legal trouble too. Bonds and rose aren't comparable at all, IMO.

You're just as hard headed as I am, so cut the act. You do this every few weeks. You'll start discussing something, and then stop and say "Oh, yea now I remembered why I hate discussing sports with you". Honestly, I don't give a shit. If you don't like discussing sports with me, stop. But quit this shit.

Absolutely. No question. His career would be extremely comparable to Rickey's in my opinion, with more power and less speed, but still their overall value would be very close. Assuming he began use in 1999 as Book of Shadows says, we can take his career totals up to that point. He was approaching 500 home runs, and probably would have reached it given a few decline years from 34-38. Even prior to 99, he was routinely among the 2 or 3 best players in baseball year in and year out, and was regarded as one of, if not the best defensive left fielders ever. His eye was outstanding even before th

So Bonds accomplishments before he used are wiped out? That's the crux of the debate for me. Is he a HOFer without roids? Then he's a hall of famer.

I just think if you are going to draw a hard line against anyone even suspected of using steroids, you can't celebrate the cheating of others. But I guess you've decided this isn't worth discussing anymore. I always find it funny when people who are just as set in their views as me get all pissy. It's just as much a head banging against wall excercise to discuss with you, except that I don't let it frustrate me. I enjoy debating this endless shit.

Whatever.

I thought this actually had the potential to be a pretty good discussion on the nature of cheating and all that. Good thing we're not going to do that. Didn't the Sox just sign someone? Let's talk about that!

Good point. Are you fucking joking? How does pine tar on a bat give an advantage anywhere close to scuffing a ball?

I laughed at saying "knicking the baseball" is the same as "using a bit too much pine tar too high on the bat". One gives one player a distinct advantage and one was put in the rule books to prevent the ball from getting too dirty during the course of a game. Biggest fucking apples and oranges point ever. You don't see how you come off as a massive hypocrite by railing against steroids and then claiming that Spitballs/scuffing the ball is an "art"? Do you know why scuffing the ball was outlawed? Go google "Ray Chapman". Putting another player's health in jeopardy is not, to me, an art.

while roids and hgh were banned, there was no penalty on the books. So a spitball was like, even more illegal. If there is an art to spitballs and what not, then can't the argument be made that a player like bonds should be commended for his spectacular steroid training regimen?

We're not going to agree on this, so I'mnot going to get into it.

Oh, we're talking about what the writers will do? I don't really give a shit what they'll do, because they are for the most part, idiots. I'm concerned about my own opinion, and my opinion is that anyone who has played baseball is eligible, and I'll judge each one by their own merits and relative to the era they played in. Though, when I think about McGwire's case, if it is true that he used starting in 94, then he probably wouldn't have been a hall of famer without them. So, he might not get my fictional vote. Barry Bonds, on the other hand, was a hall of famer (and one of the 15 greatest

I think he's a hall of famer either way. I just don't see how you can keep some people from the steroids era out and not just keep them all out. I'm also not all pissed off about the steroids era like a lot of people. Everyone turned a blind eye to it at the time, so it's completely unfair to penalize the players of the era.

Either way, there's not much proof that Kent isn't a jerk (Unlike Rice), so I'm hoping the subjective argument gets used against him, just for consistencies sake.

Eh, I guess it's mostly just the impression I get from both, though I'm certainly not the first person to think either of them are racists.

Well, he's certainly very concerned about his race and how he is treated because of it, and has said some things that could definitely be construed as such. I would say that race certainly played a huge part in why he and Kent hated each other so much, and I don't think it was one sided. Of course, this is all speculation.

Sure. There are plenty of racist ass holes in the hall, and none of them lead their position for home runs. Barry should be joining him in that select company.

Oh, ok.

Technically shouldn't the number be far higher, like when Vice Presidents are sworn in for a small amount of time when presidents are incapacitated?