Does this controversial player get your HoF vote #4: Barry Bonds

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

So is Pete Rose

1st -- You can't compare the two. Rose broke a rule that's posted in every stinking clubhouse in the league and he knew what would happen if he got caught. Bonds didn't break any baseball rules which would make him in-eligible.

2nd -- Rose has his own thread.

[tysok]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

Never broke any baseball rule, so without a question, yes.

Hmmm... actually steroids have been banned in the rules long before there was any testing for it.

He never actually got caught in a steroid test... but he definitely broke a baseball rule if he used (which I'm pretty sure evidence says he did).

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by tysok

Hmmm... actually steroids have been banned in the rules long before there was any testing for it.

He never actually got caught in a steroid test... but he definitely broke a baseball rule if he used (which I'm pretty sure evidence says he did).

If he never test positive, than he never broke a rule. You can say, "But you can just tell" all you want, it is all circumstanstial until he gets caught.

And even if he did test positive, the punishment isn't banned from the hall of fame, it is suspension. You can't arbitrary make punishments based on individuals that you don't like. It isn't right.

If everyone who broke a baseball rule was banned from the hall there would be an empty hall. Lets just name a few off the top of my head. Hmm, George Brett, Nolan Ryan, Babe Ruth, and so on.

[English_Ray]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

If he never test positive, than he never broke a rule. You can say, "But you can just tell" all you want, it is all circumstanstial until he gets caught.

And even if he did test positive, the punishment isn't banned from the hall of fame, it is suspension. You can't arbitrary make punishments based on individuals that you don't like. It isn't right.

This sums up my view on pretty much the entire baseball/steroids farce of a situation (for that is what it is). If players were not tested for steroids, then pretty much the only thing they were banned from doing is taking them in front of the Commissioner. The MLB's drug policy has been a joke for a long time, and trying to paper over the cracks (and indeed gaping holes) of the 90s/early 2000s with after-the-fact action should be recognised for what it is - as stupid as it is impossible.

And don't even get me started on the whole Government getting involved thing...

[English_Ray]

Dola, by way of comparison in 2003 Rio Ferdinand, a Manchester United footballer, failed to attend a drug test. There was, and indeed has never been, any suggestion that he has taken anything illegal. But for missing that test, he was suspended for eight months.

A baseballer who tests positive gets what, a 50 game (month and a half) suspension?

[tysok]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

If he never test positive, than he never broke a rule. You can say, "But you can just tell" all you want, it is all circumstanstial until he gets caught.

And even if he did test positive, the punishment isn't banned from the hall of fame, it is suspension. You can't arbitrary make punishments based on individuals that you don't like. It isn't right.

If everyone who broke a baseball rule was banned from the hall there would be an empty hall. Lets just name a few off the top of my head. Hmm, George Brett, Nolan Ryan, Babe Ruth, and so on.

Banned from the hall or not is not my concern. If he had been caught it would have been (by rules now at least) a 50 game suspension... and he's probably smart enough that he would have gone to a different drug that couldn't be tested for, or stopped altogether. So no, you can't ban him from the hall just for steroid use. Beyond that, by all evidence available, he was a hall of fame player before he started taking... so again, no ban from the hall from me.

But saying that he didn't break a baseball rule is not accurate. Steroids, or any performance enhancing drug, has been banned by baseball rules for quite some time. Since evidence exists that he did knowingly take performance enhancing drugs... then he did break a baseball rule. So give him his suspension, vote him into the hall.

There were 2 or 3 players involved in the HGH thing this winter that were given suspensions (the suspensions were traded off early in the season so they weren't served) for only evidence that they used, no failure of any drug test.

[Prodigal Son]

Illegal activity is not condoned by MLB, regardless of what is in the rule book. You can't expect MLB to codify all of our nation's laws within separate policy just so players know not to do it. It's just understood that MLB doesn't condone illegal activity. I doubt murder is against MLB rules either.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

Illegal activity is not condoned by MLB, regardless of what is in the rule book. You can't expect MLB to codify all of our nation's laws within separate policy just so players know not to do it. It's just understood that MLB doesn't condone illegal activity. I doubt murder is against MLB rules either.

Indeed. I wouldn't have a problem with a murderer being admitted as a member of the Hall of Fame, precisely for that reason.

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

Indeed. I wouldn't have a problem with a murderer being admitted as a member of the Hall of Fame, precisely for that reason.

That is the most honest articulation of the rationale of those who support Barry Bonds in the Hall that I've ever seen.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

If everyone who broke a baseball rule was banned from the hall there would be an empty hall. Lets just name a few off the top of my head. Hmm, George Brett, Nolan Ryan, Babe Ruth, and so on.

Ugh, that's such a lousy argument. You can do much better.