Soxbadger

1. Ty Cobb 2. Gaylord Perry 3. Phil Niekro 4. John McGraw 5. White Ford Those are just a few off the top of my head. Cobb was perhaps a racist, perhaps a murderer. Perry admittedly cheated. Niekro admittedly cheated. Ford admittedly cheated. It should be of note that when Cobb was elected to the HOF, he received more votes than Ruth, Wagner, Mathewson and Walter Johnson. To me it appears that all that mattered was how they played the game, not what people thought of them. Otherwise Cobb would not have gotten all the votes he did. Just my opinion. (Edit) Im not sure Big Mac and Sheff statistics make them sure bets for the HOF. When a player is questionable I think thats when you start to ask about character etc, to make the final decision. But Bonds statistics massacre both of them.

I guess I think its different comparing different eras, with completely different crimes. Thats just my opinion and I believe thats why they let people vote on it. Each person selects the HOF based on their own opinion. My opinion is if Gaylord Perry is in, Bonds is in, Clemens is in etc etc. In my opinion if you compare Bonds to other HOF "integrity, sportsmanship or character", I think Bonds is not even close to the worst. Therefore if I was to judge HOF credentials based upon other HOF inductees, I would conclude that Bonds should be in the HOF. Are there any other HOF caliber players who have been kept out due to the "integrity, character, or sportsmanship" clause? Because Jackson and Rose are kept out by being ineligible, not because people didnt vote for them.

Balta, Perjury is one of the most difficult cases to prove. You basically just bring everything and the kitchen sink and hope that it sticks. From the article: So it does not look like they will testify that they directly interacted with Bonds. They may, but thats not what the article indicates.

Fair enough. I just find statistics easier to argue, .300 versus .330, etc. How do you compare: Taking steroids, with stealing signs, with doctoring baseballs, with being accused of a crime, with being convicted of a crime. I just wish there was more guidance.

Depending on the testimony it may be relevant it may be irrelevant. The Giambi testimony looks pretty worthless, just saying that they were also on drugs supplied by Anderson doesnt exactly mean anything in terms of Bonds. Even if they say "Anderson told us the cream and clear were steroids" it doesnt mean that he told Bonds. Estella may prove to be more damning, but the question is whether or not the jury will find him believable. Id argue that Estella is a former drug user that had a career which never panned out and is trying to make a name for himself by ruining Bonds. But, Bonds should consider this troubling depending on what he told Estella.

Okay hilariously that was on the page I read, I just figured that it would be in the eligibility section not the voting section. So a voter can legitimately keep bonds out if they think that using steroids impacted integrity, sportsmanship or character. And they could keep him out if they felt that perjury impacted integrity and character. I of course dont like how subjective it is, but rules are the rules. It will be interesting to see what voters do, as they have never had to vote on either Rose or Jackson. Should be interesting.

If anyone could find a link to the "morality" clause, id love to see it. I tried to find it on the HOF website but could not, which is why I quoted what the HOF says are the eligibility requirements. I also quoted why Rose and Jackson were not in HOF and there was no mention of a morality clause. I have heard people mention it time and time again, but I have never seen the actual language so that I can read it for myself. Yes I am a lawyer, and as a lawyer I do not try and comment on rules that I have never seen nor can seem to find. http://assets.espn.go.com/mlb/s/2002/1210/1474784.html I dont know when this article is from but: So far I have tried my best to find the clause and have been unsuccessful. Until some one actually quotes me the clause, I cant really comment on whether or not Bonds or any other player should be kept out because of it. Have any of you actually seen this clause?

Im not an accountant, Ive just seen the statements.

You are missing the most important part: So no i dont think it was 1 man taking an unfair advantage, I think it was an entire system created to make money off them taking drugs. I think honor and fairness are relative terms. I think doctoring a baseball is worse than taking steroids, other people do not. How do you rectify what is "worse" is just opinion? I have never said cheating is fine, I just said it is up to the sport itself to catch and stop the cheater. Not to implicitly allow it and cover it up. Ive never said taking an unfair advantage to the field is right, Ive asked why is it right to ban some people for cheating but not others. If we are going to ban 1, we should ban all. And if we are going to accept 1, we should accept all. How is that not fair?

Right now the best line up (imo) would be: PF: Nankivil PF/SF: Leur SF/SG: Krabbenhoft, Landry, Bohannon G: Jordan Taylor G: Trevon Hughes On the bench Wisconsin has plenty of talent the problem is that Bo does not usually play Freshman and likes to rely on his Seniors that know the system. With Landry being a complete dud this year (he has had some brutal games in Big 10 play) he just is having some trouble going to the younger line up. The last game against Purdue they actually went with a much younger line up and it started to work. Had Taylor kicked the ball on his last drive maybe the game ends differently. (Hes a true freshman.) So Wisconsin's depth isnt bad, its just Ryan doesnt like to use a deep bench and he never really has. He likes to use veterans and he has kept playing them through this losing streak hoping theyd turn it around.

Well at least you guys arent Wisconsin this year. Right now they are just horrible and the biggest problem is that Marcus Landry has become useless and its so hard for Bo to bench his seniors. (Its hard to say it but Landry and Krabbenhoft have been liabilities, especially when they are both on the court.)

I think the highest honor of baseball is to hold the most records. Being judged arbitrarily based on morality does nothing for me. In all honesty, I dont care if he cheated or not. It was up to baseball to punish him or to stop him, and they didnt. I believe that they were complicit with the whole thing and wanted the players to get bigger and better, maybe to the extent of even encouraging/covering up rampant abuse. So no I dont care if Bonds ate steroids for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I care about what he did on the field, and during his prime he may have been the best baseball player to ever live. Who cares about the rest, the man dominated.

I think we create rules so that everyone is treated fairly and equally. Baseball and the HOF can change the rules at any time they would wish. So long as they are the rules, I believe that they should be followed. Who am I to judge Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, or any other baseball player? I am just a fan, and I enjoy the sport that they play, and even further I respect their ambition to be the best players that they could possibly be. I understand that extremely driven people will break the rules, and while I do not condone it, I do not arbitrarily decide which rules are holier than other rules. If breaking the rules of baseball does not mean you are banned from the HOF, then on what criteria can Barry Bonds not be admitted? His stats speak for themselves, and so long as the statistics are what makes the selection, it should not matter. Justice is making sure that the rules are applied equally to all, regardless of how much you may detest their actions. (I also have a strong fundamental disagreement with how the US regulates what a person can take, but thats an entirely different constitutional argument.)

If the HOF were to create a rule that stated: If you do X, Y or Z you will be considered ineligible for the HOF, then I think it would be fine to disallow people based on that criteria. Here is what I could find of the rules: http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/rules.jsp When Bonds has retired for 5 years which of those criteria will he not meet? Btw, I believe Rose does not meet 5 as he is banned from baseball. Looks like my assumption was correct:

The records mean more than the HOF, until baseball removes them as the record holders the HOF is a joke without the all time hit leader and all time home run king. It would be like saying and in this corner I have all the greatest boxers in the world, except Ali, because Ali broke the law and went to jail so hes not allowed to be considered a good fighter. So I personally find it a joke that the people who MLB considers the legitimate record holders are not represented at a place that is supposed to be about the history of the sport.

Ive seen people $5,000 total (state-fed etc) in taxes on $30,000 income. If you are single with no dependents and are an independent contractor who has almost $0 expenses, you are not going to get many deductions or rebates. No one thinks about the single earners who have basically no write offs or deductions. Granted this is a small part of the population, but you cant just say no one does. But the maximum savings for the person could only be what $250? Oh and the tax system is graduated, so all of us would actually benefit. Basically saying that everyone who makes over 15% would be getting a $250 rebate.

I guess we just have a fundamental difference in how the HOF should be administered. I think that players should be judged based purely on how they played the game, that everything outside of the game is completely irrelevant. That if you are going to bar players who cheat during a game, that the penalty has to be consistent and fair. That it can not be arbitrary, that the rules must be in place so that they can be followed, so that the consequences are known. I dont think Ive ever disagreed that Bonds cheated, I just think that he belongs in the HOF regardless. That if Bonds is kept out, the HOF begins to become a joke. You will have the all time home run leader and the all time hits leader both not in the Hall of Fame. At least in the case of Rose he was permanently banned from Baseball, Bonds could return tomorrow as a coach or player if he was hired. Bonds and Rose should start their own Hall of Fame and just put people in strictly on the merits of their playing career. Let the rest of the world deal with gossip, and let them (Bonds and Rose) judge you by how you played. We will never know who else took steroids and will go to the hall that we just didnt catch, so why make it a charade? Is Clemens in the HOF? Ptatc, In my opinion you have not broken the law until you are convicted. The Federal Govt will never bring a case against Barry Bonds for illegally using substances, so I will consider him innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_...21----000-.html Key part: "WHICH HE DOES NOT BELIEVE TO BE TRUE" So as long as Bonds believed it to be true, he has to be not guilty of perjury. So if I really thought that crack was aspirin, it is not perjury when I say "I thought it was aspirin" even if every other person in the world would have known the difference. The only person that matters is Bonds. How do you prove what Bonds knew or didnt know? Unless you can bring in a witness to testify that Bonds knew, the case is dead in the water. Ptatc, What law do you believe Bonds broke? And do you think that all players who break the law should be prevented from being HOF? (DUI, fake id, marijuana included)

Texsox, This is a horrible misconception. Ignorance can be an excuse. If the crime is "Knowingly committed" Then the first part that needs to be proved is "knowingly". If I go to a Dr and I he tells me "You have strep through, Im prescribing Penicillin." I go down to the Pharmacy and give the Pharmacist my script and he goes "Here is your Penicillin." I walk out the door and the police arrest me, when they open the container the "Penicillin" is actually X. Could I be convicted? Maybe on some charges, but not on all of them. I would have a valid defense that I did not attempt to purchase, that I did not attempt to sell, etc etc. The only thing that they could have me on is "possession". So ignorance in certain situations can be an excuse. Just like if your drunk you cant be convicted for certain crimes. They dont tell you that, but for "specific intent" crimes you need to not only commit the crime, but also have the "guilty mind". If you prove that you were drunk and didnt understand what you were doing was wrong, youd be found not guilty. Then remove the other cheaters. If cheating disqualifies you from being in the HOF, then remove them all. Otherwise your picking and choosing when it counts and when it doesnt count.

I think Bonds was smart enough that when the Drs said: "Dont ask" he didnt ask. Plausible Deniability. Remember Anderson and Bonds were really good friends, to the extent that Anderson has said he would never testify against Bonds. Bonds was their meal ticket, they had an incentive to protect him at all costs and that includes being smart enough to know that as Drs if they cover for Barry, hed always have an excuse. The question for perjury is did he actually know, not did he have an idea, not did he think maybe, its did he actually know. If he did not know for sure, he can not be convicted. This is just breaking the law 101, whoever is the most important part of the group, you protect at the cost of the rest of the group. (Edit) More specifically think of it this way. I develop an undetectable steroid for Barry. I at the same time start Barry on a new training regiment. Barry can swear on his life that he believed it was the new training regiment that made him stronger and develop more mass. I as the Dr tell him its the training regiment, that the flaxseed oil is doing nothing. He relied on my statements as the Dr. I insulate Bonds, because Bonds has the money. I know as long as I protect him Im set. Its just so simple to make it impossible to prove this type of stuff.

My PS3 name is shockingly: Soxbadger There can only be 1.

Good luck Juan, I wish the Sox could have brought you back at this price.

Well actually Bonds has been consistent since the Grand Jury testimony. He took the "Cream" and the "Clear" he just did not know they were steroids, he believed them to be flaxseed oil. Thus there never has been any reason to bust Bonds, as he already has admitted to taking those substances. I doubt that they convict Bonds, if they thought the evidence was in their favor they wouldnt be raiding a 60 year old woman's home under the auspice of a tax audit. As to the HOF, if it keeps denying the best players entrance, then it no longer becomes relevant. Pete Rose's case is different, he bet against his own team. That is cheating to lose. In comparison, Bonds cheated to win. Is Gaylord Perry in the HOF? Is Phil Niekro in the HOF? Is Ty Cobb in the HOF? Is John McGraw in the HOF? Whats the difference between Bonds and those mentioned? Each of them cheated, some of them admittedly. Why are they in the HOF if cheating disqualifies you?

Perjury happens every day, in every case, in almost every single testimony that takes place. The problem is perjury is so difficult to prove that most of the time the prosecutors just use the inconsistent statements to impeach the witness. An even bigger problem is that generally the witness has the right to plead the 5th (ie not to testify or self-incriminate). One of the few times a witness does not have that right is when they are testifying at a grand jury. The only reason you can not use the 5th amendment in a grand jury proceeding is that the entire proceeding is to be secret and none of the contents of the testimony can be revealed. Now onto Bonds specific case: When Bonds was compelled to testify at the Grand Jury proceeding against Balco, he was given absolute immunity except for perjury. Bonds attorney told the govt that Bonds could not testify even if given immunity because the testimony would not be kept secret and whatever Bonds said would be revealed. The govt promised Bonds attorney that the information would be kept sealed and never revealed to the public. Bonds attorney did not believe them. As it turns out, Bonds attorney was correct. The transcripts from the Grand Jury were illegally copied and reproduced. So why should Bonds have to follow the rules of a Grand Jury proceeding when the govt could not follow the rules of keeping the information secret? Bonds should have been allowed to plead the 5th as the govt could not guarantee the secrecy of the testimony, and we would not be having this issue today. Bonds would have plead the 5th and hed still be playing baseball. But the govt wanted BALCO and if they want something they will push you no matter who you are. So they forced Bonds to testify, refused to allow him to plead the 5th and now still want to prosecute him even after they convicted the founders of Balco. This is not a case of an athlete being above the law, this is a case where the only reason the law is interested is because hes a high profile athlete. If you replaced Barry Bonds with Soxbadger in this case, there would be no perjury proceeding, there would be nothing. The govt just wouldnt spend the resources. But since its high profile Barry Bonds, they are willing to waste all of our time.

This is completely ridiculous and completely irrelevant to the Prosecutions case. The Prosecution must prove that Bonds "KNOWINGLY TOOK STEROIDS". How does a sample of urine with Steroids prove that Bonds knew he was taking steroids? Its the same answer as before: I took the cream and clear, I didnt know what they were. I took Pill B that my Dr gave to me, I didnt know what it was, he said it would help the pain, I believed him. Also they have no "chain of evidence". Who has had these substances for 6 years, how do we know that they were not tampered with, etc etc. I wonder how much govt money has been wasted trying to discredit Barry Bonds because he isnt lovable enough.