Feds Get Bonds' Steroid-Laced Urine

[Soxbadger]

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.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Soxbadger

[whitesoxfan101]

As to the HOF, if it keeps denying the best players entrance, then it no longer becomes relevant.

 

I think it's already reached that point with people like Bert Blyleven and Tim Raines out, and Bill Mazeroski and Jim Rice in.

[Middle Buffalo]

I've heard a number of people say that Bonds deserves to go in to the HOF based on what he did before he started taking steroids. I've always responded that we can't really know when he started; he may have started some all the way back in the 80's for all we know, and just switched products when his body exploded. If there's steroids other than the ones we've heard about him taking so far (THG and possibly Winstrol) in his urine, then does that call in to question any of his pre-1998 numbers in anyone else's eyes?

I didn't realize that you were a great mind, but I had a similar thought today. I was thinking that if he was willing to cheat later in his career, who's to say that he didn't cheat earlier? Either way, his overall career has been marked by his unethical behavior. Therefore, regardless of how great he was early (and he actually struggled some early in the late 80's before becoming great in the early 90's - hmmm?), I don't think he belongs in the hall. Let him sit at a table with Pete Rose just outside the HOF. Might need to add a few leafs for Clemens, McGwire, et al.

[Texsox]

Are you seriously saying the HoF becomes a joke if they STOP letting cheaters in and clean up their act?

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

 

[Texsox]

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.

 

Are you saying that the HoF becomes a joke if they stop letting cheaters in?

 

In this display we have Barry Bonds, he cheated his way to the highest hit count and home run count in baseball history. That sounds like a great Hall of Fame.

 

Moral of the story, if you cheat and amass the greatest records, it is OK!

[Soxbadger]

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

 

. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:

 

1. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.

 

2. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).

 

3. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.

 

4. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.

 

5. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

 

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:

 

Why isn't Joe Jackson in the Hall of Fame?

 

As stated in the National Baseball Hall of Fame's Rules for Election, "any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate" for consideration by the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) or the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee on Baseball Veterans. Shoeless Joe Jackson was placed on Major League Baseball's ineligible list in 1920 by Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis. In order for Jackson to be eligible for the Hall of Fame, the following criteria must be met: 1) Since he is deceased, a party acting on behalf of Jackson's estate must apply to the Office of the Commissioner for reinstatement to Major League Baseball; and 2) Should Jackson's estate apply for reinstatement and his eligibility is regained, he would then be a viable candidate for consideration by the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee on Baseball Veterans. Once Jackson's name is on the ballot for the Committee on Baseball Veterans, Jackson would have to receive votes on at least 75 percent of the ballots to be elected to membership in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Jackson is recognized at the Hall of Fame, and his shoes are among the artifacts currently on exhibit in the Museum

Why isn't Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame?

 

As stated in the National Baseball Hall of Fame's Rules for Election, "any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate" for consideration by the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) or the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee on Baseball Veterans. Pete Rose was placed on Major League Baseball's ineligible list in 1989 by Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti. In order for Rose to become eligible to Hall of Fame voters, the following criteria must be met: 1) He must apply to the office of the Commissioner for reinstatment to Major League Baseball; and 2) He must be reinstated by the Office of the Commissioner. He would then be an eligible Hall of Fame candidate for the BBWAA Screening Committee. (See rule 3 of the rules for election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame by members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America.) If Pete Rose were to be placed on the BBWAA ballot, he would have to receive votes on at least 75 percent of the ballots cast in any one election to be elected into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Throughout his career, Pete Rose was a generous supporter of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, donating more than 20 artifacts to the Museum's collections. Many of these artifacts are on display in the Museum.

[Texsox]

I'm not going to condone any steroid use, but I have an easier time understanding some kid in AA or AAA trying to make a living and hanging on to his dream one more year than a superstar, who was already having a HoF career, cheating to break records.

[ptatc]

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.

 

Even if you stick with the how he played the game, he cheated. If there were illegal steroids in his system, he cheated.

 

If there were illegal steroids in his system he is gulity.

 

Rose should not be in the HOF because he defrauded the game by betting on the game and changing the game for mhis personal gambling, not for the game itself. They gave him a chance to admit he defrauded the game by admitting he gambled on them and refused to do so. Now when it suits his purpose he admits it and wants forgiveness. He shouldn't be in.

 

Bonds should not be in because he tried to better his performance unnaturally for his own betterment not the for the game.

 

You defraud the game regardless of legality (that really is a separate issue) you don't get in the HOF and should be thrown out of the game.

 

 

[Texsox]

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:

 

Ok, he's eligible. Why would you want to enshrine a cheater? Is this an example of baseball's best? Should we show the kids that you can be honored if you cheat?

 

Do you believe it is OK he cheated?

 

He took a drug that his Doctors would not tell him what it was. You believe that is plausible

He could not go to Walgreen's and have it filled, he never asked. You believe that is plausible

He continued to take it for years, never asked what it was doing to him. You believe that is plausible

He never insisted on knowing if it was legal or illegal. You believe that is plausible

He grew much larger than he ever was, never asked if it was connected to the drugs. You believe that is plausible

He just blindly kept taking the drugs and hitting homeruns. Denying until he was caught, that he took anything.

[Soxbadger]

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.)

[ptatc]

Ok, he's eligible. Why would you want to enshrine a cheater? Is this an example of baseball's best? Should we show the kids that you can be honored if you cheat?

 

Do you believe it is OK he cheated?

 

He took a drug that his Doctors would not tell him what it was. You believe that is plausible

He could not go to Walgreen's and have it filled, he never asked. You believe that is plausible

He continued to take it for years, never asked what it was doing to him. You believe that is plausible

He never insisted on knowing if it was legal or illegal. You believe that is plausible

He grew much larger than he ever was, never asked if it was connected to the drugs. You believe that is plausible

He just blindly kept taking the drugs and hitting homeruns. Denying until he was caught, that he took anything.

 

I agree. Bonds stuck to the script that BALCO told Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery. Tell anyone who asks it's flaxseed oil and arthritis medication. The others finally admitted this and Bonds may eventually.

 

If people really want to stick their heads in the sand and believe it thats fine. He may not ever be convicted. That's fine too. But anyone who saw Bonds before and after he began taking them knows what he was doing and so did he.

 

He knowingly cheated the game and he will not be in the HOF. By the way it's not just him. McGwire, Sosa and others should fall in the same category. They made thier millions because of it. Good for them. But don't let them recieve the highest honor of baseball, which does have a morality clause to get in.

 

[Soxbadger]

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.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Soxbadger

[ptatc]

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.)

 

stats are not the only thing. There is a morality clause. If they think he cheated the game that is a valid reason for him not to be in the HOF.

 

Remeber in regards to sports, it's really not the US government. The IOC and international sports governing bodies have much more strict standards than the US. The US is really far behind the curve in governing what a person can take in sports.

 

If you're referring to the FDA, that is a different matter entirely. That is a different aruguement than the world of sports.

Edited January 30, 2009 by ptatc

[ptatc]

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.

 

the man dominated on an unfair playing field. Not everyone has access to what he took. Not eveyone has his connections or wealth to afford these advantages.

 

So if it's your belief that one man taking an unfair advatage is fine. Good.

 

If you truly feel that the highest honor in sports is to hold the records regardless of fairness and even competition. Good.

 

If you feel that cheating is fine. Good.

 

There is no discussion that can convince you that taking an unfair advantage onto the field of sports is wrong.

 

As far as arbitrary morality. I can see from the other responses that a discussion of morality based on these views will also be futile.

 

[Soxbadger]

You are missing the most important part:

 

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 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?

[ptatc]

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?

 

What your saying then is that you believe someone needs to tell not to do something wrong and not to cheat. It's fine for the players to try to cheat and it's up to the sport to catch them.

 

I know it's your opinion. But that's similar to Blagovich sellinghthe the Senate seat and it's fine because it's up to law enforcement to catch him.

 

Shouldn't people have enough pride and fairness to do what's right without having to be threatened with penalty?

 

I know we have different views and it won't change. However, if you truly believe that scuffing the ball is worse than steriods read the book "Faust's Gold" by Steven Ungerleider. It's about what steriods do to you based on the East German sports teams especially the women's swim.

 

It's the attitude of we will do whatever we can until we get caught that will have people do these things to themselves inj chase of the "glory." We need to regulate it so people don't hurt themselves.

 

Again as far as banning them all. If you think that the player "cheated" in whatever way to defraud the game of baseball, then yes ban them. Since this isn't a court of law the crime is in the eye of the beholder. If you think scuffing a ball is worse than doing things to alter the body. Fine. Just read the book then tell me if you still feel the same.

 

[Milkman delivers]

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.

 

Sweet! As long as I murder someone and don't get caught, I didn't break the law.

[lostfan]

I disagree, betting on a baseball game of which you have direct control over maybe worse cheating than Bonds.

 

Rose should never be allowed near the game of baseball.

To my knowledge he never did any of that while he was playing and his career numbers are untainted. I don't think his post-career indiscretions (which were pretty f***ing stupid, for the record) should anything to do with that.

Edited January 30, 2009 by lostfan

[Milkman delivers]

I agree. Bonds stuck to the script that BALCO told Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery. Tell anyone who asks it's flaxseed oil and arthritis medication. The others finally admitted this and Bonds may eventually.

 

If people really want to stick their heads in the sand and believe it thats fine. He may not ever be convicted. That's fine too. But anyone who saw Bonds before and after he began taking them knows what he was doing and so did he.

 

He knowingly cheated the game and he will not be in the HOF. By the way it's not just him. McGwire, Sosa and others should fall in the same category. They made thier millions because of it. Good for them. But don't let them recieve the highest honor of baseball, which does have a morality clause to get in.

 

And that's what will keep him out, Soxbadger. You can argue all you want that he's eligible, and he is, but this is the little loophole that will keep him out. Being a lawyer, I'd think you'd enjoy a little loophole like that.

[Milkman delivers]

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?

 

It seems like you're saying that two wrongs make a right. Baseball didn't punish the guys while they were cheating, and due to this, they should allow them into the HOF. Mistakes were made and players weren't punished in the past. It's not too late to rectify that situation, and punish them by denying them entry to the HOF.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I'm shocked

[Soxbadger]

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:

 

Michael Knisley, a contributing writer for USA Today's Sports Weekly, said that there isn't any morals clause in order to become a member of the Hall of Fame. "If that was the case, Ty Cobb would be taken off."

 

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?

Edited January 30, 2009 by Soxbadger

[NorthSideSox72]

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?

I see it more commonly referred to as a "Character" clause, and here is the voting guideline, from the HOF website:

 

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

 

Note the words integrity, sportsmanship, and character. That is 3 of the 6 conditions mentioned, half if you will, that are related to a player's non-performance conduct. It is quite clear the HoF intends to have character be part of the picture.

 

And that is something I like about baseball's HoF, as opposed to other sports.

 

[Soxbadger]

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.