# Aaron to be given back HR record!



## Prince Oz (Jan 15, 2009)

Heard that Bud is seriously thinking about striking Bonds HR and reinstating Hank Aaron as the offical HR record again. I think good call. Your opinion?


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Terrible call. Absolutely terrible.

If Bonds is going to have numbers taken away, then will you go back to each game and decide what home runs are to be taken? And if that changes the results of the game? And what about the opposing pitcher's ERA?

Gaylord Perry is in the hall of fame. He admitted cheating throughout his ENTIRE career. He only got caught once. Now we have Bond's ex-girlfriend saying he started taking steroids in 2000. 

There was no testing back then and it was practically legal for him to do it. Now, from a criminal standpoint things are completely different and if they got enough evidence they COULD arrest Bonds for taking/buying/possessing ilelgal drugs. But that has nothing to do with the baseball record book.

As I stated in another thread.. Think about how we villify Bonds for cheating to get better, yet Manny Ramirez is getting a pass after purposefully tanking when he played for the Red Sox.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

And Pete Rose cannot get in the hall because of betting?


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

I call BS on this one.
We have to accept that the players used steroids, whether we like it or not.

And Pete Rose not being in the HoF is a joke.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Another aspect of this is... Baseball pretty much knowingly allowed steroids (and other performance enhancers) to be used for years. IF this was the start of the "era" and they were always pro-active about stamping cheating out... then I might be on the side of a record reset.

But this went on for many years, and Baseball even looked the other way as the home-run chase with Sosa/McGwire gained fans... so with pretty much the whole of Baseball complicit, I find it hard to erase/reset the record books.

Besides, it opens a tremendous can of worms with all the ramifications. You'd have to erase EVERY record to be sure, and that would include things like even the longevity record of consecutive games played... because so much is coming out of the woodwork you don't know who cheated and who didn't and how that trickled down to other teams.

It's just a big mess that they need to clean up and try to be clean from now forward and hope the record books get cleaned with time by new records from clean players.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Fitting and fair.

Also long overdue.

As long as the dopers get to keep their numbers, the game is tainted and no one will take these things as serious.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

While I agree this is something we have to accept and live with, I like the idea of giving the record back to Aaron. 

Second note, Pete Rose needs to stay banned from the Hall for no less and no more then the time which the 1919 White Socks remain banned.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Good call as Cheats don't deserve credit or to be in the Hall Of Fame. That's the Risk you take it you Cheat. Don't get caught and everything is great, get caught and you lose everything but didn't you know that going into the cheating scenario or were you always in denial that you would get caught?

If you can't do the Time, then don't do the Crime!!!


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

richierich said:


> Good call as Cheats don't deserve credit or to be in the Hall Of Fame. That's the Risk you take it you Cheat. Don't get caught and everything is great, get caught and you lose everything but didn't you know that going into the cheating scenario or were you always in denial that you would get caught?
> 
> If you can't do the Time, then don't do the Crime!!!


Amen!!!!

I wish they would strip Bonds of that record ASAP!!!!!!


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

richierich said:


> Good call as Cheats don't deserve credit or to be in the Hall Of Fame. That's the Risk you take it you Cheat. Don't get caught and everything is great, get caught and you lose everything but didn't you know that going into the cheating scenario or were you always in denial that you would get caught?
> 
> If you can't do the Time, then don't do the Crime!!!


Couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## bdowell (Mar 4, 2003)

It seems that today is the day for reading 'old news' at this site.

While there has been discussion about this, it started about a week ago when the news about A-fraud broke. Since that time Aaron, himself a very, very, very classy man, has said that the record belongs to Bonds and shouldn't be stripped.

Note I personally don't agree, but I heartily applaud the class that Aaron is handling this with (as opposed to the righteous indignation that say Frank Robinson applies to the cheaters, which I understand completely).

As some of the replies note above, it's not as simple as giving the title back to Aaron and stripping it from Bonds. Knowing which of Bonds' home-runs should be discounted is always going to be problematic. Discount the ones that went over a certain distance? Discount 20% of his totals because you think he got that much benefit from 'roids? Why not 26.5%, or 13.5%? Where's the basis in the numbers?

The best answer, and really the only one that I can see being used, is to put a big, fat asterisk (***) on his accomplishments along with a disclaimer on a sign that says that all of his career numbers are suspect because of the use of performance enhancing drugs.

Then again, I think Pete Rose should have been in the hall a long time back, with the same sort of disclaimer there for him.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

While I agree that steroids gave Bonds an advantage, taking away the record actually makes a mockery of any and all baseball records. Who is to say after the fact what number of HRs would or would not have been hit without enhancing drugs? Who is to say that players in the past didn't use drugs to enhance their performance?

The bottom line is that MLB _KNEW_ these players were using these drugs and chose to ignore it until the public outcry became too loud to ignore. MLB and the players union are as much to blame for this whole thing for allowing it to go on for as long as it did. As a big baseball fan I'm just getting sick and tired of every single year people get up in arms over this thing like it just happened yesterday.

People get over it, move on, it wasn't even against the rules until a couple of years ago. I believe it was wrong, but lets put some of the blame on Bud and his cronys for looking the other way for so long. They now have testing in place and players are getting suspended, but you can't go back in time and predict "what would have happened if". Let's just move forward and stop trying to rewrite history.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Prince Oz said:


> Heard that Bud is seriously thinking about striking Bonds HR





dhhaines said:


> The bottom line is that MLB _KNEW_ these players were using these drugs and chose to ignore it until the public outcry became too loud to ignore. MLB and the players union are as much to blame for this whole thing for allowing it to go on for as long as it did.


And Bud is at the top of the list for allowing it to continue. Yes, baseball has a strong union, but he could have mandated testing. I would have rather seen the game have gone on with replacement players than cheaters.


----------



## bdowell (Mar 4, 2003)

dhhaines said:


> While I agree that steroids gave Bonds an advantage, taking away the record actually makes a mockery of any and all baseball records. Who is to say after the fact what number of HRs would or would not have been hit without enhancing drugs? Who is to say that players in the past didn't use drugs to enhance their performance?
> 
> The bottom line is that MLB _KNEW_ these players were using these drugs and chose to ignore it until the public outcry became too loud to ignore. MLB and the players union are as much to blame for this whole thing for allowing it to go on for as long as it did. As a big baseball fan I'm just getting sick and tired of every single year people get up in arms over this thing like it just happened yesterday.
> 
> People get over it, move on, it wasn't even against the rules until a couple of years ago. I believe it was wrong, but lets put some of the blame on Bud and his cronys for looking the other way for so long. They now have testing in place and players are getting suspended, but you can't go back in time and predict "what would have happened if". Let's just move forward and stop trying to rewrite history.


You did fine until that third paragraph.

It was against the rules as far back as former commissioner Fay Vincent, though it wasn't necessarily as well defined as a potential offense.

Steroid usage, unless prescribed under a doctor's care, would also have been illegal which pretty much trumps any 'it wasn't against the rules' type argument.

Other than that, you're on track and you're right that trying to clean up the mess by wiping away the records would be rewriting history. That's exactly why I said above the best answer is to put an asterisk on the records and put footnotes with all of them that suggest that the numbers are all suspect and shouldn't be considered definitive.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

djlong said:


> Terrible call. Absolutely terrible.
> 
> If Bonds is going to have numbers taken away, then will you go back to each game and decide what home runs are to be taken? And if that changes the results of the game? And what about the opposing pitcher's ERA?
> 
> ...


The difference is that what Gaylord Perry did wasn't illegal. What Bonds did was (even if there wasn't a baseball rule for it).


----------



## vankai (Jan 22, 2007)

Hank Aaron will be the Steroids Free Home Run King for a very long time. Same goes for Maris at 61, IMO.

I will pass that information to my kids and grandkids. I can educate them on the history of Baseball, and the bad that steroids is to sports.


----------



## sum_random_dork (Aug 21, 2008)

If you're going to take away Bond's records are you going to revoke the teams that won World Series with 'roids? What about all the years "greenies" were knowingly in clubhouses? This goes so much deeper than Bonds, ARod, etc. This whole thing is a joke, who knows how many HR's Bonds hit off of pitchers that were juicing? What about Gaylord Perry and his spitter? He's in the Hall of Fame......


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Prince Oz said:


> Heard that Bud is seriously thinking about striking Bonds HR and reinstating Hank Aaron as the offical HR record again. I think good call. Your opinion?


That would be awesome.

Cool if players want to cheat. It does make for a better ballgame. However, it is asinine to compare statistics. If you're on juice, you're cheating. If Bonds cheated on an IQ test and scored higher than Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, should Bonds go down in history as a smarter man than both of them? NOT..! Same rules for sports.


----------



## cdizzy (Jul 29, 2007)

I just don't see how this is a good thing to do. I am not a Barry fan by any means but there are probably thousands of players that have used and not been caught. 

How many pitchers have used that he hit home runs off of? Who knows right? 

Baseball stats are going to be tainted. We all know it. It's MLB's fault that it got this far so to punish the players now seems silly to me.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

If it was as simple as one or two or even a dozen guys cheating... then you could go wipe out their individual records easily.

Problem is, with so many proven and admitted users... and the possibility of quite a large number of actual cheaters... how can you clean up some records and not others?

Wouldn't you also have to revoke the World Series in a bunch of years because of players on teams cheating?

Some things you can't just go back in time and wipe out. And while it isn't fair to get an award from cheating, you can't just automatically go down the line and give it to the first clean person either.

If I cheat on a test, you can kick me out and revoke my score. But if I'm on a team and I cheat... but also a kid on the other team cheats... then what do you do? Who wins then?

It's just not clean.

I'm fine with a big asterisk over the last 20 years or so with notations that say some records achieved during this time might be higher as a result.

Then again, players who are in easier homerun stadiums have inflated numbers too because they don't have to hit it as far. I find it ironic sometimes to hear the "numbers are sacred" argument on TV when the stadiums are not designed to the same specs... so even without steroids some players have an unfair advantage over others.

Then there's the whole ***** league aspect and how black players were forbidden for such a long time that some of the record holders might not have had those records if baseball had integrated earlier.

It's just a big embarrassing mess... and what they really should do is clean it up now and move forward.


----------



## Prince Oz (Jan 15, 2009)

bdowell said:


> It seems that today is the day for reading 'old news' at this site.
> 
> While there has been discussion about this, it started about a week ago when the news about A-fraud broke. Since that time Aaron, himself a very, very, very classy man, has said that the record belongs to Bonds and shouldn't be stripped.
> 
> ...


From what I heard this morning, that is what they are thinking about doing. Letting Bonds keep his HR and put an Asterisk * buy his name. He will still have credit for the HR but Aarons HR record will be reinstated. Will be like all Aarons HR were unassisted and Bonds HR will be assisted.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

No, Gaylord Perry didn't do anything "illegal". Unless you count amphetamines. Oh, wait, he didn't actually get caught doing that. But if you believe anyone from Jim Bouton onward, they'lll tell you about how prevalent "greenies" were in the clubhouse. Most definitely illegal.

Gaylord Perry *did* get caught spitballing and was ejected one time. After retirement, he 'came clean' about how much he used the spitball. Yet he's still in The Hall.

Pete Rose is another matter. He bet on baseball - broke the rules. Yes, I believe he should be in the Hall but NOT before Shoeless Joe Jackson is removed form the 'ineligible' list because the injustice done to him far exceeds what was done to Rose. Jackson didn't throw the series. He hit nearly .400 and played his heart out. He's not in the Hall for two reasons - first, he didn't rat on his teammates (if that's a crime then you couldn't field a team anywhere) and, second, he took money from the gamblers (by most accounts) and played hard anyway because Comiskey was a disgusting owner (sitting a pitcher at the end of a season so as not to have to pay a bonus for a certain number of wins).

Clear Jackson and then you can clear Rose. Personally I'm in favor of both.

Redact the record books for Bonds and you have to do it to Perry and a lot of others.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

In simplist terms...in sports....if you cheat..you are disqualified.

This is no different with drugs - scratch their records...they should be disqualified.


----------



## Prince Oz (Jan 15, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In simplist terms...in sports....if you cheat..you are disqualified.
> 
> This is no different with drugs - scratch their records...they should be disqualified.


Lets look at History. You can have your Gold Medal stripped from you for cheating or testing positive for PED. NCAA titles can be stripped for violations. NASCAR can strip points from you for cheating. I agree with you. The line must be drawn and examples need to be made. These people make Millions of dollars and are looked up to buy our children as heros. Who wants to have there childs hero be a drug addict and a known cheater? Our kids need to know that if you cheat, you will have to pay the penalty.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

djlong said:


> Pete Rose is another matter. He bet on baseball - broke the rules. Yes, I believe he should be in the Hall but NOT before Shoeless Joe Jackson is removed form the 'ineligible' list because the injustice done to him far exceeds what was done to Rose. Jackson didn't throw the series. He hit nearly .400 and played his heart out. He's not in the Hall for two reasons - first, he didn't rat on his teammates (if that's a crime then you couldn't field a team anywhere) and, second, he took money from the gamblers (by most accounts) and played hard anyway because Comiskey was a disgusting owner (sitting a pitcher at the end of a season so as not to have to pay a bonus for a certain number of wins).
> 
> Clear Jackson and then you can clear Rose. Personally I'm in favor of both.


I agree with that except for one point and that is Rose's credentials for inclusion in the hall are much better that Jackson's. He's the all-time hits leader, a member of 3 WS teams and several other League champions. Jackson was great player but he doesn't have the numbers to match Rose's.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> In simplist terms...in sports....if you cheat..you are disqualified.
> 
> This is no different with drugs - scratch their records...they should be disqualified.


We would have very few records left if we scratched all those who use a steroid or other drug to enhance their performance. At the time Bonds first used steroids, they were allowed by baseball and even after the ban nearly all owners and Selig knew their use continued. Maybe we need to ban the owners and others who looked the other way because it helped their pocketbook to have such superstars.

How many players have used cortisone which is also a steroid. Nobody questioned Sandy Koufax or others who took cortisone shots before every game just so they could play that day. Where do we draw the line. If steroids are allowed because they are prescribed should they be ok? They still allow a player to do something he could not otherwise do. They all enhance performance. If a doctor can rebuild an arm that would normally have ruined a players career, should that be allowed. Modern medicine has allowed players at all levels to perform well above what would have been possible a few years ago. Legally prescribed drugs combined with modern medical procedures have changed the game.

It's time to look forward and stop trying to rewrite the record books for everything that has been done in the past. Set the rules to be from this day forward. Do drugs and you are out. Period!


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

txtommy said:


> We would have very few records left if we scratched all those who use a steroid or other drug to enhance their performance.


Oh well.



txtommy said:


> At the time Bonds first used steroids, they were allowed by baseball and even after the ban nearly all owners and Selig knew their use continued. Maybe we need to ban the owners and others who looked the other way because it helped their pocketbook to have such superstars.


Yes, they should do that, too.



txtommy said:


> How many players have used cortisone which is also a steroid. Nobody questioned Sandy Koufax or others who took cortisone shots before every game just so they could play that day. Where do we draw the line. If steroids are allowed because they are prescribed should they be ok? They still allow a player to do something he could not otherwise do. They all enhance performance. If a doctor can rebuild an arm that would normally have ruined a players career, should that be allowed. Modern medicine has allowed players at all levels to perform well above what would have been possible a few years ago. Legally prescribed drugs combined with modern medical procedures have changed the game.


Still, there remains a distinction between legal and illegal. That which is illegal should require a ban.



txtommy said:


> It's time to look forward and stop trying to rewrite the record books for everything that has been done in the past. Set the rules to be from this day forward. Do drugs and you are out. Period!


What kind of example are we setting for our kids if these role models (for better or for worse, that's what they are) are allowed to break the rules and not get punished for it?


----------



## Tiny (Feb 1, 2009)

Gaylord Perry used vasoline not spit.. older pitchers always tinkered with some type of illegal pitch to extend there career like tumb tacs in the gloves or sand papper to rough up the surface of the ball even the catchers did illegal things to the balls so the pitchers wouldnt get caught, its part of the game like stealing another teams signs, thats always been apart of the game. Steriods r another can of worms to open up if u put an asterist u need to put one on all eras of baseball like the dead ball period, the all day games baseball eras, the only white players period, The higher pitching mound period, night baseball period, intergrated baseball period, even the ball gloves r bigger today than 1909 they used a glove like u would wear in cold weather. As for me I have no answers to this mega mess. I grew up a Henry louis Aaron fan when the braves moved to atlanta in 1966 and what ever The Hammer says about this record is ok by me.......


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> Still, there remains a distinction between legal and illegal. That which is illegal should require a ban.


So those players who used steroids legally to build up their bodies should hold the records while those who obtained the drugs illegally should not? When a player is injured he will often have steroids prescribed to help build up the muscle tissue. Why should that be allowed? Either way it is artificial enhancement.

Are we suggesting that we ban players because they broke a law or because they they artificially enhanced their abilities? Personally I don't see why we should distinguish. If we ban some players for breaking a law, then we should ban all players for breaking any law including the guy who gets a speeding ticket on the way to the ballpark. If we ban some players for using steroids then we should ban all players who use steroids, legal or not. If it is ok for one player to enhance his muscles then it should be ok for all. Rules should not be confused with laws. If steroids are banned, a doctor should not be allowed to override that ban for certain players.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> Still, there remains a distinction between legal and illegal. That which is illegal should require a ban.


 So all the guys from the 60's, 70's and 80's should be banned for using amphetamines? I guess you've never done anything "illegal" in your life, huh? Oh yea by the way if you drive over the speed limit, we're going to ban you from driving for the rest of your life. Okay? Come on you know that life isn't that black and white.:nono2:



tcusta00 said:


> What kind of example are we setting for our kids if these role models (for better or for worse, that's what they are) are allowed to break the rules and not get punished for it?


 That's where parenting comes into play. You remember that don't you? That's where the parent teaches their children the difference between right and wrong. The role model thing is the lamest of excuses.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

dhhaines said:


> So all the guys from the 60's, 70's and 80's should be banned for using amphetamines? I guess you've never done anything "illegal" in your life, huh? Oh yea by the way if you drive over the speed limit, we're going to ban you from driving for the rest of your life. Okay? Come on you know that life isn't that black and white.:nono2:


Yes, all ball players regardless of era or illegal substance used should have their records yanked. And if I speed I don't expect a "Safe driver" award from the MVA. 



dhhaines said:


> That's where parenting comes into play. You remember that don't you? That's where the parent teaches their children the difference between right and wrong. The role model thing is the lamest of excuses.


I don't know how I erred in my post so much so that my personal opinion on the matter invoked your ire for my parenting. I'm not going to dignify that with a response. When you'd like to discuss this subject calmly (that is the purpose of these forums, BTW) without sarcastically chiding my parenting I may participate.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

tcusta00 said:


> Yes, all ball players regardless of era or illegal substance used should have their records yanked. And if I speed I don't expect a "Safe driver" award from the MVA.
> 
> I don't know how I erred in my post so much so that my personal opinion on the matter invoked your ire for my parenting. I'm not going to dignify that with a response. When you'd like to discuss this subject calmly (that is the purpose of these forums, BTW) without sarcastically chiding my parenting I may participate.


 Sorry if you took this personally, and I can see how you could have, it wasn't exactly worded well. I just get my back up when people bring up the role model aspect of athletes or any people in the media for that matter. Most, if not all, are not role models for our children to follow.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> Yes, all ball players regardless of era or illegal substance used should have their records yanked. And if I speed I don't expect a "Safe driver" award from the MVA.


I still see this as a conflict between laws and rules.

At the time these substances were used there were laws against using steroids. There were also laws against amphetamines, marijuana, drunk driving, speeding, driving without a license, tax evasion, spousal and child abuse, shoplifting and so on. If we punish a player for breaking one law, we should punish him for breaking any law.

At the time most players used these substances there were no baseball rules against them and nothing in any baseball rule against amphetamines, marijuana, drunk driving, speeding, driving without a license, tax evasion, spousal and child abuse, shoplifting and so on. Until the baseball rules banned any of the above actions, players should not be punished for those actions. We would not attempt to ban any player for getting a speeding ticket unless the baseball rules were changed to include that as a violation. We should not ban a player from any sport simply because they broke a law unless something in that sports rules or code of ethics states that those actions will not be tolerated.

Only after the date that baseball banned steroids should any players who continue to use steroids be subject to punishment by MLB. If they broke a law, they should be punished not by MLB but by the law authorities that have jurisdiction to award such punishment.

If baseball were to instate a rule against beer drinking (legal) or tax evasion (illegal) then only those players who commit the act from this day forward should be punished. The same should apply to steroids. Let the legal system handle the laws and MLB handle the rules of baseball.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

txtommy said:


> I still see this as a conflict between laws and rules.


Uh...not really.

They knew they were not only breaking the rules, but in a number of cases, the law as well.

You don't keep all the hush-hush, secret-behind-closed-doors stuff unless you are hiding things...and the only reason you hide them is that you know they are wrong and don't want to get caught.

Bottom line - they cheated themselves, their team-mates, and the game.

For any one of those, let alone all of those reasons, their accomplishments are permanently tainted and meaningless. Let the record show it as such...


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Uh...not really.
> 
> They knew they were not only breaking the rules, but in a number of cases, the law as well.
> 
> You don't keep all the hush-hush, secret-behind-closed-doors stuff unless you are hiding things...and the only reason you hide them is that you know they are wrong and don't want to get caught.


Yes, really. You can't break a rule if there is no rule. They were breaking the law in most cases but not the rules of baseball.

If a player had been beating his wife, he would have kept that quiet also but not because it was against baseball rules. You keep things hush hush because you will be arrested if the word comes out. If it is proved that any player broke any laws they should be arrested for breaking laws. At the time many players started using steroids, it was not against any law of baseball and therefore should not be punished by baseball. The reason they kept quiet was because it was illegal in many cases. Any player who continued to use steroids after baseball made it against the rules should be punished but only if they continued after the rule changed.

This is no different than players who used the spitball or corked their bats or did anything else to give them an edge. You don't punish those who committed the act before there was a rule. If a law is passed today making it illegal to mow my lawn, you can't arrest me for having mowed my lawn last week when it was allowed.

Lots of players have broken lots of laws. Lets not punish those who broke certain laws in the past just because we now have a rule that forbids the practice.


----------



## Balestrom (Jan 12, 2007)

Has anybody removed Pete Rose's records? Has anybody removed the stats from him or his players while he gambled? How about the stats of those banded from baseball for gambling in the 20's?

Crap happens in sports, especially baseball, but the measuring stick for success has always been stats. Stats are factual. To remove stats based on who did what or who you think you know did what removes any credibility of the facts. It becomes judgement calls that to me would reduce the game to politics and emotion instead of records and stats. If Bonds cheated, but so did someone else who didn't get caught, then how is the measurement anymore correct if you only remove Bonds?

Look at the history of baseball and events that have occurred along the way that may have changed the balance of a pitch, a swing, a game or a year and tell me that somehow there was a way to make it fairer or a way to accurately factually change the stats to reflect fairness.

Gambling in the 20's to today. Are you sure you know all of the players who gambled?

WWII and the Korean War - some of our great players were drafted, but other weren't. Are you telling me that was fair and balanced? That this alone didn't have effect on ERA, HR's and players career stats?

What about drugs in the 60's through today? Is there anybody who can correctly caculate these stats? As pointed out earlier, which homeruns do you remove, which ERA's get lowered. What about the pitcher who is doing steroids, do we know that it is making that pitcher any better? If so, if you remove his K's, do you remove it from the player. If so why? Do we know that without the roids the pitcher had been taking that the hitter would have gotten a hit, a ground ball, a double play?

How about corked bat and spitballs or tar? 

How about Bond's specially made protective elbow gear that helps him launch his swing? There are many that speculate that this device probably allowed him to hit more homeruns then steroids ever could have.

How about the bats? Not all batters used the same wood type.

What about those who lift weights and those who do not? Furthermore, explain to me how some players who our out of shape or overweight still out perform those who are in shape or perhaps on steroids?

Stats are facts. They are the measuring stick no matter what the conditions. To muck with those, you remove any ounce of credibility in the facts themselves.

Steroids may have been against the law, but the rules were really fuzzy not too long ago. You cannot ban someone for rules that are not specific enough to truely follow. Let law enforcement go after those players. Move forward now and use the rules we have in place now for current offenders.

But, leave the stats alone, even though I detest Bonds!

And the asterisk... I have a feeling that many players over the span of their career probably deserved an asterisk for something they did. Again, this is tricky and not always open to facts... reducing again the subject to judgement calls, politics and emotion.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

bobukcat said:


> I agree with that except for one point and that is Rose's credentials for inclusion in the hall are much better that Jackson's. He's the all-time hits leader, a member of 3 WS teams and several other League champions. Jackson was great player but he doesn't have the numbers to match Rose's.


Oh - I absolutely agree that Rose's number are better and that he SHOULD be in the Hall. What I'm saying is that the injustice done to Jackson must be reconciled before Rose can be considered. Rose's infractions of baseball rules were worse than Jackson's - betting is betting.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

txtommy said:


> Yes, really. You can't break a rule if there is no rule. They were breaking the law in most cases but not the rules of baseball.
> 
> Lots of players have broken lots of laws. Lets not punish those who broke certain laws in the past just because we now have a rule that forbids the practice.


Sounds like what an attorney might say, not a sportsman.....


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sounds like what an attorney might say, not a sportsman.....


All I'm saying is punish people in the appropriate jurisdiction. You don't sit a hockey player in the penalty box because he shoplifted at Walmart. You don't send someone to jail because he has cheated at golf.

Lets keep the rules and the laws separate and only punish players for what was on the books at the time they committed the act.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

txtommy said:


> All I'm saying is punish people in the appropriate jurisdiction. You don't sit a hockey player in the penalty box because he shoplifted at Walmart. You don't send someone to jail because he has cheated at golf.
> 
> Lets keep the rules and the laws separate and only punish players for what was on the books at the time they committed the act.


The results of their actions is what should drive the corresponding punishment.

As for the Walmart analogy....the hockey player doesn't belong in the penalty box...he belongs in jail. In addition, if you cheat at golf in a tournament event, you get your results cancelled.


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

bobukcat said:


> I agree with that except for one point and that is Rose's credentials for inclusion in the hall are much better that Jackson's. He's the all-time hits leader, a member of 3 WS teams and several other League champions. Jackson was great player but he doesn't have the numbers to match Rose's.


Jackson only played for about 9 full seasons (in all) and just over 1,000 games. Pete Rose on the other hand played for 23 years and around 3,000 games. What records would Rose been chasing had Jackson played a entire career.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The results of their actions is what should drive the corresponding punishment.
> 
> As for the Walmart analogy....the hockey player doesn't belong in the penalty box...he belongs in jail. In addition, if you cheat at golf in a tournament event, you get your results cancelled.


That's exactly what I am saying. Punish them appropriately for the crime they committed. They broke the law by doing drugs so send them to jail. Since there was no rule against use of steroids in baseball it is inappropriate to void their baseball record. It is only cheating if the rules state that it is cheating. The rules did not state that prior to 2004 so MLB has no justification to change the records.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

txtommy said:


> That's exactly what I am saying. Punish them appropriately for the crime they committed. They broke the law by doing drugs so send them to jail. Since there was no rule against use of steroids in baseball it is inappropriate to void their baseball record. It is only cheating if the rules state that it is cheating. The rules did not state that prior to 2004 so MLB has no justification to change the records.


Many of the violaters used HGH, steroids, and other "chemicals" when they were banned, while others used them knowing they were either going to be banned, or shady in distribution. To me...all that other stuff is an argument of technicalities...

In the end, they tried to use something beyond what was available to other players to give them "an edge", and to enhance any natural talent with chemicals.

Intent to cheat and actually cheating under "the rules" is too fine a line to consider different, except maybe in court.

Put in a simpler way - most, if not all of these people, Bonds, Sosa, McGuire, A-Rod, etc....would not have reached their statistical results without some form of chemical enhancements that went beyond the accepted norm. That taints the results. They made bad choices - and now many of them admit to that (after being caught).

All their accomplishments should be squashed.

It's no different than a woman with implants - she may appear better, and get better "results" with the enhancement - but in the end - she is not real (even if via a legal means).


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

What about all the players that used "greenies" for years and years. Was that cheating? Should their stats be questioned/deducted? What about spitballers or guys with doctored bats? What about the teams that used to let the grass grow way long, or soak the infield...there are all sorts of cheating. Label the era and move on.


----------



## BlackHitachi (Jan 1, 2004)

What about all the BETTER players that could not play because they were not white!! Also did MLB players Drink during the time liquor was illegal!? Baseballs whole history has been tainted! Also i think shoeless Joe Jackson deserves to be in the HALL right now!! Yes way before Pete Rose!!


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

sum_random_dork said:


> What about Gaylord Perry and his spitter? He's in the Hall of Fame......


I think that that is different. He was out there able to be caught any time he loaded up the ball. Its no different than O-linemen that hold on every play until they get caught.


----------



## durl (Mar 27, 2003)

So Selig wants to punish Bonds for setting records while juicing.

Who's going to punish Selig for looking the other way while sluggers have been bulking up to the size of tanks over the past 10 years? Players shoulder blame for their actions, but Selig sure didn't try hard to prevent these actions that have him so livid all of a sudden.


----------



## BlackHitachi (Jan 1, 2004)

durl said:


> So Selig wants to punish Bonds for setting records while juicing.
> 
> Who's going to punish Selig for looking the other way while sluggers have been bulking up to the size of tanks over the past 10 years? Players shoulder blame for their actions, but Selig sure didn't try hard to prevent these actions that have him so livid all of a sudden.


Excellent:biggthump post!


----------



## Game Fan (Sep 8, 2007)

I, for one, never really cared who is or isn't in the HOF. Sports writers do the electing, not the fans. I tend to value my own opinion about players more than theirs. The writers cut a deal, long ago, with MLB for the privilege of electing players and Selig controls them too. They do his bidding or lose the honor of choosing. There are guys in there right now whose greatest accomplishments were to "brown nose" the the writers. Whether or not YOU chose to consider them HOF'ers is all that really matters.


----------

