F
Fenian_Bastard
Guest
Not quite like the Iraq War, I don't think.
A long list of issues that were once important, and now mainstream America could not give a **** about.Fenian_Bastard said:Not quite like the Iraq War, I don't think.
Mizzougrad96 said:Other than the obvious steroid use for probably all but a couple seasons, my problem with McGwire was that other than the home runs, he just really wasn't a very good player.
bigpern23 said:Here's my problem with Edes' argument. Just because you don't know the names of every player who used steroids, that doesn't mean you have to reward the ones you do know. When there is a preponderance of the evidence - as in the case of McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, Palmeiro, et. al - I think it's perfectly fair not to vote for them.
Joe Williams said:bigpern23 said:Here's my problem with Edes' argument. Just because you don't know the names of every player who used steroids, that doesn't mean you have to reward the ones you do know. When there is a preponderance of the evidence - as in the case of McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, Palmeiro, et. al - I think it's perfectly fair not to vote for them.
I'm with you on this.
Also, those in line for the greatest rewards have to accept the greater risk. If I'm Joe Blow trying to syringe myself from Class AAA ball to a cup of coffee in the bigs, that's one level of cheating. If I'm a great player trying to syringe myself into the record book or to an extra half dozen seasons of multi-million salary, that's a whole 'nother level of cheating.
For guys who seemed like they were headed to Cooperstown before they cheated -- Bonds, Clemens, as Mizzou suggested -- I say too bad. You get to keep your big bank accounts and your extra celebrity and even your non-asterisked records. But you don't get to skip over any years of dirty dealings to go through Cooperstown's front door. You forfeited that when you went over to the dark side. To me, it's like someone from the neighborhood getting voted Good Citizen of the Year for his long tenure in town, but dallying with a 13-year-old cheerleader three months before the banquet. They invalidate themselves and they sure don't get to take the Hall of Fame for granted, as if they've tucked it into their back pocket and now can do whatever they want. That's why the HOF doesn't induct players while they're playing or even a year after they're done.
I know the Hall has no mechanism for throwing out guys found to be snakes after they've been enshrined -- if Pete Rose had held off on gambling or at least held off on being caught until after his induction, he'd still be in. But those are the rules of this game: If you do something to screw up your chances before you're in, your chaces of getting in get screwed up. Period. Too bad.
bigpern23 said:Here's my problem with Edes' argument. Just because you don't know the names of every player who used steroids, that doesn't mean you have to reward the ones you do know. When there is a preponderance of the evidence - as in the case of McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, Palmeiro, et. al - I think it's perfectly fair not to vote for them.