6/21/2012 9:06 PM
So that's been your angle?   How big of an ******* are you?

"Since I think the HOF is complete crap anyway, it's not something I ponder."    Perhaps this tells you how much I care about the HOF and those who broke the non-punishment "rules" of baseball.    

6/21/2012 9:07 PM
There.  Did you enjoy your "gotcha!" moment? 
6/21/2012 9:09 PM
And this "If you're slowly working your way to a point, just jump ahead.    I'm not going to answer yay/nay to all accused PED users."

As I suspected, you are incapable of holding a civil discussion about baseball or anything for that matter.
6/22/2012 1:01 AM
Posted by jrd_x on 6/21/2012 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pinotfan on 6/21/2012 3:43:00 PM (view original):
If I remember correctly, MLB didn't start suspending players for steroid/HGH use until 2005 (I'm sure someone will fact-check me on that) - before that, they didn't want you to do it but if there's no penalty for doing something there's no way you can say it's wrong.  So, anyone juicing before 2005 was playing within the rules.

I think of it like aluminum bats.  Say that aluminum bats were used, but discouraged, until 2005; then, in 2005, they were officially banned and you got suspended for using them.  Would all players who used aluminum bats before 2005 be ineligible for the Hall?
It was specifically banned in 1991.  There was no test or penalty, but using steroids was against the rules, not just discouraged.
Can you cite a reference?  I'm not doubting you, but every reference I consult says 2005 for HGH.
6/22/2012 8:03 AM
It was "illegal" drugs.   One could assume illegally acquired steroids/HGH would fall under that category.

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/09/illegal-perform.html
6/22/2012 8:30 AM
So, using jrdx's liberal view of rule-breaking, anyone busted for using, or even admitting using, cocaine, pot, greenies, etc, etc, would not be eligible for the HOF by my standards.   May as well throw in anyone suspended for doctoring baseballs/bats.    That should thin out the HOF.
6/22/2012 11:51 AM
Posted by pinotfan on 6/22/2012 1:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jrd_x on 6/21/2012 4:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pinotfan on 6/21/2012 3:43:00 PM (view original):
If I remember correctly, MLB didn't start suspending players for steroid/HGH use until 2005 (I'm sure someone will fact-check me on that) - before that, they didn't want you to do it but if there's no penalty for doing something there's no way you can say it's wrong.  So, anyone juicing before 2005 was playing within the rules.

I think of it like aluminum bats.  Say that aluminum bats were used, but discouraged, until 2005; then, in 2005, they were officially banned and you got suspended for using them.  Would all players who used aluminum bats before 2005 be ineligible for the Hall?
It was specifically banned in 1991.  There was no test or penalty, but using steroids was against the rules, not just discouraged.
Can you cite a reference?  I'm not doubting you, but every reference I consult says 2005 for HGH.
Vincent specifically mentioned steroids in his 1991 memo.  I'm not sure about HGH.  Selig reiterated the policy in 1997 adding that players violating the rule could face a ban from baseball.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1151761/index.htm
6/22/2012 11:56 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2012 8:30:00 AM (view original):
So, using jrdx's liberal view of rule-breaking, anyone busted for using, or even admitting using, cocaine, pot, greenies, etc, etc, would not be eligible for the HOF by my standards.   May as well throw in anyone suspended for doctoring baseballs/bats.    That should thin out the HOF.
I don't think rule breakers should be excluded from the hall of fame.  Players caught violating rules face suspension.  After they have served their suspension, the punishment should stop.

If they weren't caught or suspended, then they should still be allowed into the hall if their performance on the field justifies it.
6/22/2012 12:21 PM
That's a tough argument there.  A guy could play ball for twenty years (i.e., Gaylord Perry) and cheat every time he stepped on the field.  Right at the end of his career, he gets caught doctoring the baseball and gets a 10-game suspension.  He serves his punishment, goes on to retire and gets elected to the Hall of Fame.  However, his entire body of work is based on cheating (doctoring).

6/22/2012 12:44 PM
The problem for me isn't so much that I'm OK with cheating, it's that I don't know who did and didn't cheat, how long they cheated, and how much the cheating contributed to their success.  Unless I'm willing to keep everybody out, and I'm not, I think letting everybody in based on their performance, while understanding the context of the era they played, is the best solution.
6/22/2012 1:57 PM
But you know the guys that got caught cheated, right?
6/22/2012 2:02 PM
Sure.  I know they failed one drug test.  I don't know how long they took steroids, what steroids they took, or how much the steroids contributed to their performance.

Bonds never failed a drug test.  I'm certain he took steroids.  Manny failed a drug test.  I'm certain he took steroids.  To me, they both go in the hall of fame.  I'm sure some people would put them both out of the hall. I can understand that argument.  The only argument I'd really have a problem with is the one that lets one in and leaves the other out.
6/22/2012 2:09 PM
Well, Bonds admitted to using the clear and the cream without knowing it was a PED. 
6/22/2012 2:36 PM
um, OK.  I don't really care what he admitted to, he certainly wasn't going to come out and say that he knew they were steroids, that he wanted to take steroids, and not only did he use the cream and clear, he also injected them into his ***.

I'm as certain that he took them as I am that Manny took them, that Arod took them, that Mcgwire took them, and that Clemens took them.  To me, they all go in to the hall anyway.  
6/22/2012 2:50 PM
Steroids or not, do you really think Manny Ramirez belongs in the Hall of Fame?  Isn't "quitting" on your team, while not as blatant as gambling, just as bad as betting on them to lose?  In my opinion, even without the positive test results, his dumb *** doesn't get in without buying a ticket.  JMHO...

of 15

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.