Posted by tecwrg on 12/2/2013 10:28:00 AM (view original):then how is that any different from the "Rice and Dawson and Blyleven are in the HOF, so we have to let Morris and Raines in as well"?
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2013 10:12:00 AM (view original):
Well, that's tec's position. I don't think that's the majority opinion but I could be wrong.
That is my position. But whatever, let's pretend that I'm dead wrong about it, and there is absolutely no difference between greenies and PEDs.
If the argument is going to be that "we let the greenie users into the HOF, so we have to let the PED users into the HOF", then how is that any different from the "Rice and Dawson and Blyleven are in the HOF, so we have to let Morris and Raines in as well"?
A bad precedent shouldn't be automatically binding for all similar future cases.
A) Rice, Dawson, and Morris shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame because they aren't good enough, they bring down the standards for their positions. That's not true of Blyleven and Raines.
B) It's different because allowing inferior players into the hall defeats the purpose of the hall, diluting it. But drug users and cheaters are a part of baseball. Always have been and always will be. Not
allowing guys like Clemens and Bonds into the hall also defeats the purpose of the hall by making it irrelevant.