RE-INSTATE PETER H. ROSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Posted by antoncresten on 10/26/2012 5:06:00 AM (view original):
RE-INSTATE PETER H. ROSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

+1

I voted "elect them instantly", but not in every case. In general, I look at it like this: They broke the rule, they pay the price (suspension), now let them start clean again. Anyone can make a stupid mistake. If someone admits a mistake and cleans up their act, let's show a little mercy. Who hasn't done something stupid because of peer pressure?

Repeat offenders, however, or someone who continues to deny it even after overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I'd have a harder time voting for.

The real problem is voting anyone in.  The writers who I have heard interviewed seem to be taking a very strong stance: 'If they got caught, they'll never get in.  If they didn't get caught, they didn't use.'  That is spectacularly naive. There are probably already one or more PED users in the Hall, and some who used and didn't get caught most certainly will eventually get in.  I say look at the numbers.  There's just no way to quantify what drug did what to who, and who did what for how long.  Just elect them based on what actually happened in MLB games, and put any drug stuff on the plaque in Cooperstown.

Ultimately I think what should happen is that the numbers threshold to get in from the steroid era is going to need to be higher than for other times in history.  This is beyond unfair to anyone who did play clean during this period, but since it's impossible to really know retroactively who did and didn't use I don't see any other way to handle it appropriately.  In the long run I have to hope that the voters will back off the apparent current position that we should totally wipe 20 years of baseball history away.  I was there, it definitely happened, baseball existed in the '90s and 2000s.  There are definitely some guys who should go in the Hall - Clemens and Bonds have to be gimmes, in spite of PED usage, personality, and anything else.

Posted by cpdpoet on 10/28/2012 3:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antoncresten on 10/26/2012 5:06:00 AM (view original):
RE-INSTATE PETER H. ROSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

+1

+2

My problem isn't so much with PEDs users or what they did per se.  The guys who we know of are the ones who got caught, but realistically, far, far more were using them (and likely still are).  The culture of the sport simply made that acceptable to them.  I'm not happy that the steroid era happened, but it happened, and it is what it is. 

What bugs me is the deny-and-blame attitude that several of the roid-era players take.  Clemens is probably the best example.  It seems very obvious that he juiced, but he gets up and raises a huge stink and say s everyone is just out to get him.  Look douchenozzle, nobody would be "out to get you" if they didn't have a damn good reason to.  Nobody is witch hunting your contemporaries who put up similar numbers, with no apparent cheating -- Maddux, Pedro, etc.  People are out to get you because they damn well know you did it.  If he would just say "yup, I did it, lots of us did, and it wasn't against the rules at the time" then fine, you're in the HoF.  But the whiny, child-like display is what makes me not want him in the Hall.

Absolutely everything I just said applies doubly to Lance Armstrong, perhaps my least favorite athlete ever (there are other reasons besides the juicing, but his reaction to the investigations made it much, much worse).

Clemens did everything we demand of the accused to do.   And he was cleared.    Why do we "damn well know you did it"? 

Is it that once the accusation is made, you're obviously guilty?

Clemens & Bonds were both HOFers before they began using steroids. Even though they are both disasters of human beings, they should still be in the HOF. This election is going to be "juicy". No pun intended!!

Ya, the whole confession thing didn't do a damn thing for McGwire so no reason to think it would work for Clemens. At least Mac just went into hiding and shut up for a while. Clemens being doubly defiant and suing everyone in sight only made people want to work harder to bring him down.

I hate Bonds and think he juiced, but even he is more tolerable than Roger now. At least Barry always let the accusers come to him instead of creating more drama.

Well, damn, jtpops edited his post.   I'll respond.

Maybe he "created more drama" because he was innocent.   Maybe he was trying to clear his name as we demand the innocent to do.

It's possible. But he went overboard, if that makes sense. You'd almost expect an innocent person to deny it and then file charges if accusations persisted. Clemens seemed to go immediately into full out attack mode, which came across as overly defensive and reactionary. And yes, he's not a likeable guy, which didn't help. People want to see cocky bastards like he and Bonds brought down a few pegs.

Well, as I said in the other thread I just bumped, an innocent man accused of rape is going to deny the charges vehemently.   Clemens isn't the kind of guy to halfass his defense.