That's some nice faulty logic you're using there, Cyclone. Let me get this straight: because I don't want to go back and revisit every single potential past sin ever commited by a baseball player, and make a decision based on that information whether or not the player should be allowed to remain in the hall, I have no right to ever argue that a future player should be kept out? That's simply ridiculous, and if you truly believe that I think you're running out of arguments.Originally Posted by Cyclone792
I don't advocate for kicking people out because I don't believe that baseball should be in the practice of revisiting and--by default--making remittances for perceived past wrongs. This is the very reason I say that your continued references to sins committed by players 50 and 60 years ago have no bearing on this discussion. I can't control what they did, I can't control what baseball did. This discussion deals with an active scandal today. This is something baseball CAN deal with, and I want them to deal with it correctly.
Within the scope of the game, sure, I'll concede that. But i was referring more to the perceptions we place on a player, and the traits and characteristics HoF voters use to decide who and who not to elect to the Hall. If Barry had been caught corking his bat once or twice, or lathering up with too much pine tar, his HoF induction would be a no-brainer. 5 years of significant steroid use that had an evident impact on his statistics? Not so much.Well, when last I checked, you get banned for life for gambling on baseball. You get suspended for x number of games for the first two steroid offenses. You get suspended for x number of games for other offenses, including doctoring baseballs and using corked bats. I'd say there's a hard and fast hierarchy of sins, combined with a level of punishment for each.
No, Barry pre-1998 was, IMHO, a HoF-caliber player. Absolutely. But, also IMHO, his actions on the field, which helped create this pall over the game that we now see, trump his pre-1998 career. Feel free to disagree with me--certainly that's your right. But this double-standard hypocritical stuff you keep throwing out is pure baloney. Barry Bonds has harmed the game by his actions; my personal feelings that he should not be voted into the Hall because of that is my punishment.I don't see any evidence that Barry Bonds used steroids prior to 1998 and I hope you're not claiming that Bonds pre-1998 is not a Hall of Fame caliber player. Frankly, I'd love to see a list of single seasons you'd take over Bonds' 1993 season.
No, I'm not--and you can keep hammering this point and I'm just going to have to continue to disagree with you. Simply because other players--who may or may not have cheated as much or as grossly as Bonds did--have failed to be penalized for their behavior does not grant Barry carte blanche here. If 20 students cheat on a test, the first 19 get by with it but the 20th gets caught, does that mean that student shouldn't be penalized? Of course not. You want to compare Barry's crimes to other crimes, but the reality is there really isn't a comparison. And even if one did exist, there's no respect for precedent in baseball...if you could prove to me that Roger Maris ingested every anabolic steroid known to man throughout his entire career, baseball knew about it and did nothing, and Maris still was elected to the Hall--that wouldn't change my position one iota. I would disagree with how they handled Maris, and I would argue vehemently that the treatment for Bonds and others of similar ilk should be harsher. Either way, I would still maintain that an appropriate punishment for Bonds would be a rejection of his induction into the Hall.Certain crimes have a penalty of a ban. Others do not. Even now, steroids rightfully do not have that until there's a third offense. Nevertheless, you must compare Bonds' crime to the other crimes of the past to come up with an appropriate penalty.
You're failing to compare Bonds' crime against other baseball crimes, which in turn causes you to trump a penalty that is far too harsh for the crime committed.
To your first point, see my statement above.Confessions of doctoring baseballs is pretty strong evidence of cheating. League-wide run scoring data when baseball outlawed doctoring baseballs is also evidence of the effect/advantage that pitching with a dirty ball provides.
Let's not forget safety reasons here. A large reason why steroids are so taboo is because they are unhealthy. A large reason why the game outlawed illegal pitches is because a player died on the field of play after getting beaned in the head.
To your second, I would say that bat corking, ball doctoring, and excessive pine tarring are examples of activities that are banned not out of any health concern, but because of the benefit they provide the executor of said action. Steroids are likely banned due to a combination of both.