Turn Off Ads?

View Poll Results: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hall should forgive them all

    18 46.15%
  • Dont let any of the cheaters in, keep the Hall clean

    11 28.21%
  • could care less, disgusted by all of it

    10 25.64%
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 109

Thread: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

  1. #61
    Member Crosley68's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    958

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Pete's crime is worse, BUT as far as we know, all of his 4000+ hits were gotten fair and square on the same playing field as every other player......the other guys? Not so much
    Let's play two!!!

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #62
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,284

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by blumj View Post
    Actually, it makes plenty of sense to me. We don't want athletes having to choose between using substances that may be dangerous to their health and being unable to keep up with those who are willing to.
    Only because it's unhealthy, which is my point.

    What happens when modern medicine creates the super steroid that has no health ramifications, and instead is actually considered healthy? Will that be considered cheating too? Somehow I doubt it.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  4. #63
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,450

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone792 View Post
    Only because it's unhealthy, which is my point.

    What happens when modern medicine creates the super steroid that has no health ramifications, and instead is actually considered healthy? Will that be considered cheating too? Somehow I doubt it.
    Fair point.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  5. #64
    Member Highlifeman21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bristol, just around the corner from ESPN
    Posts
    8,694

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    Where's the "Junkies yes, Rose no" button?
    That's how I'd vote too

  6. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pook's Hill
    Posts
    1,556

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crosley68 View Post
    Pete's crime is worse, BUT as far as we know, all of his 4000+ hits were gotten fair and square on the same playing field as every other player......the other guys? Not so much
    So you don't consider amphetamines to be performance enhancers? I guarantee the players thought they gave them an edge. Or do you think everyone in baseball was using them?

    The biggest farce in this whole witchhunt is the assumption that until steriods players didn't use PEDs.

  7. #66
    Member blumj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Northern MA
    Posts
    4,683

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone792 View Post
    Only because it's unhealthy, which is my point.

    What happens when modern medicine creates the super steroid that has no health ramifications, and instead is actually considered healthy? Will that be considered cheating too? Somehow I doubt it.
    Then I'm not disagreeing with you. Science made this mess, I just hope it can eventually clean it up. Because it's hard to see any other way out.
    "Reality tells us there are no guarantees. Except that some day Jon Lester will be on that list of 100-game winners." - Peter Gammons

  8. #67
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,284

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by blumj View Post
    Then I'm not disagreeing with you. Science made this mess, I just hope it can eventually clean it up. Because it's hard to see any other way out.
    Science isn't going to clean it up, because that's not their job. As modern medicine advances, steroids and HGH will be left in the dust by much more effective and healthy PEDs.

    Then where are the cheater labels going to go? If something is good for your body and enhances your performance, is it still cheating? It won't be, and that's my point.

    I find it utterly hilarious when people label players as "cheaters" for taking something that's unhealthy and then label other players as genuine for taking "healthy" PEDs or engaging in "healthy" PE activities.

    If you want a genuine ballplayer, then send him out to work on the farms, shipyards and railroads during the offseason.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  9. #68
    Member membengal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    9,093

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    It's cheating, Cyclone, because NOT everyone was doing it, and the field was un-level. I feel for those players (however few they were) who refrained from PEDs and were at a competitive disadvantage.

    In your hypo, when the super-healthy steroid comes along, as long as everyone can use it, it wouldn't be cheating.
    Last edited by membengal; 02-10-2009 at 09:11 PM.

  10. #69
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,832

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    It's cheating because it's against the rules.

    Whether or not it *should* be against the rules is another debate.
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  11. #70
    Red's fan mbgrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,061

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by puca View Post
    So you don't consider amphetamines to be performance enhancers? I guarantee the players thought they gave them an edge. Or do you think everyone in baseball was using them?

    The biggest farce in this whole witchhunt is the assumption that until steriods players didn't use PEDs.
    Greenies were often supplied by the teams and were almost to the point of being in a bowl for whoever wanted them:
    "Players use amphetamines to be the player they can't be when they're tired," said the veteran, who asked that his name not be used.

    For decades, amphetamines "speed" on the street have helped baseball players face the rigors of their sport: Six-game weeks. Day games immediately following night games. Cross-country flights. Hundreds of repetitions in the batting cage and batter's box, on the mound and in the field. The stress of a pennant race in the August heat.

    But baseball's crusade against performance-enhancing substances has pushed the pills out of the clubhouse and onto the banned list as part of the sport's sweeping new drug policy....

    "I know if I walk in the clubhouse tomorrow morning and I say, 'I'm not going to be able to get on the field until I have some,' I feel fairly certain I could find some," Jones said of the pills. "Until recently, it's been sitting up in plain sight. ... You see what you see."

    Greenies have long been baseball's worst-kept secret. They were considered harmless pep pills until 1970, when the drug that doctors classify as "artificial adrenaline" was made illegal in the United States without a prescription.
    Source.

    There are numerous other articles on 'greenies' being banned in 2006.....See this NY Times Article.

    It is true that Pete Rose used them (and has honestly admitted that he did, without any UA test to prove it either way), as likely did almost every other player of that era....Bench, Aaron, Mays, Morgan, etc. So please don't throw this red herring into the mix. The issue was clearly whether Rose should be banned for gambling....
    __________________
    A healthy Reds team is a strong Reds team"

  12. #71
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,284

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by membengal View Post
    It's cheating, Cyclone, because NOT everyone was doing it, and the field was un-level. I feel for those players (however few they were) who refrained from PEDs and were at a competitive disadvantage.
    Not buying it. People sit by and cheer for players who are only the field after having body parts reconstructed, and there's no outcry about that.

    The level playing field existed only for a short period of time in baseball's history, if at all. And we'll never see one in our lifetimes either, regardless how deep the PED witch hunt drills. People are just going to have to learn to accept that.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  13. #72
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,297

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by mbgrayson View Post
    . The issue was clearly whether Rose should be banned for gambling....
    Rule 21.... so yes, He's essentially Jim Devlin now.

  14. #73
    Member membengal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    9,093

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone792 View Post
    Not buying it. People sit by and cheer for players who are only the field after having body parts reconstructed, and there's no outcry about that.

    The level playing field existed only for a short period of time in baseball's history, if at all. And we'll never see one in our lifetimes either, regardless how deep the PED witch hunt drills. People are just going to have to learn to accept that.
    Whether people "learn to accept it" or not, it was still cheating. Those that took PEDs had an unfair competititve advantage over those who did not.

  15. #74
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,284

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by membengal View Post
    Whether people "learn to accept it" or not, it was still cheating. Those that took PEDs had an unfair competititve advantage over those who did not.
    And those that benefit from healthy medical advances have a competitive advantage over those who did not.

    If the argument is "it's against the rules," then Alex Rodriguez didn't break any rules. Neither did Barry Bonds. Neither did Mark McGwire. Neither did Roger Clemens. Rodriguez's positive test was in 2003, an MLB survey year. There was no steroid rule to enforce in 2003; it was merely a survey of tests to determine if a steroid rule to enforce would go into effect in 2004.

    But despite breaking zero MLB rules, they're still labeled as cheaters. It's inconsistent, but people seem to want to make up their own rules as they go along.
    Last edited by Cyclone792; 02-10-2009 at 10:55 PM.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  16. #75
    Member blumj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Northern MA
    Posts
    4,683

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone792 View Post
    And those that benefit from healthy medical advances have a competitive advantage of those who did not.
    never mind
    Last edited by blumj; 02-10-2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason: confusion
    "Reality tells us there are no guarantees. Except that some day Jon Lester will be on that list of 100-game winners." - Peter Gammons


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25