Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

[Crosley68]

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

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by blumj

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.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

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.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by M2

Where's the "Junkies yes, Rose no" button?

That's how I'd vote too

[puca]

Originally Posted by Crosley68

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.

[blumj]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

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.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by blumj

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.

[membengal]

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.

[Johnny Footstool]

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

Whether or not it *should* be against the rules is another debate.

[mbgrayson]

Originally Posted by puca

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....

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by membengal

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.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by mbgrayson

. The issue was clearly whether Rose should be banned for gambling....

Rule 21.... so yes, He's essentially Jim Devlin now.

[membengal]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

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.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by membengal

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.

[blumj]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

And those that benefit from healthy medical advances have a competitive advantage of those who did not.

never mind