Bonds in, McGwire out in HOF survey [Forum Archive]

Pages: 1

Bonds in, McGwire out in HOF survey

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: I Are Baboon

The AP surveyed 155 of the roughly 500 Hall of Fame voters to see if Bonds or McGwire would get elected. Bonds got in, McGwire did not (McGwire wasn't even close).

Interesting...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2020890

Posted by: oaktownboy

i wish these damn congressional hearings were never held..look at what they've done to mcgwire's reputation...makes me sick

Posted by: I Are Baboon

Ehhh, I think McGwire did it to himself.

Posted by: bio-chem

thats such bullshit. steroids were not illigal by mlb standards untill 2002 so he wasnt breaking baseballs rules. to say he is not a hall of fame player is ridiculous. they say supplements have ruined the game? bullshit. how about when they lowered the pitching mound to create more offence? or the fact ballparks are getting smaller and smaller for more home runs. steroids dont help in hitting a curveball plain and simple. how many people are in the hall of fame that corked their bats? or pitchers that scuffed up their balls with sandpaper? finding anykind of advantage is part of sports. its not mcguires fault kids are using steroids its the fucked up parents who dont know what the hell is going on in their kids lives that are to blame. he deserves to be in the hall as much as anyone. and anyone who says he didnt get to be an amazing player untilll he started with the supplements is full os shit, he hit 49 homers as a rookie.

Posted by: SPIKE1257

Quote:

Originally Posted by bio-chem

thats such bullshit. steroids were not illigal by mlb standards untill 2002 so he wasnt breaking baseballs rules. to say he is not a hall of fame player is ridiculous. they say supplements have ruined the game? bullshit. how about when they lowered the pitching mound to create more offence? or the fact ballparks are getting smaller and smaller for more home runs. steroids dont help in hitting a curveball plain and simple. how many people are in the hall of fame that corked their bats? or pitchers that scuffed up their balls with sandpaper? finding anykind of advantage is part of sports. its not mcguires fault kids are using steroids its the fucked up parents who dont know what the hell is going on in their kids lives that are to blame. he deserves to be in the hall as much as anyone. and anyone who says he didnt get to be an amazing player untilll he started with the supplements is full os shit, he hit 49 homers as a rookie.

So what you're saying is that it was O.K. to use steroids in MLB untill 2002 ?

Posted by: Archangel

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Are Baboon

Ehhh, I think McGwire did it to himself.

I'm a HUGE Cardinals fan, but yes indeed, he did it...........oh, wait........................ I respectfully decline to live in the past, and cannot answer that

Posted by: bio-chem

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPIKE1257

So what you're saying is that it was O.K. to use steroids in MLB untill 2002 ?

yes MLB did nothing in the form of suspension for a positive test of steroids before 2002. it was not against MLB rules untill the 2002 season.

Posted by: bio-chem

if he was taking the real thing why did he take ando?

Posted by: Archangel

Quote:

Originally Posted by bio-chem

if he was taking the real thing why did he take ando?

..................................Cover Up!!!

Posted by: Flex

Quote:

Originally Posted by bio-chem

YAAAAAAAAAAAAY

FINALLY someone else sees where i'm coming from.

And yes, Spike, steroids were NOT tested for or anything until they were made a big stink of a few months ago.

No one was complaining when Sosa and McGwire, and then Bonds were jackin' bombs outta the park

Posted by: LAM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bio-chem

thats such bullshit. steroids were not illigal by mlb standards untill 2002 so he wasnt breaking baseballs rules.

so MLB standards supercede Federal Law ?

Posted by: Dale Mabry

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

so MLB standards supercede Federal Law ?

No, but federal law should have no effect on getting elected to the HOF. I bet most athletes of the 70's smoked the ganj, so should there be no HOFers in any sport from that era?

He should have just admitted it, fuckin retard. Remind me never to hire his lawyer as a PR guy. Although, I am guessing that the reason he was told to deny it is cuz they can prosecute him for it.

Posted by: Flex

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

No, but federal law should have no effect on getting elected to the HOF. I bet most athletes of the 70's smoked the ganj, so should there be no HOFers in any sport from that era?

exactly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

He should have just admitted it, fuckin retard. Remind me never to hire his lawyer as a PR guy. Although, I am guessing that the reason he was told to deny it is cuz they can prosecute him for it.

No, he shouldn't have admitted it. Why face the harrassment Giambi had to.

and i don't think they can prosecute you for it. I can say i've taken *insert any illegal drug* and it doesn't matter. that's not illegal

Posted by: Flex

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

so MLB standards supercede Federal Law ?

no, but MLB is it's own business, and Federal law has nothing to do with regulating every single individual business.

Posted by: Dale Mabry

So they are both allegedly guilty of the same thing, but Bonds more or less admitted to it and McGwire has made no statement. On Rome is burning they were discussing it and said McGwire should not be in the hall because he did not have an HOF career prior to hitting the juice. I disagree, but that's just me. Looking at their stats, they look pretty much the same to me, only Bonds played longer and his homeruns per 162 games is 8 less than McGwire's.

Posted by: soxmuscle

Bonds has over 500 stolen bases, a career OPS over 1.000, has been a gold glove defensive player, and in the process has broken numerous records.

McGwire stole 12 bases in his career, had an OPS under 1.000, was a liability in the field and besides the obvious broke no other records.

While they both should be in, and this is a completely foolish thing to begin with, considering how ridiculous the government and the general population has been throughout this entire steroid scandal, if there going to choose one and not the other Bonds should be the one chosen.

Posted by: Dale Mabry

Quote:

Originally Posted by soxmuscle

if there going to choose one and not the other Bonds should be the one chosen.

I agree, but they are not asking which one should be in if you could only pick one, they are asking if either one should be in, regardless of the other.

Personally, I think this is a knee jerk reaction, plus the way the question is worded, they are asking if either one will be a first ballot entry, not if they will make it in ever.

Posted by: bio-chem

liability in the field? only when injured and not playing was he a liability. while he was not a perenial gold glover mcguire did win one or two

Posted by: bio-chem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flex

no, but MLB is it's own business, and Federal law has nothing to do with regulating every single individual business.

exactly. our elected officials should be dealing with social security the have no buisness interfering in MLB

Posted by: Dale Mabry

Hey, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the courts let the Catholic Church regulate itself with regards to the molestation of young boys?

Good thing they are nipping this steroids in sports thing in the bud, wouldn't want our youth to cause injury to itself.

Posted by: bio-chem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Hey, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the courts let the Catholic Church regulate itself with regards to the molestation of young boys?

Good thing they are nipping this steroids in sports thing in the bud, wouldn't want our youth to cause injury to itself.

thats the worst analogy i have ever heard of. i hope your not serious with this statement and you are being sarcastic. steroids have been in sports since the 60's so to say its nipping in the bud is ridiculous. when someone molests somebody and it comes to the attention of the DA then he should prosecute. they did not however call a congresional hearing on how the catholic church should run there organization. if the DA becomes aware of any individual using steroids then by law they should prosecute. they should not call a congresional hearing into how MLB runs its organization.

Posted by: Dale Mabry

Quote:

Originally Posted by bio-chem

Isn't that precisely what I just said? If you couldn't note the sarcasm in the nipping it in the bud statement that's your problem. In case you missed it, here is my point. It's fucked up that baseball can't regulate itself wrt steroids, but catholic priests can run around raping boys and not get arrested, just get moved to another clergy or whatever.

EDIT:Besides, the DA has no evidence to prosecute anyone and from what I remember, they don't go around randomly testing everyone in the countrty for juice, so why should athletes be treated differently. I don't think the NFL releases player's blood test when they fail a THC test, why should they for juive?

Posted by: bio-chem

all right dale i see where you were coming from now. seems i jumped too fast. sorry. im kind of riled up on this issue

Posted by: Dale Mabry

No prob, I think I was drunk anyway.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.1.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36