Roger Clemens / Barry Bonds... HOF yay or nay?

[Riverwolf]

All pro athletes in all sports will do what is needed to win and succeed.
Watch pro football, think those guys got that way on diet and exercise?
It is like speeders on the freeway, one in 10,000 get caught.
Let them in, your past hero's probably did the same stuff.
Or would have if it was available.

[roberts]

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

All pro athletes in all sports will do what is needed to win and succeed.
Watch pro football, think those guys got that way on diet and exercise?
It is like speeders on the freeway, one in 10,000 get caught.
Let them in, your past hero's probably did the same stuff.
Or would have if it was available.

Here's where I think we disagree. There's actually very little you can do to keep yourself out of the Hall. One is cheating and another is gambling on the game. For the guys we're talking about their stats are not being taken away or asterik-ed, their records stand, they're just not in a hall that's supposed to be a place of honor. Now if the people who run the Hall want it to be considered a museum only, then they should all be in.

[roberts]

Originally Posted by Tele1111

I'm having trouble following your logic-they are equivalent. The difference being McGraw is already in. Are you saying the difference in pay justifies or somehow reduces the severity of the offense?
Emphasis on gambling? I think you're helping prove my point.

Either way, my point remains the same-betting is and has been endemic in the sport from day one of organized ball. It's not my opinion. It is a thoroughly documented fact.

Yes, i think it was different in 1905 - long before legalized gambling, before the Black Sox, before there was a Hall, before no gambling signs were posted in every clubhouse, when baseball players were little more than workers, and when gambling was likely seen by society as a lesser issue. Now, if you want to pull McGraw and Hal Chase and any other known bettors of their time out of the hall because of what we now know, that would be at least consistent. Though it's not gonna happen....

[bfm612]

Originally Posted by roberts

Here's where I think we disagree. There's actually very little you can do to keep yourself out of the Hall. One is cheating and another is gambling on the game. For the guys we're talking about their stats are not being taken away or asterik-ed, their records stand, they're just not in a hall that's supposed to be a place of honor. Now if the people who run the Hall want it to be considered a museum only, then they should all be in.

I'm on board with this. Even in the era of doping, there were players who showed no signs of doping and likely did not dope for numerous reasons, surely one of them being that it wasn't allowed, and that decision is arguably honorable since it's to the detriment of their stats. I'm sure, say, Will Clark (SF Giants) could have had a longer career as a clutch hitter and a great defensive player if he doped and thus avoided being on the DL so many times. He had a great few years, but his stats and those of players like him were eclipsed by the numbers put up by players made superhuman by doping.

If Capital-B Baseball declares that it's all good, then by all means consider doping "normal" and settle it. If it's being framed up as a disgrace, then why place players at the center of that disgrace in an honorable spot in the Hall of Fame?

[roberts]

Nicely put. One of the attributes of HGH was that it turbo-charged recovery time. Guys who took it were ready and at full speed the next day no matter the wear and tear. They never slowed down, never missed a game. Contrast this to guys like Mattingly and Nomar, first ballot HOFers if not for the obvious.

[elephony]

I'm with Riverwolf. I'm all for keeping cheaters like Pete Rose out of the hall, who broke a rule their peers were all following. (I am, as others have voiced, pretty disgusted with how pro sports is currently embracing gambling for the money, but that is not the conversation we're having here.) Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, though, cheated in the exact same way most of their peers did. Their crime isn't the doping alone, or we would be as dismissive of 80% (at least) of the players who played during the steroid era, it's also the crime of being so good we have to contextualize their greatness in history, which makes it impossible to ignore the doping context. The person that should answer for the doping era is Bud Selig, who was happy to turn a blind eye because the press was so good for the home run chase after the 1994 strike (which was also his and the owners' fault). Bonds and Clemens are symptoms of the whole era, not causes. They were also jerks, but there are plenty of jerks in the Hall of Fame, that's no disqualification.

[roberts]

Appreciate your take on Selig and this whole circus is made more ludicrous when you consider that he IS in the HOF....I wish there were a way to determine how many guys actually were juicing rather than assuming everbody was doing it. My guess is that fewer were and the guys who became controversial went from 15 homers a year to 66. There are certainly more homers being hit today than during that whole era.

[dylanheeg]

I would say they should be in. It’s silly and naive to think many weren’t using PED or similar substances long before the ‘steroid era’. Many were before, during, and many are still today. The only difference, as stated above, is that some got caught and some didn’t. But even though many were using, some fellows like bonds and Clemons were still a class above relative to their peers.

Also, did bonds ever actually get busted or admit steroid use? I can’t remember

Too bad really because bonds was already a HOF caliber player early on when he was with Pittsburgh going 40/40 and tearing up the league.

Say what you want, but baseball in the 90s and 2000s was WAY more exciting and entertaining than it is now. I don’t even watch any more. And I’m not the only one that’s for sure.

[Dru Edwards]

Originally Posted by elephony

I'm with Riverwolf. I'm all for keeping cheaters like Pete Rose out of the hall, who broke a rule their peers were all following. (I am, as others have voiced, pretty disgusted with how pro sports is currently embracing gambling for the money, but that is not the conversation we're having here.) Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, though, cheated in the exact same way most of their peers did. Their crime isn't the doping alone, or we would be as dismissive of 80% (at least) of the players who played during the steroid era, it's also the crime of being so good we have to contextualize their greatness in history, which makes it impossible to ignore the doping context. The person that should answer for the doping era is Bud Selig, who was happy to turn a blind eye because the press was so good for the home run chase after the 1994 strike (which was also his and the owners' fault). Bonds and Clemens are symptoms of the whole era, not causes. They were also jerks, but there are plenty of jerks in the Hall of Fame, that's no disqualification.

Clemens is my favorite all time pitcher (although Pedro Martinez is close). I think he, and Bonds, may have been voted into the HOF if they had admitted to PED use back in the day without drama.