Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Who gets into the Hall of Fame first?

Who gets into the Hall of Fame first?


  • Total voters
    50

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

js0000001

New member
Oct 1, 2008
4,598
0
I've never had much love for Pudge.

But I don't deny his tremendous career. He was likely a steroid guy but was never really fingered. He has kept a low profile with I think will help when the time comes.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think Pudge will get in first.
 

200lbhockeyplayer

Active member
Aug 10, 2008
11,049
2
Bonds.

Why? Because a time line for his usage can be assumed, after the 1998 season.

Each of the others has a larger question mark as to when usage began.

Regardless, I think Clemens and Bonds will be the first of the steroid users to get in because they were both simply the best of their era. Call the era whatever you wish, but each and every player is tainted with the era, user or not. And as far as I am concerned, all are equally responsible.

Not one single player stood up to the union to demand testing, so let them all be painted with the same brush and be analyzed equally.
 

uniquebaseballcards

New member
Nov 12, 2008
6,783
0
Yes, that would've made any player who did this incredibly popular among his fellow players ::facepalm::

We simply may see very few players inducted from this era...which is fine by me. Players need to be held to a standard - they understand this even if others don't.

200lbhockeyplayer said:
Bonds.

Why? Because a time line for his usage can be assumed, after the 1998 season.

Each of the others has a larger question mark as to when usage began.

Regardless, I think Clemens and Bonds will be the first of the steroid users to get in because they were both simply the best of their era. Call the era whatever you wish, but each and every player is tainted with the era, user or not. And as far as I am concerned, all are equally responsible.

Not one single player stood up to the union to demand testing, so let them all be painted with the same brush and be analyzed equally.
 

200lbhockeyplayer

Active member
Aug 10, 2008
11,049
2
uniquebaseballcards said:
Yes, that would've made any player who did this incredibly popular among his fellow players ::facepalm::

We simply may see very few players inducted from this era...which is fine by me. Players need to be held to a standard - they understand this even if others don't.

200lbhockeyplayer said:
Bonds.

Why? Because a time line for his usage can be assumed, after the 1998 season.

Each of the others has a larger question mark as to when usage began.

Regardless, I think Clemens and Bonds will be the first of the steroid users to get in because they were both simply the best of their era. Call the era whatever you wish, but each and every player is tainted with the era, user or not. And as far as I am concerned, all are equally responsible.

Not one single player stood up to the union to demand testing, so let them all be painted with the same brush and be analyzed equally.
All it would have taken was one player...one sac and far more would follow.

Instead, they all chose to remain silent under the protection of their union.

So they would have been unpopular with the other players? That is the lemming logic...if everyone is jumping off of a cliff, so should I. Sure, maybe that one lemming who refused wouldn't be popular...but he'd be alive.

The era is responsible for itself...and the era chose to do nothing.
 

HPC

New member
Aug 12, 2008
6,709
0
Phoenix, AZ
Canseco should be let in for exposing all the users.

He's the only one who did have the balls to admit it

...albeit for money, but still, he did it. In this case it shouldnt matter why he did it, just the fact he did. No one else was jumping with joy to give names.
 

uniquebaseballcards

New member
Nov 12, 2008
6,783
0
Its certainly understandable that nobody made the union submit. The only payoff for a player who squealed would have been osterization and the later knowledge that any HOFers among them would have been legitimate - a number which would constitute 1% of their ranks anyway.

If anyone should've stepped up, it should've been the HOF-calibre players to protect their interests in getting into the HOF, and they could've submitted themselves to voluntary, independent drug testing if they felt their later HOF interests challenged. Bonds could've voluntarily submitted himself to such testing, but he didn't, did he?

The problem wasn't with the union.

I don't think everyone used, but as with anything else, you're only in trouble if you get caught.


200lbhockeyplayer said:
All it would have taken was one player...one sac and far more would follow.

Instead, they all chose to remain silent under the protection of their union.

So they would have been unpopular with the other players? That is the lemming logic...if everyone is jumping off of a cliff, so should I. Sure, maybe that one lemming who refused wouldn't be popular...but he'd be alive.

The era is responsible for itself...and the era chose to do nothing.
 

200lbhockeyplayer

Active member
Aug 10, 2008
11,049
2
chashawk said:
200lbhockeyplayer said:

Not one single player stood up to the union to demand testing, so let them all be painted with the same brush and be analyzed equally.

Frank Thomas??
Saying, "I think there should be testing" and standing behind the protective union is meaningless. On the surface, it looks good, but there is no substance. None at all.

Thomas and other players have said that there should be testing prior to 2005, but again...with no action, there is no substance.

I'm a firm believer that they should all be painted in the era that they created and judged accordingly. Bonds and Clemens were the best in this era...an era accepted by their colleagues and the game itself.

The writers didn't demand it, so the public didn't demand it.
The players didn't demand it, so the union didn't demand it.
The owners didn't demand it, the profits were too large.
The existing Hall of Famers didn't demand it, until their records were being gobbled up.
The commissioner played naive and spineless.

Everyone is responsible for doing nothing, so how in the world can they be judged now through a different set of glasses by the same writers who avoided the issue?

And seriously, if there is a single HOF voter who believes that there aren't at least a dozen players currently in the HOF that used steroids at least once, they should have their heads removed and be filled with pudding.
 

200lbhockeyplayer

Active member
Aug 10, 2008
11,049
2
Pine Tar said:
js0000001 said:
I blame Selig for everything

never should have an owner as commissioner

Former owner who became commissioner
Does not own the team any more and has not since he become Commissioner
Incorrect.

For six years, Selig served both roles...Commissioner and owner, until 1998. When his financial stake was placed into a trust in which he held shares until the team was sold in 2005.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top