|
Post by grover on Mar 19, 2007 8:40:12 GMT -5
Wait, so Kenny Rogers didn't cheat his whole career, but Bonds did, even thought the basis of your argument is that Bonds physically changed from a time when he wasn't on steroids, which shows that bonds wasn't on steroids his whole career, which goes against your case against him that he was on steroids his whole career, because you brought up Kenny rogers not cheating his whole career as an implication that Bonds indeed did cheat his whole career? I think I confused myself LOL.
As for punishment, I'd leave their stats up, but I'd take them from the record lists, such as leaving Bonds off the list for all time HRs if he were to get indicted and it's proven that he did steroids. Sorry, I'm going to need a lot more proof than comparing baseball card pics. I'd take a guy like Palimero off though.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 19, 2007 8:50:02 GMT -5
Kenny Rogers sucked his whole career. He didn't have pine tar on his hand in every single start, even in the regular season. He should have been thrown to the wolves with what he did in the playoffs though.
Bonds cheated for YEARS.
You can't honestly think that Bonds didn't take steroids. Baseball card pics are actually damning evidence. You don't increase your shoe size from a 10 to a 13 in your late 30s. Your jawline doesn't change. That's not even factoring in the strength.
But taking their stats has the same effect as taking their names off the record lists. Basically the same idea. It's kind of like when Ben Johnson was caught cheating in track & field. He just ran the world record 100M and failed the piss test.
He was stripped of the gold AND the record. I am not saying get rid of the box scores. You can't. But in Bonds' case, he should not be considered the HR king even when he beats Aaron. He should not be honored. He should not be acknowledged. He should be treated like the cheater he is. When it comes to the record books, he should be booted. He should not be considered a member of the 500 HR club. He should not be considered a member of the 3000 hit club (when or if he gets there). He should not be in the HOF.
That goes for ALL the steroid losers like Palmeiro and McGwire and the rest.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 19, 2007 9:37:38 GMT -5
Interesting sidenote here. Hall of Famer Bob Feller was asked about Pete Rose and the Hall on Centerstage, and he adamantly said he should never be allowed in. Why? He broke the ONE RULE. The discussion than turned to where if Rose ever gets in, a lot of classic oldtimers are on record as saying they would never return to the Hall in protest. Feller, however, would not join that clique. Also interesting to note that an acting commissioner has NEVER overturned the decision of another commissioner, which is yet more reason to think Rose will rightfully never get in.
As to McGwire and other steroid athletes, Feller basically said its not up to him to decide, and if there is no proof (there isnt) there is not much to discuss anyway.
Thats what a Hall of Famer has to say about it. Sort of the same thing I am saying, and Grover too.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 19, 2007 9:53:15 GMT -5
Bob Feller is senile and bitter. Of course, had Feller been on roids, he would have won 300 games.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 19, 2007 10:02:53 GMT -5
If Feller did not sit out 4 years of his career cause he chose to enlist in the Navy the day after Pearl Harbor to defend this country, he would have won 300 games. Show some respect, you douchebag.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 19, 2007 10:10:30 GMT -5
I'm not disrespecting his war record doofus. But he's not right on Pete Rose, who is one of the greatest players in MLB history. 4256 hits.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 19, 2007 10:33:58 GMT -5
And Barry Bonds is one of the greatest players in MLB history. 734 home runs.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Mar 19, 2007 10:43:07 GMT -5
Side note about the Feller/Rose thing..they have had a long time feud going, with some great barbs traded back and forth in the media. My favourite was when Feller said a few years back how Rose was greedy and shameless for doing those autograph sessions a few blocks from Cooperstown and Rose retorted "Hey, check it out, I have a rare item in my possession, a un-signed picture of Bob Feller"
Jw
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Mar 19, 2007 11:07:45 GMT -5
Balls, sometimes you make a lot of emphatic statements, and use them as the basis of your arguments, that just aren't as cut and dry as you put them out there to be:
"As for Rose, he NEVER bet against the Reds. Again, not alleged." And you know this HOW? You know for a fact Rose never bet against his team? You have some divine knowledge that none of us have....you have the ability to know that Rose's pattern of coming out with a new scathing admission every few years ends here...there's no more to tell?
Come on!!!
BTW you're missing, again, a HUGE point here. Again, it's Mr. Black And White with you. JUST LIKE the Giambi argument. Because you say Giambi is the worst player to ever suit up in pinstripes, and we say he's not the worst, you take as Yankee Fans collectively being overjoyed with having Giambi on the team. And here we go again...you say Bonds is the most evil thing ever to happen to baseball, and we point out that he hasn't been officially caught for anything, you interpret that as us nominating Bonds for sainthood. I don't think ANYONE disagrees with you that Bonds' is on the juice...I think our point is that you seem to have some very selective reasoning when it comes to a guy you like and a guy you dislike - Bonds and Rose are BOTH creeps. Rose been caught and admitted to his egregious behavior resulting in detrimental effects on baseball. He should be punished as such. Bonds has yet to be caught, OFFICIALLY - when and if he is, he will be punished accordingly as well, and if the evidence is as monumental as it seems, that shouldn't be too far off.
And BTW, Pete Rose is an addict. Clearly you know nothing in depth about addiction. I was practicing alcoholic for a good 12 years and I can tell that in throws of addiction there were probably times when you could have convinced me that selling my first born for another bottle would have been a good idea. You're trying to tell me that Pete, perhaps in the throws of addiction and possible debt, given the lack of scruples he has clearly displayed, was somehow able to gain some sense of clarity and morality when it came to betting AGAINST his team? I don't buy it. I'm not saying he DID, but I certainly don't claim to be omnipotent enough to KNOW that he didn't.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 19, 2007 11:35:31 GMT -5
Barry Bonds did not hit 734 HR. The drugs did. They should put the head of Balco in the HOF.
How stupid do you have to be to make the argument, "Bonds wasn't caught?" Only if you bury your head in the sand.
Pete Rose did not cheat to get his 4256 hits. He is a HOFer.
Barry Bonds cheated to get where he is. He is not a HOFer.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Mar 19, 2007 11:49:26 GMT -5
And again, another point you are missing. Pete Rose's career as a PLAYER was outstanding.
Unfortunately, in the eyes of baseball, there's no real way to segregate Pete Rose the hard-nosed ballplayer from Pete Rose the dumb, lying, degenerate gambler.
Pete Rose belongs in the Hall Of Fame, as a player. I believe that. But if MLB's opinion that he needs to be shunned from ALL aspects of the game for his actions, then that's their right...and given the fact that he is such a stupid stupid asshole of a human being, I'd be glad to let this glaring omission in the HOF fly (as if my opinion matters).
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 19, 2007 11:52:07 GMT -5
And again, another point you are missing. Pete Rose's career as a PLAYER was outstanding. Unfortunately, in the eyes of baseball, there's no real way to segregate Pete Rose the hard-nosed ballplayer from Pete Rose the dumb, lying, degenerate gambler. Pete Rose belongs in the Hall Of Fame, as a player. I believe that. And that's it. MLB is dead wrong to keep him out. The punishment is not fitting the crime. Definitely he should not be in any position to impact a game again. But his career speaks for itself. He's a HOFer, plaque or not.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Mar 19, 2007 12:01:54 GMT -5
Balls, are you advocating a rule change?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 19, 2007 12:05:43 GMT -5
Yes.
In the case of Pete Rose, the punishment does not fit the crime.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Mar 19, 2007 12:09:00 GMT -5
BTW You don't have to bet AGAINST your team to be happy if they lose a game (and beat the spread.) What about over/under -- not betting against your team but, can still benefit from a loss.
TRUE Rose couldnt have affected his career numbers THAT MUCH, but take away his dubious years as player manager and he loses the Hits Crown -- Still HOF worthy, but the point is the rules are the rules.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Mar 19, 2007 12:14:43 GMT -5
So, there it is. The argument isn't about the relative worthiness of Rose, but the Rules of Major League Baseball.
It don't matter if Rose was a bigger asshole than Cobb, or if he hit off of a tee to get the record.
The lifetime Ban for Gamblers is the true argument here, and the lack of a second chance as is given drug addicts.
You know as much as I dislike Rose, the case can be made that if an drug addict (ala Steve Howe) could have been given repeat chances...and indeed the rules say that BONDS would have to have been caught and convicted 3 TIMES of 'roid use before he'd get banned - then why can't a gambling addict be given a second or third, or fourth chance like the drug addict?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 19, 2007 12:40:44 GMT -5
It's not the lifetime ban, it's the HOF eligibility that is wrong. I don't even think MLB needs to change anything. It's the HOF. Their rule that states that anyone on the ineligibility list can't be voted on--that is what needs to be changed. This way, Rose can get to the HOF, where he belongs, but still can't get a job as a player or manager.
As for the lifetime ban on gamblers, I don't think it's a terrible rule at all. It only looks bad in light of all the Steve Howeish 7th chances that druggies get.
Not allowing Rose to be in the HOF is a major mistake.
|
|
|
Post by drock2006 on Mar 19, 2007 18:13:23 GMT -5
I think the main reason they keep him out is they do not want to see him turn it into another card show profit venture.
If he had kept his mouth shut, public opinion was swaying his way around 1999-2000....he would have been in the hall by now
Of course, as much as I don't want him in, MLB is no better. They checked their principles at the door when Master Card wanted him on the field during the 99 World Series.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 19, 2007 18:14:56 GMT -5
No he wouldn't. If he kept his mouth shut, people would still be bitching that he never admitted it and showed remorse. That was allegedly what was keeping him from reinstatement. So he admitted it and showed remorse--and is still not in.
People overwhelmingly want him in the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by drock2006 on Mar 19, 2007 18:20:48 GMT -5
The book deal killed any chance he had. But I agree that most people do want him in, I am in the minority.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 19, 2007 18:21:00 GMT -5
People overwhelmingly want him in the HOF
Uh, sorry, not so.
You got sources to back up your assertion?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 19, 2007 18:29:14 GMT -5
There polls out the ass a while back, and over 80 percent were going Rose's way. Just because you are an old stick in the mud doesn't mean people aren't pro Pete.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 19, 2007 18:33:39 GMT -5
Sources, please.
Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by drock2006 on Mar 19, 2007 18:40:37 GMT -5
Was the poll done before or after he admitted he bet on baseball?
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Mar 19, 2007 19:20:17 GMT -5
Balls, I gotta disagree with you on one key point: He has NEVER shown ANY kind of remorse.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 20, 2007 19:48:57 GMT -5
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Mar 20, 2007 20:04:30 GMT -5
LOL!!! LMAO!!! LOLOLOLOL!!!!!
First off, the first link you put up was a vote taken BEFORE he admitted to betting on baseball, and flat-out says....
The poll was conducted before Rose's admission, in a book due in stores Thursday, that he did bet on baseball
It also goes on to add.....
Support for reinstating Rose is a bit lower if he admits to gambling because the proposition loses some backing among people who currently think he didn't do it.
After all that, the support to lift the ban is just over 50%....nowhere near the ridiculous "overwhelming" claims you made earlier (where you cited were running as much as EIGHTY PERCENT! in favor of Rose)
The second link you put up is also over 3 years old. And here is THAT text...
In the wake of Pete Rose's recent admission that he bet on baseball, a new Knowledge Networks survey shows that most baseball fans do not want him to return to the game as a manager or administrator, and one in three would be less likely to buy a product if Rose endorsed it. A slight majority, however, feel that the record-setting hitter and base-stealer should be allowed into the Hall of Fame.
SO.....the majority there do NOT want him back in baseball, but a SLIGHT majority want him eligible for the Hall. Forget the fact that you cant have it both ways, idiots, but SLIGHT is NOT overwhelming, nor is it 80%!!!!!!
Now, on to the 3rd...you seem to have missed this addition to the very story you posted in your haste to remind us "The third is a more recent one that has fans saying steroids are worse than gambling" This also does not help your own argument...
On the issue of being banned from the National Baseball Hall of Fame, this latest Harris Poll explored whether the public and baseball fans think that Pete Rose should now be allowed to be voted into the Hall of Fame. The public’s views are mixed on this issue. A plurality of all adults (45%) and a slight majority of baseball fans (54%) think that the ban preventing Pete Rose from being voted into the Hall of Fame should be lifted. However, approximately a third of adults (36%) and baseball fans (31%) think the ban should not be lifted. Another 20 percent of adults (15% of fans) say that it depends on the situation.
This one claims MIXED public views...and again, the majority falls around 54%.....NOT overwhelming, and NOT EIGHTY FUCKING PERCENT YOU STUPID RETARD.
Thanks for proving my point by not finding ANYTHING that backed up your stupid arguments.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Mar 21, 2007 12:32:44 GMT -5
Doofus, I said that the poll came out a few years back. There are no MIXED public reviews. There is not ONE POLL out there that has Rose losing the public sentiment.
You are wrong, and were proven wrong--again.
They haven't come out with new polls recently, but there has never been a poll taken that came out against Rose.
And more important, MORE people find steroids to be a bigger issue than Pete Rose's gambling.
Fool.
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Mar 21, 2007 12:40:51 GMT -5
Christ, this thread is still going?
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Mar 21, 2007 12:55:43 GMT -5
I read through the stuff, and it's the same three posts over and over. Balls backs a double-standard, and everyone else shoots him down.
One of Balls' replies (all of them, more or less):
You can't honestly think that Bonds didn't take steroids. Baseball card pics are actually damning evidence. You don't increase your shoe size from a 10 to a 13 in your late 30s. Your jawline doesn't change. That's not even factoring in the strength.
What you are saying is that the circumstantial evidence proves that Bonds did steroids. I accept that.
But the circumstantial evidence shows that Rose HAD TO have bet against the Reds or used his control and influence to sway a bet in some way, shape, or form.
A normal body doesn't grow like Bonds' has. The growth hormone sure looks like it had to be a factor.
And likewise, a compulsive gambler who has amassed incredible debt doesn't "play it honest" when his back is against the wall. A compulsive gambler does everything he can to fix a bet. If you surveyed 100,000 people with the disease of compulsive gambling, you won't find one who will say different. Matter of fact, I'll go you one better. Ask Knoblauch what he would do.
The circumstantial evidence is damning with Bonds AND with Rose. Therein lies the blatantly obvious parallel.
Unfortunately, you can't convict on circumstantial evidence. So you have to go with actual proof. And the actual proof is that Pete Rose broke THE cardinal rule of baseball while a player and a manager, the penalty for which is banishment from the game. The proof for Bonds is not readily available, which still doesn't matter, because the penalty is a suspension, not banishment.
I understand your argument for changing the punishments in both cases. Unfortunately, that can't possibly apply to these cases. The Commissioner could rule differently, but THREE commissioners now have not overturned the decision against Rose. Any changes in rules at this point shoudln't apply to them anyway, because they would be grandfathered in. That's only fair.
Circumstantial evidence is damning for both. If you want Bonds out, then surely Pete Rose has to be out as well. To say anything else would be a double-standard.
|
|