BeefWillingham Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Wow.. good thing Eddie Altamonte doesn't actually have a vote... putting McGwire into the Hall, but not Bonds?? Hmmm.... You didn't understand my position at all. If Bonds is convicted there is tangible undisputed evidence of cheating, considering he doesn't have a history of injuries in his career that puts him in a category all by himself apart fom McGwire and apart from Clemons, as much as I hate Bonds for being an a**hole of monumental proportions, if he is acquitted he should be in the HOF. Considering the federal court system's history, very few people who are indicted and go to trial are ever acquitted. In my mind it just doesn't look good at all for Barry Lamar Bonds Whoa, what?!?! Really, so now we're letting people in who were accused of steroids that had a history of injuries but not those who were.... ummmm... accused of steroids.... ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Altamonte Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Wow.. good thing Eddie Altamonte doesn't actually have a vote... putting McGwire into the Hall, but not Bonds?? Hmmm.... You didn't understand my position at all. If Bonds is convicted there is tangible undisputed evidence of cheating, considering he doesn't have a history of injuries in his career that puts him in a category all by himself apart fom McGwire and apart from Clemons, as much as I hate Bonds for being an a**hole of monumental proportions, if he is acquitted he should be in the HOF. Considering the federal court system's history, very few people who are indicted and go to trial are ever acquitted. In my mind it just doesn't look good at all for Barry Lamar Bonds Whoa, what?!?! Really, so now we're letting people in who were accused of steroids that had a history of injuries but not those who were.... ummmm... accused of steroids.... ? What sets Bonds apart is that he is only one sweating bullets because of having to contemplate possibility of going to jail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Anyone who doesn't think that McGwire's numbers deserve the HOF without the steroid issues are fooling themselves and just allowing the steroid potential to raise a bias. IMO, he is the greatest pure power hitter ever, and unlike Bonds, he did not have a suspicious spike in power when he was almost 40. McGwire was always an incredible power hitter, as his rookie HR record would attest to, and even before he broke the single season HR record he set the ab/hr record in an injury shortened season (correct me if I'm wrong, this is something I seem to recall from years ago that I haven't looked up). Either way, the HOF has a number of other players whose game was as one dimensional as McGwire...but oh what a dimension it was. I don't think you've actually seen the numbers if you're making that statement.. Yes, McGwire was a great power hitter since his rookie season. However, his career high up until 1996 had been 49, which came in his rookie season. Then, somehow, from 1996 through 2000, the dude started averaging about 60 homeruns per season. How is that not a suspicious spike? Bonds career high, before he allegedly began taking steroids, was 46 in 1993. Only 3 shy of McGwire's previous season high.. So I wouldn't say that McGwire was that much of a superior power hitter over Bonds... Having said all this, I think Bonds and McGwire both deserve to be in the HOF. I just don't get any reasoning that would put Big Mac in and not Bonds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefbob Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 whoever said something about pete rose is comparing apples and oranges. Anyways, let me help you all end this right now. Anyone that has been tested for a banned substance and failed should not be in the hall of fame. Anyone that is accused of using a banned substance but was never tested or PROVEN to have used them and has hall of fame numbers should be in the hall of fame. Um, don't we live in a country where everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty? Prove McGwire cheated and he is out. But keep in mind he wasn't cheating if it wasn't a banned substance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Altamonte Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 whoever said something about pete rose is comparing apples and oranges. Anyways, let me help you all end this right now. Anyone that has been tested for a banned substance and failed should not be in the hall of fame. Anyone that is accused of using a banned substance but was never tested or PROVEN to have used them and has hall of fame numbers should be in the hall of fame. Um, don't we live in a country where everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty? Prove McGwire cheated and he is out. But keep in mind he wasn't cheating if it wasn't a banned substance. FINALLY THE VOICE OF REASON! THANK YOU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 whoever said something about pete rose is comparing apples and oranges. Anyways, let me help you all end this right now. Anyone that has been tested for a banned substance and failed should not be in the hall of fame. Anyone that is accused of using a banned substance but was never tested or PROVEN to have used them and has hall of fame numbers should be in the hall of fame. Um, don't we live in a country where everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty? Prove McGwire cheated and he is out. But keep in mind he wasn't cheating if it wasn't a banned substance. FINALLY THE VOICE OF REASON! THANK YOU Yes, the voice of reason. The two of you have basically ruled out Alex Sanchez and Jose Guillen from getting into the HOF... Great.... As for Big Mac and Bonds, they are in then since they never tested positive for any banned substances. Glad we could put this to rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Altamonte Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 whoever said something about pete rose is comparing apples and oranges. Anyways, let me help you all end this right now. Anyone that has been tested for a banned substance and failed should not be in the hall of fame. Anyone that is accused of using a banned substance but was never tested or PROVEN to have used them and has hall of fame numbers should be in the hall of fame. Um, don't we live in a country where everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty? Prove McGwire cheated and he is out. But keep in mind he wasn't cheating if it wasn't a banned substance. FINALLY THE VOICE OF REASON! THANK YOU Yes, the voice of reason. The two of you have basically ruled out Alex Sanchez and Jose Guillen from getting into the HOF... Great.... As for Big Mac and Bonds, they are in then since they never tested positive for any banned substances. Glad we could put this to rest. Got news for you...I don't believe Alex Sanchez is gonna be getting many votes to the HOF once his career is over. Jose Guillen won't be getting many more votes either, for that matter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 whoever said something about pete rose is comparing apples and oranges. Anyways, let me help you all end this right now. Anyone that has been tested for a banned substance and failed should not be in the hall of fame. Anyone that is accused of using a banned substance but was never tested or PROVEN to have used them and has hall of fame numbers should be in the hall of fame. Um, don't we live in a country where everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty? Prove McGwire cheated and he is out. But keep in mind he wasn't cheating if it wasn't a banned substance. FINALLY THE VOICE OF REASON! THANK YOU Yes, the voice of reason. The two of you have basically ruled out Alex Sanchez and Jose Guillen from getting into the HOF... Great.... As for Big Mac and Bonds, they are in then since they never tested positive for any banned substances. Glad we could put this to rest. Got news for you...I don't believe Alex Sanchez is gonna be getting many votes to the HOF once his career is over. Jose Guillen won't be getting many more votes either, for that matter! That is his point. You're "voice of reason" rules out a bunch of nobodies and Rafael Palmiero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Altamonte Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 whoever said something about pete rose is comparing apples and oranges. Anyways, let me help you all end this right now. Anyone that has been tested for a banned substance and failed should not be in the hall of fame. Anyone that is accused of using a banned substance but was never tested or PROVEN to have used them and has hall of fame numbers should be in the hall of fame. Um, don't we live in a country where everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty? Prove McGwire cheated and he is out. But keep in mind he wasn't cheating if it wasn't a banned substance. FINALLY THE VOICE OF REASON! THANK YOU Yes, the voice of reason. The two of you have basically ruled out Alex Sanchez and Jose Guillen from getting into the HOF... Great.... As for Big Mac and Bonds, they are in then since they never tested positive for any banned substances. Glad we could put this to rest. Got news for you...I don't believe Alex Sanchez is gonna be getting many votes to the HOF once his career is over. Jose Guillen won't be getting many more votes either, for that matter! That is his point. You're "voice of reason" rules out a bunch of nobodies and Rafael Palmiero. and what's your point???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 and what's your point???? None of the viable candidates have been caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Altamonte Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 and what's your point???? None of the viable candidates have been caught. except Bonds if he is convicted on the perjury charge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 except Bonds if he is convicted on the perjury charge Probably.. But I just don't see how he can get convicted. He has never tested positive, so the only evidence against him is either hearsay or circumstantial.. I stand by what a previous poster said.. If a player tests positive for a substance banned by MLB at the time the test took place, then don't let him into the Hall.. Assuming his career numbers were drastically altered by steroids. From what we know about Andy Pettite for example, I don't think I would fault the guy.... But other than that, you really can't keep someone from getting in if they weren't doing anything that MLB had no rules against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Card Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Definitely gets in IMO. Not a doubt. Nobody hits for 50 homers as a rookie without natural talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefWillingham Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Wow.. good thing Eddie Altamonte doesn't actually have a vote... putting McGwire into the Hall, but not Bonds?? Hmmm.... You didn't understand my position at all. If Bonds is convicted there is tangible undisputed evidence of cheating, considering he doesn't have a history of injuries in his career that puts him in a category all by himself apart fom McGwire and apart from Clemons, as much as I hate Bonds for being an a**hole of monumental proportions, if he is acquitted he should be in the HOF. Considering the federal court system's history, very few people who are indicted and go to trial are ever acquitted. In my mind it just doesn't look good at all for Barry Lamar Bonds Whoa, what?!?! Really, so now we're letting people in who were accused of steroids that had a history of injuries but not those who were.... ummmm... accused of steroids.... ? What sets Bonds apart is that he is only one sweating bullets because of having to contemplate possibility of going to jail This is so ridiculous. What also sets him apart is that he had to testify in front of a judge and these other guys didnt. If a huge amount of other guys had the same thing happen, theyd also be sweating bullets about going to jail, how the f*** does that make any difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Night Phantom Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 except Bonds if he is convicted on the perjury charge Probably.. But I just don't see how he can get convicted. He has never tested positive, so the only evidence against him is either hearsay or circumstantial..The government says they have positive tests. And for whoever busted out the United States of America defense, remember that in this nation of laws we convict people based on circumstantial evidence all the time. And it isn't wrong to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirspud Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 except Bonds if he is convicted on the perjury charge Probably.. But I just don't see how he can get convicted. He has never tested positive, so the only evidence against him is either hearsay or circumstantial..The government says they have positive tests. And for whoever busted out the United States of America defense, remember that in this nation of laws we convict people based on circumstantial evidence all the time. And it isn't wrong to do so. And this justice system also lets off sports figures who are murderers, have gotten DUI's, etc. It's too bad that this nation must take the POTENTIAL that a player used steroids to prevent them from something as trivial (in context) as the HOF while others get away with taking a life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rxpro Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 as for Mac, why the 5th amendment act in front of congress if he had nothing to hide, and as for Bonds the govt must think it has enough on him to prove he is lying so if he is convicted... THEY BOTH ARE OUT!!!! fantastic!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbob1313 Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 as for Mac, why the 5th amendment act in front of congress if he had nothing to hide, and as for Bonds the govt must think it has enough on him to prove he is lying so if he is convicted... THEY BOTH ARE OUT!!!! fantastic!!!! Dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Altamonte Posted January 6, 2008 Author Share Posted January 6, 2008 Wow.. good thing Eddie Altamonte doesn't actually have a vote... putting McGwire into the Hall, but not Bonds?? Hmmm.... You didn't understand my position at all. If Bonds is convicted there is tangible undisputed evidence of cheating, considering he doesn't have a history of injuries in his career that puts him in a category all by himself apart fom McGwire and apart from Clemons, as much as I hate Bonds for being an a**hole of monumental proportions, if he is acquitted he should be in the HOF. Considering the federal court system's history, very few people who are indicted and go to trial are ever acquitted. In my mind it just doesn't look good at all for Barry Lamar Bonds Whoa, what?!?! Really, so now we're letting people in who were accused of steroids that had a history of injuries but not those who were.... ummmm... accused of steroids.... ? What sets Bonds apart is that he is only one sweating bullets because of having to contemplate possibility of going to jail This is so ridiculous. What also sets him apart is that he had to testify in front of a judge and these other guys didnt. If a huge amount of other guys had the same thing happen, theyd also be sweating bullets about going to jail, how the f*** does that make any difference? Well others might have lied but they didn't, Bonds could have told the truth and he didn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreshFish Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Wow.. good thing Eddie Altamonte doesn't actually have a vote... putting McGwire into the Hall, but not Bonds?? Hmmm.... You didn't understand my position at all. If Bonds is convicted there is tangible undisputed evidence of cheating, considering he doesn't have a history of injuries in his career that puts him in a category all by himself apart fom McGwire and apart from Clemons, as much as I hate Bonds for being an a**hole of monumental proportions, if he is acquitted he should be in the HOF. Considering the federal court system's history, very few people who are indicted and go to trial are ever acquitted. In my mind it just doesn't look good at all for Barry Lamar Bonds Whoa, what?!?! Really, so now we're letting people in who were accused of steroids that had a history of injuries but not those who were.... ummmm... accused of steroids.... ? What sets Bonds apart is that he is only one sweating bullets because of having to contemplate possibility of going to jail This is so ridiculous. What also sets him apart is that he had to testify in front of a judge and these other guys didnt. If a huge amount of other guys had the same thing happen, theyd also be sweating bullets about going to jail, how the f*** does that make any difference? As ridiculous as it may sound to you. jail = no hall for Barry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rxpro Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 as for Mac, why the 5th amendment act in front of congress if he had nothing to hide, and as for Bonds the govt must think it has enough on him to prove he is lying so if he is convicted... THEY BOTH ARE OUT!!!! fantastic!!!! Dumb. I think not, the cheaters can;t get in the HOF, period, it pains me to see the likes of Mays, Aaron, F, Robinson who played the game the right way get pushed aside by these guysm thats all, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefWillingham Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Wow.. good thing Eddie Altamonte doesn't actually have a vote... putting McGwire into the Hall, but not Bonds?? Hmmm.... You didn't understand my position at all. If Bonds is convicted there is tangible undisputed evidence of cheating, considering he doesn't have a history of injuries in his career that puts him in a category all by himself apart fom McGwire and apart from Clemons, as much as I hate Bonds for being an a**hole of monumental proportions, if he is acquitted he should be in the HOF. Considering the federal court system's history, very few people who are indicted and go to trial are ever acquitted. In my mind it just doesn't look good at all for Barry Lamar Bonds Whoa, what?!?! Really, so now we're letting people in who were accused of steroids that had a history of injuries but not those who were.... ummmm... accused of steroids.... ? What sets Bonds apart is that he is only one sweating bullets because of having to contemplate possibility of going to jail This is so ridiculous. What also sets him apart is that he had to testify in front of a judge and these other guys didnt. If a huge amount of other guys had the same thing happen, theyd also be sweating bullets about going to jail, how the f*** does that make any difference? Well others might have lied but they didn't, Bonds could have told the truth and he didn't If its fair to have Bonds testify in front of a jury, have em all do that and then see how many lie, and then see how hard "they" try to prove that those who lied did lie like they did with Bonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nny Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 as for Mac, why the 5th amendment act in front of congress if he had nothing to hide, and as for Bonds the govt must think it has enough on him to prove he is lying so if he is convicted... THEY BOTH ARE OUT!!!! fantastic!!!! Dumb. I think not, the cheaters can;t get in the HOF, period, it pains me to see the likes of Mays, Aaron, F, Robinson who played the game the right way get pushed aside by these guysm thats all, You do know that, at the very least, Mays and Aaron popped greenies? The past is not some choir boy act that people like to think of it as. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rxpro Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 but greenies don't affect the distance a baseball will travel or add a few MPH to the heater....PEDs are an advantage that the older players did not have no one says the older guys were choir boys but there was nothing they could take to enhance their on the field performance.......... no one answered by *dumb* question as to why MAC said what he said in front of Congress instead of just saying he was innocent and didn't take anything, but then again I am a dummy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Guapo Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Denied.... You still dont wanna talk about the past Mr.McGwire.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.