Good article on HOF voting and the Steroid Era

[Axeman33]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/sp...ters.html?_r=0

Interesting read indeed.

[The Comish]

Keep all of the f'ng juicers out of the HOF. Just my opinion, but if you succumb to the lure of PED's, FU you weak bastach. You don't deserve to be in the HOF. My $0.02 for what it's worth.

[Axeman33]

Originally Posted by The Comish

Keep all of the f'ng juicers out of the HOF. Just my opinion, but if you succumb to the lure of PED's, FU you weak bastach. You don't deserve to be in the HOF. My $0.02 for what it's worth.

I agree with you that those who have admitted to or proven to have taken banned substances should be omitted from any HOF discussion (*cough ARod, Palmeiro, JGiambi, and so on...).

That being said, there are plenty to have been considered to have taken steroids but never actually proven. Clemens was acquited on steroid charges. Bonds has never been proven to have taken any banned substances. He was guilty of perjury but not guilty of taking steroids.
Sosa's name found its way to the 104 names most likely to have used steroids.

The big question will come to the writers who vote. Are these players guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty. I look at guys like Bonds and Clemens who production went up closer to the end of their careers pretty much screams steroids.

To me, these guys all put up HOF numbers against others who were probably just as guilty of using Roids. If eventually it comes out that they in fact DID use illegal substances during their playing days then yank them out of the Hall. Until you can prove anything, their numbers are legit. Of course this is simply my opinion, and I dont vote so we all know how much my opinion means.

[hockeymanG23]

Originally Posted by Axeman33

I agree with you that those who have admitted to or proven to have taken banned substances should be omitted from any HOF discussion (*cough ARod, Palmeiro, JGiambi, and so on...).

That being said, there are plenty to have been considered to have taken steroids but never actually proven. Clemens was acquited on steroid charges. Bonds has never been proven to have taken any banned substances. He was guilty of perjury but not guilty of taking steroids.
Sosa's name found its way to the 104 names most likely to have used steroids.

The big question will come to the writers who vote. Are these players guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty. I look at guys like Bonds and Clemens who production went up closer to the end of their careers pretty much screams steroids.

To me, these guys all put up HOF numbers against others who were probably just as guilty of using Roids. If eventually it comes out that they in fact DID use illegal substances during their playing days then yank them out of the Hall. Until you can prove anything, their numbers are legit. Of course this is simply my opinion, and I dont vote so we all know how much my opinion means.

Axeman, your seem to dig up some good stories. Thank you, especially when we need something to talk about!

As you mentioned there is a serious dilemma. Most of these individuals are "unproven" users of performance enhancing drugs, yet their performance seems to speak for itself. One season you're John Doe, the next you're Captain America! Just wait,... was Captain america given drugs to... get bigger and stronger?! Hmmmm....

I fully feel there are very good places that steroids are used without question for health reasons. I wonder then, are steroids only acceptable only in certain situations?

A capitalist society is one that rewards the biggest attraction more often than not. If someone can hit 60 home runs or 50 goals in a season it is good for the revenue. $ is top priority as far as I can tell so I really cant envision when PED's will fall away from the competitive sports scene for good. The owners will not complain about winning and the players will not complain about getting a raise, PED be damned.

[Axeman33]

Originally Posted by hockeymanG23

Axeman, your seem to dig up some good stories. Thank you, especially when we need something to talk about!

As you mentioned there is a serious dilemma. Most of these individuals are "unproven" users of performance enhancing drugs, yet their performance seems to speak for itself. One season you're John Doe, the next you're Captain America! Just wait,... was Captain america given drugs to... get bigger and stronger?! Hmmmm....

I fully feel there are very good places that steroids are used without question for health reasons. I wonder then, are steroids only acceptable only in certain situations?

A capitalist society is one that rewards the biggest attraction more often than not. If someone can hit 60 home runs or 50 goals in a season it is good for the revenue. $ is top priority as far as I can tell so I really cant envision when PED's will fall away from the competitive sports scene for good. The owners will not complain about winning and the players will not complain about getting a raise, PED be damned.

LOL! Thanks mate. Anything to keep the discussions rolling. I enjoy hearing peoples opinions on things on the forums on anything, hockey related or not.

[HOOTIE]

Originally Posted by The Comish

Keep all of the f'ng juicers out of the HOF. Just my opinion, but if you succumb to the lure of PED's, FU you weak bastach. You don't deserve to be in the HOF. My $0.02 for what it's worth.

So are you ready to take Ruth, Ford, Mays, Stargell, Schmidt, Aaron to name a few, out of the HOF?

PED was rampant in the 60's, just nobody gave it any thought.
Ruth injected himself with sheep testorene, corked his bats.

It was a steroid era. Nobody knows who did and didn't.
The CBA made it rampant, by no players standing up to it.