L3thal Veteran Posted December 12, 2004 Veteran Share Posted December 12, 2004 Double post :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snipe Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 No. I wish MLB would make an example out of these fools. The game needs to be cleaned up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerLG Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 His homerun record numbers should indeed be questioned if not stricken. Even if he gets past Hank Aaron this year, I and several others will probably not think of Bonds as the all time king. There are other players who have cheated the game and are still considered some of the greats. Gaylord Perry comes to mind. His spitball got him over 300 wins. Sammy Sosa and the corked bat. His stat still stand as the only player to hit 60+ homeruns for three straight seasons. When people question gambling affecting the integrity of the game, I point to 1919 Blacksox Scandal. Players for the White Sox actually throwing games in the World Series because of gambling. After that, fans began to wonder if all games are fixed. This affected everyone in baseball, not just the Sox. Someone said earlier that betting your team to win does not hurt the game. Problem is, if I remember correctly since I am getting older, he also bet on the Reds to LOSE some of the time. He also bet on other games that he was not involved in, but he had access to the other managers to get some inside info if he so wished. That leads me to question all games of that era. Betting on baseball by an active player or manager can cause a ripple effect throughout the entire sport. One guy jucing up does not have the same effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Floyd Veteran Posted December 13, 2004 Veteran Share Posted December 13, 2004 no way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpaul1104 Posted December 14, 2004 Author Share Posted December 14, 2004 Ok, 2 on, 2 out, down by 4 Bonds hits a homerun. Next batter flies out. Game over, homerun has NO AFFECT ON THE OUTCOME. Similar situation, tying run on third, two out, very slow runner, manager calls for a squeeze and runner is easily tagged out. Manager's decision blew any chance for the batter to knock in the tying run. You think leaving a pitcher in too long does not have affect? Grady Little got fired in Boston because he left Pedro in too long against the Yankees. Cost them the game and the ALCS. Don't try to tell me that a manager cannot affect the outcome. 585082019[/snapback] C'mon man! First of all, it did affect the outcome because it changed the score. Instead of a 4-0 game it was a 4-3 game. There is a difference between affecting the outcome and determining a winner. The bottom line is whan a manager makes a decision the scoreboard does not change! SOMEONE ELSE'S physical action determines the end result! So again, leaving Pedro in the game did not put ANY runs on the board, it may have increased the odds of the Yankees scoring, but the batters still had to put the ball in play. The fact that they hit the ball where nobody could catch it is what cost Boston the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpaul1104 Posted December 14, 2004 Author Share Posted December 14, 2004 Pete Rose jeopardized the integrity of the game, therefore he was banned from joining the hall of fame. When you take steroids, you jeopardize yourself and your health, not the game of baseball. When a player starts betting on games he plays in, that is when you cross the line. Will Mark McGwire be banned from the hall of fame for taking steroids? I think not. Then why should Bonds? Bonds' success isn't all about steroids, though you can argue that it did help him hit a few extra during his record breaking year. The only reason why I'm defending Bonds is because he does have natural skill, unlike other steroid users like Giambi who take them and still perform average compared to others. If steroids were to give Bonds the numbers he has, then I'm sure others would also be on par with the same numbers, which no one is. 585084353[/snapback] L3thal; you never answered the question, DO YOU THINK BONDS CHEATED? Dont forget, he used a substance banned by MLB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpaul1104 Posted December 14, 2004 Author Share Posted December 14, 2004 Fact 1: Betting on a game in which you have an influence definately compromises the integrity of the game. Fact 2: The integrity of any game, in which an active cheater had an influence on the outcome, is also compromised. This takes me to my original question, Why should Barry Bonds be treated any differently than Pete Rose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted December 14, 2004 Veteran Share Posted December 14, 2004 L3thal; you never answered the question, DO YOU THINK BONDS CHEATED? Dont forget, he used a substance banned by MLB! 585098732[/snapback] Did you read my post, or did you just click on Reply? Bonds' success isn't all about steroids, though you can argue that it did help him hit a few extra during his record breaking year. I clearly stated that he used steroids which helped him hit more HR's :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpaul1104 Posted December 14, 2004 Author Share Posted December 14, 2004 Did you read my post, or did you just click on Reply?I clearly stated that he used steroids which helped him hit more HR's :rolleyes: 585101239[/snapback] Instead of beating around the bush, why cant you just clearly state whether or not you think he cheated? And do you think cheaters should be in the HOF. :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Fact 1: Betting on a game in which you have an influence definately compromises the integrity of the game. Fact 2: The integrity of any game, in which an active cheater had an influence on the outcome, is also compromised. This takes me to my original question, Why should Barry Bonds be treated any differently than Pete Rose? 585099252[/snapback] Actually, those are both opinions. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted December 15, 2004 Veteran Share Posted December 15, 2004 Actually, those are both opinions. :laugh: 585102681[/snapback] :rofl: (Y) Instead of beating around the bush How clever. How long did it take you to come up with that? :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpaul1104 Posted December 15, 2004 Author Share Posted December 15, 2004 :rofl: (Y)How clever. How long did it take you to come up with that? :rolleyes: 585103153[/snapback] not bad up until this one! THIS IS WEAK! I liked the hand thing you put on the other thread though. Look, I never said that Bonds isn't one of the greatest players ever, he certainly is, but the HOF is not all about statistics. My question is mostly in relation to the HOF, not whether or not Bonds is a good player. You cant start letting admitted cheaters in. If you want to keep arguing this, leave his stats and abilities out and tell me why a cheater deserves to be honored and glorified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted December 16, 2004 Veteran Share Posted December 16, 2004 Take away his steroids, he still stands out with his talent. He is not your average MLB player and he has showed it since his rookie year. Yes, he admitted using steroids for a year or two, but that shouldn't be the sole reason to keep him out of the Hall of Fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chavo Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 This is just a natural progression. I mean look at the sad state of professional sports. It's a farce, it's comical. I say let him in and give him a big plaque that says exactly what he's done. And if we don't learn anything from it and we continue on like we are, the so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imtoomuch Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 No! MLB keeps Pete Rose out of the HOF because he bet on the games that his team wasn't involved in. Barry Bonds cheated during the games. He cheated, period. Cheaters shouldn't be rewarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpaul1104 Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 Take away his steroids, he still stands out with his talent. He is not your average MLB player and he has showed it since his rookie year. Yes, he admitted using steroids for a year or two, but that shouldn't be the sole reason to keep him out of the Hall of Fame. 585109436[/snapback] What he has admitted to doing shows a lack of integrity, character, sportsmanship, and a total disregard for respect and rules of the game! That should defineately be the sole reason for him not to be in the HOF! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattmatik Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Ok, I'm lost. When did Barry Bonds publically and officially state that he used steroids? From everything I've read and everything I've heard, he admitted to using an ointment cream that was given to him by the BALCO dude. The BALCO dude was on TV and said that he had clients take steriods...but NEVER mentioned Barry's name. So, either I've missed something of GREAT importance or, in all truth and honesty, the sports world is still accusing him of something not proven. Guilty until proven innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imtoomuch Posted December 17, 2004 Share Posted December 17, 2004 Ok, I'm lost. When did Barry Bonds publically and officially state that he used steroids? From everything I've read and everything I've heard, he admitted to using an ointment cream that was given to him by the BALCO dude. The BALCO dude was on TV and said that he had clients take steriods...but NEVER mentioned Barry's name. So, either I've missed something of GREAT importance or, in all truth and honesty, the sports world is still accusing him of something not proven. Guilty until proven innocent? 585111002[/snapback] It hasn't been proven, but do you really think Barry is going to admit to it, especially when many of the other players who admitted to using steriods are claiming that Bond's "trainer" is they one they got their steriods from? It's suspicious don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpaul1104 Posted December 17, 2004 Author Share Posted December 17, 2004 Does anyone have an idea why this topic has been viewed over 1500 times and only gotten 91 votes? Do that many people not have an opinion? If they dont want to vote why do they look? Just wondering! Im still new here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.... Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 The poll wasn't part of the original thread. I added it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3thal Veteran Posted December 18, 2004 Veteran Share Posted December 18, 2004 It's suspicious don't you think? 585113805[/snapback] There are lots of suspicious things out there. It's what you call, circumstancial evidence, which isn't good enough to blame him for it. Just because others got steroids from the BALCO guy, doesn't mean Bonds also used them. Afterall, the guy was Bonds' best friend, so he could've given him only the cream and nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpaul1104 Posted December 18, 2004 Author Share Posted December 18, 2004 I clearly stated that he used steroids which helped him hit more HR's :rolleyes: 585101239[/snapback] First you wrote this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpaul1104 Posted December 18, 2004 Author Share Posted December 18, 2004 . Just because others got steroids from the BALCO guy, doesn't mean Bonds also used them. 585119847[/snapback] Then you wrote this. Make up your mind please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpaul1104 Posted December 18, 2004 Author Share Posted December 18, 2004 The poll wasn't part of the original thread. I added it. 585119731[/snapback] Right. But the poll was added the same day I started the topic, Dec 7. There have been well over 1000 views since then. Its not a big deal, I was just curious. Keep up the good work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 You can post quotes in one reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts