SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Writers elect no one to the HOF
|
Post by rcmark on Jan 11, 2013 17:20:08 GMT -5
I really don't care at all about the hall of fame, or who they induct, I just think leaving a huge part of the history of the game out over some false sense of morality is foolish. - this
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 11, 2013 18:25:11 GMT -5
The argument was disgracefully bad, the lack of class disgraceful as well. Dragging down Ted Williams in order to excuse Barry Bonds? Come on. In the finest internet tradition... O, RLY? Link: The New Bill James Historical Baseball AbstractRead the whole thing. Ted Williams is only a saint in the minds of those who have no living memory of his playing career.
|
|
sarasoxer
Veteran
Posts: 3,757
Member is Online
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jan 11, 2013 18:45:35 GMT -5
Why is character even considered during Hall of Fame voting? I don't understand it. Are we supposed to be upset with Bonds for doping and ruining* the sport for kids? Why haven't we ousted Cobb for fighting with paraplegics, fans, and being racist? *Bonds was the one that got me interested in the sport. He made it exciting. It's like Lance Armstrong and cycling. Even though he doped, his accomplishments are still amazing and inspired millions of Americans to take up cycling as a recreational hobby/sport. Just because Bonds cheated and Armstrong doped, we didn't stop loving the sport that they made us love - we developed a new outlook and moved on with our lives, but that passion is still there. Mantush, I could not agree with you more. You have made my GD SOBing day! ..and gone where cowards fear to tread. Boston has the damn bucks especially after making the Punto deal. Hey, we pay good money for tickets and should get F---ing results! The Sox can afford to hire the best laboratory science and chemists to produce a super team so that we can beat the Yankees and other dumb-ass clubs that don't keep up with 'the dope'. Let them be the idiots and moralists while we score 10 runs/game; catch up and go past the MFYs in all-time championships. And, after all isn't Boston a hub of intellect? Well then dammit, let's tap our own resources!! Hey, our kids will love it when our team wins and we will teach them to find loopholes the stupid rules police put in place....which, come on, all of us know are made to be broken. And, don't we all know it's not what you know but who you know? Let's for once be ahead of the curve and not worry about the wimpy, limp-wristed, moralistic do-gooders. Go hug your damned trees! Wins and excitement are where it's at and for teaching our kids the real/best way to succeed in life and to get the rush. No one is honest anyway so don't be a moron and play the damn game! I have felt this way ever since I watched that great futuristic sports movie "Rollerball". IMO It should be mandatory viewing by all Sox personnel. If it had been, we would not be sitting here today wondering when our next victory parade would occur. Sadly, the Sox seem to have a weakness in 'so yesterday' "morals" as sadly does the baseball HOF. Get with the modern day program boys! This is 2013 not 1913! Go Sox!!
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 11, 2013 18:55:45 GMT -5
I really don't care at all about the hall of fame, or who they induct, I just think leaving a huge part of the history of the game out over some false sense of morality is foolish. Seriously, they can start bitching about the character clause once every white player from before 1950 or so is removed from the Hall. Until then I don't want to hear it.
|
|
sarasoxer
Veteran
Posts: 3,757
Member is Online
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jan 11, 2013 19:18:06 GMT -5
Can anyone answer this? When did steroids officially become banned from baseball? Wasn't that after 03. The counter to this argument is obviously that since steroid use is illegal, the majors should not need have specific rules regarding their use. Laws obviously supersede the rules of MLB. I am sure we could think of underhanded/illegal things everyone would consider cheating that is not specifically banned by an MLB rule, but would breaking the laws of the US. Not saying I believe that the steroid users should be banned, but that specific argument is very weak. Also why is Aaron and Ripken getting a free pass as they were suspect from the 70's and to the 90's (for Cal) when they began and continued the Greenies phase of drugs in the clubhouse... Which is also Verifiable by Canseco and Damon's admission of the greenies being freely available in a bowl right up front in all the clubhouses. Steroids are believed by the writers to be performance enhancers, in the way that cocaine and "greenies" are not. Steroids do not change the ability of a player to hit for power or throw a fastball. Again not saying I believe that the steroid users should be banned, but that noting agin that this specific argument is very weak. Please provide your basis for the above highlighted. If you do not believe that steroids are truly PEDs, why were (are) players taking them and why are they banned by baseball? Also, how do you account for the Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds unparalled late-in-career- performance jumps? What is your position on use of drugs that are proven (to your satisfaction) as enhancing performance?
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 12, 2013 18:38:18 GMT -5
Can anyone answer this? When did steroids officially become banned from baseball? Wasn't that after 03. I don't think anyone answered your question. Steroid have been banned from MLB since 1991. I know it's ESPN, but the link below has some more information for anyone who isn't aware. There is so much misinformation about steroid in baseball that it is hard to keep to keep track. Though steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991, the league did not implement leaguewide PED testing until 2003espn.go.com/mlb/topics/_/page/the-steroids-eraSo the 'moral' dilemma can be argued over players who used steroids before 1991, but nobody currently up for the HOF. If they took steroids they cheated - pretty cut and dry. It should be noted that anyone who took Andro does not fall under this rule because it was not illegal until about 2000 (but it was obviously a steroid - so the moral argument is valid)
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 12, 2013 19:14:11 GMT -5
Steroids do not change the ability of a player to hit for power or throw a fastball. PEDs (mostly steroids) can be used to do the following: -improve energy levels -increased strength -increase muscles mass -aid workout recovery -reduce body fat -increase skeletal muscle mass -provide energy bursts which allows a person to accelerate or create torque from a stationary position -strengthens connective tissue -improves eyesight So a baseball player can get more muscle, workout more frequently, improve their eyesight, improve their body torque for swinging and throwing and have more energy on a daily basis. So actually 'YES' steroids and other PEDs DO help players hit for power and throw a fastball in many different ways. I have heard this same list of results from a USADA representative on a telecast in the past - but they don't seem to want to list these benefits (for obvious reasons). Cites below: www.livestrong.com/article/104856-benefits-steroids-athletes/www.baseballssteroidera.com/bse-all-performance-enhancing-drugs-list-baseball.htmlHere are the side effects if anyone is interested. www.usada.org/effects-peds/Long story short: the gains are well worth the risks for a fringy baseball player - even now imo. Players still get it WAY too easy. Just look at the 4-year bans given to most international athletes for a first time positive test.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jan 12, 2013 21:11:30 GMT -5
Can anyone answer this? When did steroids officially become banned from baseball? Wasn't that after 03. I don't think anyone answered your question. Steroid have been banned from MLB since 1991. I know it's ESPN, but the link below has some more information for anyone who isn't aware. There is so much misinformation about steroid in baseball that it is hard to keep to keep track. Though steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991, the league did not implement leaguewide PED testing until 2003espn.go.com/mlb/topics/_/page/the-steroids-eraSo the 'moral' dilemma can be argued over players who used steroids before 1991, but nobody currently up for the HOF. If they took steroids they cheated - pretty cut and dry. It should be noted that anyone who took Andro does not fall under this rule because it was not illegal until about 2000 (but it was obviously a steroid - so the moral argument is valid) One minor detail to this is that when Fay noted steroids were banned in 91 it wasn't that any or all steroids were banned... it was Unprescribed steroid usage has been illegal in the United States thus making them illegal in MLB. Just like recreational drugs that Mays, Stargell, and Aaron were taking. It is all a mute point now but whatever the writers did this year was wrong and their ethical lies to the people are just as wrong. That was and still is my point!
|
|
sarasoxer
Veteran
Posts: 3,757
Member is Online
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jan 12, 2013 22:24:34 GMT -5
I don't think anyone answered your question. Steroid have been banned from MLB since 1991. I know it's ESPN, but the link below has some more information for anyone who isn't aware. There is so much misinformation about steroid in baseball that it is hard to keep to keep track. Though steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991, the league did not implement leaguewide PED testing until 2003espn.go.com/mlb/topics/_/page/the-steroids-eraSo the 'moral' dilemma can be argued over players who used steroids before 1991, but nobody currently up for the HOF. If they took steroids they cheated - pretty cut and dry. It should be noted that anyone who took Andro does not fall under this rule because it was not illegal until about 2000 (but it was obviously a steroid - so the moral argument is valid) One minor detail to this is that when Fay noted steroids were banned in 91 it wasn't that any or all steroids were banned... it was Unprescribed steroid usage has been illegal in the United States thus making them illegal in MLB. Just like recreational drugs that Mays, Stargell, and Aaron were taking. It is all a mute point now but whatever the writers did this year was wrong and their ethical lies to the people are just as wrong. That was and still is my point! Ok gweg you're coming around to the well-established fact that steroids are PEDs so that is progress. Once again tho, what the writers did was right not wrong because PEDs violate the integrity clause in baseball and their usage should offend all true baseball fans in any case. You are a baseball player and take illicit PEDs, you are cheating. Cheating sacrifices integrity..plain & simple. And, I hope that this voting result discourages ballplayers who aspire to the HOF in the future to refrain from compromising their chances for entry. That is also an unspoken message. I don't know what recreational drugs you so cavalierly state Mays, Stargell & Aaron were taking. Perhaps you have inside info and would like to share it? In any case, the fundamental issue is PEDs and not boozing, "recreational drugs" carousing with women or other personal behavioral matters.
|
|
|
Post by buffs4444 on Jan 13, 2013 0:34:12 GMT -5
That's strange, I didn't think concrete proof was required on this topic, just a Potter Stewart-esque level of "I know a PED user when I see one".
As for the booze, racism, etc being a legitimate factor, they are because the BBWAA invoked the Integrity Clause to exclude candidates this year. Until a narrower "PED Clause" is defined, the integrity clause brings all that other heinous activity into the realm of fair game.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 13, 2013 1:12:07 GMT -5
One minor detail to this is that when Fay noted steroids were banned in 91 it wasn't that any or all steroids were banned... it was Unprescribed steroid usage has been illegal in the United States thus making them illegal in MLB. Just like recreational drugs that Mays, Stargell, and Aaron were taking. It is all a mute point now but whatever the writers did this year was wrong and their ethical lies to the people are just as wrong. That was and still is my point! So your argument is that if Clemens and Bonds had been prescribed the steroids then they weren't breaking the rules? I feel confident in saying that both Clemens and Bonds illegally took steroids which weren't prescribed by their doctors (although this is a loophole that you could use to argue for some other players) I'm not a big fan fan of the whole ethical debate. I only have the following arguments against PED users getting into the hall of fame: 1. They broke the rules - period (unless they took steroids legally) 2. Their numbers, which everyone uses to support their candidacy, are purely a result of their PED use which wasnt shared with ALL of basesball as many players chose not to cheat or didn't have steroids of this caliber available to them in their time. 3. To elect known steroid users into the hall of fame sends the message to all players, children and whoever else is paying attention that: IT PAYS TO CHEAT. I'm not going to say it doesn't pay to cheat more often than not but I don't like it in any avenue of life when cheating is rewarded. 4. The 'he would have made it even if he hadn't cheated!' argument is far worse than the argument of guessing who cheated. Catching a cheater is tough - knowing when a cheater began cheating and exactly how good he would have been if he hadn't cheated is next to impossible. As far as we know Barry Bonds may have taken steroids in high school. We just never know. You do have a point to your amphetamines (greenies) comment; obviously this is where we run into a grey area. Greenies and Steroids/HGH are like apples and oranges. Completely unalike in so many ways as the effects of steroids/HGH are far beyond those granted through greenies. But at the same time, they are both fruit. The problem with greenies is determining how much of a benefit they are over caffeine. Is caffeine a performance enhancer which should be illegal? (a devout Mormon would likely say yes) It's all a slippery slope and we have to figure out where to draw the line. My vote is that the line should be drawn at a level more strict than: 'let everything go - everyone was doing it'.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 13, 2013 1:13:59 GMT -5
But I do hope that MLB allows for an increase from 10 to 12 allowed votes per writer for the immediate future; otherwise there will continue to be a logjam resulting in normally deserving (non-PED connected) players being denied access (and players like Lofton not making it to a second ballot).
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 13, 2013 1:43:44 GMT -5
The problem in situations like the HOF voting is always the same one. In order to use moralistic criteria, you need moral arbiters. None of the voters meets that standard, not one of them. None of us do either.
Calling on them to be judge and jury on issues of personal behavior, above and beyond whatever value they might place on the player during his time in MLB, is ludicrous. In the age of the Internet, it's also a recipe for disaster. The day will probably come when there will be blogs whose sole purpose is to expose the failings of those who would be so arrogant as to claim such a role for themselves. That should give us all chills.
This is before we get to the long list of drunkards, thugs, violent racists, bigots, rapists, and other assorted "colorful characters" who've populated the game over its 150+ year history, more than a few of whom found their way into the Hall. MLB needs to get off this track. Nothing good will come of it.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Jan 13, 2013 2:24:32 GMT -5
So your argument is that if Clemens and Bonds had been prescribed the steroids then they weren't breaking the rules? I feel confident in saying that both Clemens and Bonds illegally took steroids which weren't prescribed by their doctors (although this is a loophole that you could use to argue for some other players) I'm not a big fan fan of the whole ethical debate. I only have the following arguments against PED users getting into the hall of fame: 1. They broke the rules - period (unless they took steroids legally) 2. Their numbers, which everyone uses to support their candidacy, are purely a result of their PED use which wasnt shared with ALL of basesball as many players chose not to cheat or didn't have steroids of this caliber available to them in their time. 3. To elect known steroid users into the hall of fame sends the message to all players, children and whoever else is paying attention that: IT PAYS TO CHEAT. I'm not going to say it doesn't pay to cheat more often than not but I don't like it in any avenue of life when cheating is rewarded. 4. The 'he would have made it even if he hadn't cheated!' argument is far worse than the argument of guessing who cheated. Catching a cheater is tough - knowing when a cheater began cheating and exactly how good he would have been if he hadn't cheated is next to impossible. As far as we know Barry Bonds may have taken steroids in high school. We just never know. You do have a point to your amphetamines (greenies) comment; obviously this is where we run into a grey area. Greenies and Steroids/HGH are like apples and oranges. Completely unalike in so many ways as the effects of steroids/HGH are far beyond those granted through greenies. But at the same time, they are both fruit. The problem with greenies is determining how much of a benefit they are over caffeine. Is caffeine a performance enhancer which should be illegal? (a devout Mormon would likely say yes) It's all a slippery slope and we have to figure out where to draw the line. My vote is that the line should be drawn at a level more strict than: 'let everything go - everyone was doing it'. No. Barry Bonds was not a pure creation of PED's, no MLB player is a creation of steroids. It's not even worth debating when the base assertion is this extreme, but unfortunately this view point seems to be the majority opinion from writers and fans. Even if you claim it's cheating, players/managers/owners who've cheated in some way have been inducted into the HOF. The writers who automatically dismiss the players who've been rumored to PED's from consideration are making a personal choice that is baseless and defies precedent.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 13, 2013 8:27:19 GMT -5
It's all a slippery slope and we have to figure out where to draw the line. My vote is that the line should be drawn at a level more strict than: 'let everything go - everyone was doing it'. So why does the "it was the style at the time" excuse apply to racists and not steroid users?
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 13, 2013 8:53:40 GMT -5
One minor detail to this is that when Fay noted steroids were banned in 91 it wasn't that any or all steroids were banned... it was Unprescribed steroid usage has been illegal in the United States thus making them illegal in MLB. Just like recreational drugs that Mays, Stargell, and Aaron were taking. It is all a mute point now but whatever the writers did this year was wrong and their ethical lies to the people are just as wrong. That was and still is my point! So your argument is that if Clemens and Bonds had been prescribed the steroids then they weren't breaking the rules? I feel confident in saying that both Clemens and Bonds illegally took steroids which weren't prescribed by their doctors (although this is a loophole that you could use to argue for some other players) I'm not a big fan fan of the whole ethical debate. I only have the following arguments against PED users getting into the hall of fame: 1. They broke the rules - period (unless they took steroids legally) 2. Their numbers, which everyone uses to support their candidacy, are purely a result of their PED use which wasnt shared with ALL of basesball as many players chose not to cheat or didn't have steroids of this caliber available to them in their time. 3. To elect known steroid users into the hall of fame sends the message to all players, children and whoever else is paying attention that: IT PAYS TO CHEAT. I'm not going to say it doesn't pay to cheat more often than not but I don't like it in any avenue of life when cheating is rewarded. 4. The 'he would have made it even if he hadn't cheated!' argument is far worse than the argument of guessing who cheated. Catching a cheater is tough - knowing when a cheater began cheating and exactly how good he would have been if he hadn't cheated is next to impossible. As far as we know Barry Bonds may have taken steroids in high school. We just never know. You do have a point to your amphetamines (greenies) comment; obviously this is where we run into a grey area. Greenies and Steroids/HGH are like apples and oranges. Completely unalike in so many ways as the effects of steroids/HGH are far beyond those granted through greenies. But at the same time, they are both fruit. The problem with greenies is determining how much of a benefit they are over caffeine. Is caffeine a performance enhancer which should be illegal? (a devout Mormon would likely say yes) It's all a slippery slope and we have to figure out where to draw the line. My vote is that the line should be drawn at a level more strict than: 'let everything go - everyone was doing it'. Do you watch the NFL? Because they're all on something.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 13, 2013 11:17:44 GMT -5
You do have a point to your amphetamines (greenies) comment; obviously this is where we run into a grey area. Greenies and Steroids/HGH are like apples and oranges. Completely unalike in so many ways as the effects of steroids/HGH are far beyond those granted through greenies. But at the same time, they are both fruit. It's all grey area. There's no purely logical reason that steroid use is categorically unacceptable but amphetamine use is (by the actions of the Hall) totally fine. Is a less successful cheater more honorable than a more successful cheater? Any player who was willing to get 5% better using amphetamines would clearly jump at the change to get 10% better using steroids, right? It's the same motivation and the same moral dilemma. Is the issue is character and integrity, then how effective a cheater is at cheating shouldn't matter. So when we talk about slippery sloaps and lines in the sand, remember, we're currently drawing a line that says racism and amphetamine use, ball doctoring, etc, are A-OK, no problem whatsoever, not something even worth debating. And on the other side of this line, steroid use is beyond the pale; so bad that we might have to keep you out of the Hall for no greater reason than you had rippling biceps in the 90s. So does the line we're drawing really make any sense? Or is it just a reflection of the personal agenda of the writers, under a flimsy guise of morality?
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jan 13, 2013 13:26:00 GMT -5
Ok gweg you're coming around to the well-established fact that steroids are PEDs so that is progress. Once again tho, what the writers did was right not wrong because PEDs violate the integrity clause in baseball and their usage should offend all true baseball fans in any case. You are a baseball player and take illicit PEDs, you are cheating. Cheating sacrifices integrity..plain & simple. And, I hope that this voting result discourages ballplayers who aspire to the HOF in the future to refrain from compromising their chances for entry. That is also an unspoken message. I don't know what recreational drugs you so cavalierly state Mays, Stargell & Aaron were taking. Perhaps you have inside info and would like to share it?In any case, the fundamental issue is PEDs and not boozing, "recreational drugs" carousing with women or other personal behavioral matters. Go back to the Pittsburgh trials and you find quite a bit even ESPN acknowledged that at one point. sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kreidler_mark&id=2225013sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=2289509Also this explains why amphetamines were and are better day to day and needed a pick up to be quicker to the ball in swinging, eye to hand coordination and that is why they help position players in those 10 day straight deals... you know like in the 60's and 70's when the common college folk need to stay up and study all night then pop one more just before the final exam to be alert and quick thinking to pass. Then that night crash hard and then get up half ready the next day to go on to the next. Well ball players do that too and it was prevalent back then. When they actually started testing for Greenies the game came back to the focus on good ballplay. I didn't really want to get into all this but I think some of you need or may want an explanation. If you want to address anabolic steroids as PED's fine, but realize what they really do is enable the best production of protein synthesis in your body which then converts to energy and creates red meat in your body which turns into useable muscle if and only if you train hard and exercise at an elite level and continue to do so. Thus this helps you keep that masculine body that stays healthier (bigger mass) over the LONG SEASON. It doesn't go to help you hit any better or have a better eye or anything along that line but it does keep your body mass up so that you can sustain power throughout the year. Heck alcohol actually will do close to the same job if you get rite down to it (albeit for a shorter time). WHY because alcohol is like protein converted into energy to produce mass. The key than is which one does it with less work IE energy used to convert... Alcohol does this part better because it is already broken down into ethyl alcohol and just needs to be converted into energy. The downfall those is if you take to big or a dose of ethyl alcohol and don't add enough sugars and fats it gives you that hangover and the extra energy is wasted off in your system. NOW don't do that training and high performance exercise and you get the Josh Beckett effect IE the beer belly!!! Greenies on the other hand don't create anything, they total best scenario use is to convert the fats and carbs in your body to a quick energy to use to waken your sense for eye contact wrist and hand quickness and such. The down fall to this is it takes the fats out of your muscle (the fats create the "marbling of the meat" or toning to keep your body as a oiled machine. Thus over a long period of time you become thinner in mass and weaker. Taken together you have the modern day ballplayer of the 1990's and 2000's. Baseball as you saw in the article above continually looked the other way on the real creation of the problem and the hallo of famers in it today are just as guilty has Clemens, Bonds, Big Mac and the others. One side note when Clemens was at trial and his side kept taking the b-12, b -complex shots THAT WAS TRUE... How I know this is if you take anabolic steroids or prednisone or solu delta cortef as a stimulent you need to immediately stimulate the electrolytes in your body and also stimulate the reproducing of natural enzymes in your body. Also make up for nitrogen loss , one of the best ways is to inject a combination of b-12, b-complex, and CaCo-Iron-Copper to re-stimulate your body to start naturally production of enzymes again as well as keep your vitamins up in your blood for a health red cell amount. I don't advocate this but as a trainer (not human but animal still the same) I do have some knowledge in this. I once again don't advocate steroids but the fact to me is that the baseball players and others in the hall are no different then the others today. Heck they caused today by their actions! So the only fix is to have a drug acknowledgement in the hall that admits all parties were involved in some way... Sorry for the rant!
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 13, 2013 16:03:16 GMT -5
For those who don't want the writers to vote on the HOF, who would you have decide? From what I've seen, the HOF players, and fans don't want players who used PED's in.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Jan 13, 2013 16:22:26 GMT -5
For those who don't want the writers to vote on the HOF, who would you have decide? From what I've seen, the HOF players, and fans don't want players who used PED's in. Why should those HOFer's, particularly the ones complaining and who are guilty of starting the downfall into the PED slippery slope get to decide who they want in? I personally want a statement from the league stating the PED era included back into the 50's and some of those in the hall are just as guilty and therefore PED use before testing can not be counted any different than back then when the Mays, Stargell and all those others including the owners got in! Than let the writers decide by STATS!
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 13, 2013 17:15:08 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply gweg. As i said before I don't have the answers.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 13, 2013 20:46:58 GMT -5
For those who don't want the writers to vote on the HOF, who would you have decide? From what I've seen, the HOF players, and fans don't want players who used PED's in. I would like the decisions to be made by a one person committee consisting of me.
|
|
sarasoxer
Veteran
Posts: 3,757
Member is Online
|
Post by sarasoxer on Jan 13, 2013 20:51:02 GMT -5
I don't want to sound like I am locked in black & white cement on any issue. There are a lot of nuances on many things. At base though I want all players (in any game) to be on a level field and without PEDs (however defined) period!...That is a nirvana that probably can't exist on this planet no matter how sophisticated the testing or oversight given human frailties. But, I don't want those who abide by the rules designed to insure fair play to be disadvantaged by those who don't. And I don't want those who sacrifice their integrity to profit monetarily or otherwise thereby. Look inward all. Don't you want that integrity in your core?? Without moralizing, should the basis really be "the end justifies the means"? Not for me.
Let me present the following:....If one were working for a corporation and one knew someone had cheated or connived to get ahead..and thereby earned the big bucks, instead of you, perhaps the more deserving, a high character guy, how would you feel? I'll answer that for you. You would be P----d! And you would probably be tempted to employ the same strategy unless you had impeccable and admirable integrity. Few do but I salute them.
Look, people who cheat at anything are out of my field of respect. Done deal...not interested. PED use is soundly in that category for me.
Where does one draw the line on PEDs? Are "greenies" PEDs? I understand that they can tap bodily resources to produce a very short term (2-7 hour) heightened concentration and alertness level altho the downside is increased fatigue, insomnia etc. following dosage. Peter pays the piper.
For me greenies are not in the same category as Steroids as I understand the potential impact. They do not make you bigger, stronger, faster, better.
I respect and support the HOF writers' determination as imperfect as it may be.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 13, 2013 21:22:35 GMT -5
For those who don't want the writers to vote on the HOF, who would you have decide? From what I've seen, the HOF players, and fans don't want players who used PED's in. I would like the decisions to be made by a one person committee consisting of me. That's my kind of committee. ;D
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on Jan 14, 2013 9:06:22 GMT -5
I would like the decisions to be made by a one person committee consisting of me. Screw you. There will be two of us. All conversations regarding acceptance will only be rendered after 6 Irish Car Bombs each. A third party, consisting of 1 lingerie model will record our decisions, and cover the bar tab.
|
|
|