MLB Hall of Fame

oxrageous

Founding Member
It's Good to be King
Administrator
Jun 5, 2014
37,113
98,337
Founding Member
Bonds and Clemens can still get in later via the committee, and both will.
 

Spurdog98

Preston Brooks
Lifetime Member
Jan 3, 2018
4,860
7,315
I don't give any fuqs about who gets in or doesn't until the joke of a process stops being Dbags and puts Charlie Hustle in HOF. Bonds was juicing his azz off along with a bunch of others. That's supposed to be illegal in MLB but hey...whatever. I frankly couldn't care less if he was or not but don't give some BS about Rose betting on baseball as a reason he's not in.
 

Bullag8r

Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Jul 24, 2014
2,554
4,462
I am happy for Ortiz but the voters have been politically correct hypocrites before being PC hypocrites was cool
 

GatorJ

Founding Member
Hopeful
Moderator
Jun 11, 2014
21,176
34,052
Founding Member
The whole process is a joke. Bonds, Rose, and Clemens are all first ballot HOFers. Better than Ortiz by a mile.
 

oxrageous

Founding Member
It's Good to be King
Administrator
Jun 5, 2014
37,113
98,337
Founding Member
They’ll let Pete Rose in after he’s dead. That’s the way it should be.
 

oxrageous

Founding Member
It's Good to be King
Administrator
Jun 5, 2014
37,113
98,337
Founding Member
I don't give any fuqs about who gets in or doesn't until the joke of a process stops being Dbags and puts Charlie Hustle in HOF. Bonds was juicing his azz off along with a bunch of others. That's supposed to be illegal in MLB but hey...whatever. I frankly couldn't care less if he was or not but don't give some BS about Rose betting on baseball as a reason he's not in.
I don’t think it was against the rules when either of them started doing it.
 

Gatordiddy

Member in good standing
Lifetime Member
Jul 23, 2014
11,947
27,375
I don’t think Pete Rose was betting on his team losing was he?

the gist of what Ox was saying is...
"I don’t think it was against the rules when either of them started doing it."

Betting, or in this case, throwing or fixing the outcome of the game for financial gain, was against the rules.
It was against the rules when it happened in 1919 (thus the grand jury investigation) and it was against the rules when Rose did it in '89.
Regardless of whether he bet on his team to win or lose.

That's all I was getting at...
 

GatorJ

Founding Member
Hopeful
Moderator
Jun 11, 2014
21,176
34,052
Founding Member
the gist of what Ox was saying is...
"I don’t think it was against the rules when either of them started doing it."

Betting, or in this case, throwing or fixing the outcome of the game for financial gain, was against the rules.
It was against the rules when it happened in 1919 (thus the grand jury investigation) and it was against the rules when Rose did it in '89.
Regardless of whether he bet on his team to win or lose.

That's all I was getting at...
I’m probably wrong on this but I thought he was talking about the steroids. Not the Pete Rose thing. He just quoted the entire thing.

But I could be wrong…
 

oxrageous

Founding Member
It's Good to be King
Administrator
Jun 5, 2014
37,113
98,337
Founding Member
Obviously I was talking about steroids which weren’t technically against the rules until well after the fact.
 

oxrageous

Founding Member
It's Good to be King
Administrator
Jun 5, 2014
37,113
98,337
Founding Member
If Rose had come clean two or three decades ago about what he did and apologized he’d be in the Hall of Fame right now. However, he lied for so many years.
 

oxrageous

Founding Member
It's Good to be King
Administrator
Jun 5, 2014
37,113
98,337
Founding Member
Gambling has always been the #1 cardinal sin in baseball since day 1, and everyone knows it. Rose can get inducted after he’s dead, the arrogant lying fart doesn’t deserve the recognition while he’s living.
 

Gatordiddy

Member in good standing
Lifetime Member
Jul 23, 2014
11,947
27,375
I’m probably wrong on this but I thought he was talking about the steroids. Not the Pete Rose thing. He just quoted the entire thing.

But I could be wrong…

Got it... I thought it was about the betting.

Steroids.. holy crap. Talk about a lax attitude from MLB leadership for decades.
...but, just because they weren't specifically called out as illegal, they shouldn't be part of the game regardless.

The hard part now is... who should be crucified for it when it wasn't officially banned and/or tested for?
You could potentially put an asterisk on a lot of players - pre-Sosa/McGuire/Palmiero/Bonds.

When did steroids actually become prevalent?
Mayes, Mantle, DiMaggio era... before then... after then?
Hard to know for sure, especially the proof that any players actually took them prior to testing.

As ridiculed as the NFL is, at least there are some teeth to their testing results.
 

gingerlover

Junior Member
Lifetime Member
Sep 20, 2014
3,927
4,677
I could care less if they let Bonds and Clemens in. There are plenty of steroid users already in, just not publicly named. My bigger issue is that they are now saying steroids were bad, but didn't let guys in that were clean because they didn't have steroid numbers. Dale Murphy his 398 home runs clean and had everything else. If he had hit 400 he would have been automatic, but was punished because he didn't have steroid numbers. Now they are trying to say steroids matter. I'm sure there are others that were borderline and didn't get in, but if criteria were not based on steroid era numbers would have been in.

Schilling was punished for being a conservative.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    31,744
    Messages
    1,628,553
    Members
    1,644
    Latest member
    TheFoodGator