It seems that with every hall of fame vote, someone is left out and it begins the age old debate about being a role model. While I agree that athletes are role models, some good and others bad, is that really what should keep them out of the hall of fame? My case in point is the sacred cow, (in more ways than one) of baseball, Babe Ruth.
Ruth hit 637 of his HR's while using an illegal substance. This is not even up for debate because it is well documented throughout his career that he was a user. He often came to games while under the influence of this drug and at the same time, many believe it calmed his nerves and allowed him to perform at a much higher level than his counterparts. This same drug sends people to rehabilitation clinics in the US at an alarming rate each year. This drug does not have the same stigma as say Cocaine or Heroin, but it causes more deaths than both of those drugs combined and is the third leading cause of death in the United states only behind Tobacco and Heart disease.
What is this drug? Alcohol. For those who want to say it is okay, remember it was illegal from October of 1919 until 1933. That means for 14 of the most productive years of Babe Ruth's career he was using an illegal drug. How about that for being a role model. If you want to keep someone out of the hall of fame based upon stats that is one thing, but to do it because of social stigmas and morals, then why is he in the HOF? The morals of that day said alcohol was wrong.
http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/socalsportsfan/2006/02/04/This_Just_In_Babe_Ruth_Used_Illegal_Drugs
2007-01-14
10:35:40
·
2 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Law & Ethics