I've seen a lot of people on this board say something like, "If Bonds gets into the HOF, then Pete Rose should be allowed in as well."
I'm not sure if some of you actually realize what the difference is between what Bonds is accused of doing, and what Rose admitted to doing.
What Bonds is accused of doing, at the most, would land him a 50 game suspension from baseball. And that's if, and only if, he tests positive for steroids, otherwise MLB has no grounds so suspend him. And at this point, there is no "just" reason to deny him a bid into the hall of fame.
Rose certainly has the numbers to get in, but what he did was so bad, he didn't get a slap on the wrist and a 50 game suspension, he got banned for LIFE. Not suspended... Banned. Gambling on the game is the worst thing you can do as a player, coach, owner, umpire, etc. It's worse than taking steroids, far worse. So why is everyone lumping these two together? It's two completely separate issues.
2007-08-09
19:19:26
·
8 answers
·
asked by
wedge47
5