I mean, he didn't use a prohibited substance at the time he was playing and he was always a positive image for the sport.
2007-05-13 21:53:05 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Other - Sports
He had the opportunity in the past vote and did not get enough support. Rightly or wrongly, he tarnished his image by not coming clean in his testimony before the Congressional Committee.
MLB owners, player's association, commissioner and media were enablers for the steroid era to flourish, but it will be individual players paying the price when their names are on the possible HOF list.
2007-05-14 05:15:40 · answer #1 · answered by Zombie Birdhouse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Haool of Fam is so watered down these days. He will probably get in. He is not a hall of famer. Look back on the 50 sna 60s players see the standards they had then, for admission. Sorry if we disagree but he is not a Hall of Fame player.
Very good player. Just not elite.
2007-05-14 09:48:28 · answer #2 · answered by Michael M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, steriods were not an issue when he played in his prime. I personally think they should make a bigger deal of the sreet drugs then steriods. I mean baseball;s whole thing is trying to set a good image for kids right?
2007-05-14 16:32:42 · answer #3 · answered by Martino78 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah I think so. He was a great ball player.
2007-05-14 05:01:43 · answer #4 · answered by kawika357 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋