The same as Mark Mcguire, Do you think they feel unembarrassed by getting the records in this way? Do we deserved to have posers in the hall of fame?
2007-07-24 09:08:10 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
Henry Aaron did not use drugs to enhance his power. Barry probably did, so yes. to some extent, there is unfairness to it.
Their egos are probably too big to allow them to feel anything negative about what they've done.
The fans are blameless and deserve better than posers in the Hall.
2007-07-24 22:53:59 · answer #1 · answered by harmonv 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are not a country that judges and convicts people based on what we think, it must be proven. The fact is that Bonds has never tested positive for any of the drugs on the MLB/Union list of banned substances. I do not believe he will ever test positive and, therefore, has nothing to be embarrassed about. The same can be said for McGuire.
2007-07-24 16:25:42 · answer #2 · answered by Frizzer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem with the steroid controversy is that it is he said she said. Other players have said that Bonds and McGwire both used steroids, but there is no proof other than that. Saying their records don't count based on the saying of others and no proof, would be like saying someone is guilty of committing a crime just because you said they committed it. I am not saying Bonds and McGwire did or didn't use steroids, all I am saying is that until there is proof either way their records should and will count.
2007-07-24 16:19:47 · answer #3 · answered by Robbo_op_98 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Barry hit those HR's with pure skill. Steroids and HGH did not help him at all when he took them.
I'm sure there is a lasting stigma following all of them, but the truth will come out when they're older and the health problems surface.
I believe that they are not posers, but since HGH and steroids were legal to take at that time, it's not their fault, only Bud Selig for not banning or making the drugs illegal.
2007-07-24 18:53:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
congrats!!
youve asked this question for the 1,000,000,000,000,000 time on YA
every Bonds question is the same and gets the same answer
its a matter of opinion. he did stuff before it was illegal. under the current policy, he is technically clean. so Bonds records will forever be under question, and he is innocent until proven guilty (as sad as this makes me) and whether or not the books have it, there will always be an asterisk next to his name in people's minds
EDIT "Have you seen my stapler?"
2007-07-24 16:16:19 · answer #5 · answered by TheSandMan 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Personally I think there should be an asterick next to Bond's record, but ultimately just like in our legal system. Bond's is innocent until proven guilty
2007-07-24 16:12:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
They have not found him guilty ---- yet. Therefore he deserves the record until they can tell us otherwise. Hopefully the truth comes out this summer!
2007-07-24 16:16:34 · answer #7 · answered by gd 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So nice to add a fresh and energizing perspective to the ongoing dialogue.
2pts, YABQ.
2007-07-25 03:01:11 · answer #8 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shut up with this question. Just go read the other 500000 of them
2007-07-24 16:11:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Until there is proof positive nothing can be done.
2007-07-24 16:34:42 · answer #10 · answered by Sharon S 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋