2007-09-26 11:15:16 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
No degenerate gamblers but ok to Klansmen and drunks.
2007-09-26 11:25:55 · update #1
It is the hallof fame for baseball on field accomplishments, this is why u have Cobb the klansman, Mantle the drunk, and the whole thing with not letting blacks play in the league. All have been admitted or omitted in the history of baseball. But i see not much has really changed in America we are still basing a lot of our thoughts on race and i am gulity of this also at times. But admiting it and trying to correct it is the key Thanks for all the answers.
2007-09-26 14:01:46 · update #2
why the hell not! regardless of what happened it didnt change his baseball career!
2007-09-26 15:31:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The baseball is an object denoting a single event. Letting Rose in would be glorifying a career that was tainted by gambling. Rose was given specifics for cleaning up & chose not to follow them. His loss.
Personally I think that Bonds will never make it into the HOF whether or not he admits to steriod use.
2007-09-26 19:45:10 · answer #2 · answered by anna s 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I whole heartedly agree. I love my SF Giants and I want Bonds to be inducted in the Hall of Fame with dignity. He hasn't been proven of anything wrong, just only accused. It's sad that people like Canseco and Ecko had to use Bonds as a ladder to get their 15 min of fame. Canseco was great but he was a proven cheater. Ecko, your clothes suck!
But if they do allow the ball, then let Pete Rose in. However, if Pete Rose never admitted to it, I think they would have agreed with you. If he kept it to himself, Pete would be inducted along with this ball. But, induct him in anyways and deny the ball, or fix the ball please. It's a black eye to the American way of innocence until proven guilty.
2007-09-26 20:37:55 · answer #3 · answered by Kevin L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To be honest with you, I don't see what one has to do with the other. The ball is a piece of history, asterisked or not. Accepting an artifact versus accepting a player are two completely different processes. Besides the point, Pete Rose violated MLB rules by gambling. If Bonds admits to taking steroids (which he hasn't), then I don't think he would've been violating MLB rules at the time anyway. All he would've done was lied to a grand jury.
2007-09-26 18:23:10 · answer #4 · answered by Jordan F 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well...I personally think Pete Rose should be in the hall but he is banned so he can't be...if they start banning balls that have been marked from baseball there will be a lot of stuff thrown out of the hall.
2007-09-26 18:20:56 · answer #5 · answered by JT-24 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pete Rose isn't a piece of memorabilia that will be put on display. I'm not sure, but there may be pieces of memorabilia associated with his career in Cooperstown; he's just not allowed to be a member.
2007-09-26 18:21:19 · answer #6 · answered by wiczyman 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Look, I realize Rose apologists and enablers have to grasp at whatever straws they can to get through the day, and most of their arguments are well past ridiculous and deep into pathetic, but this one is THE most implausible "if/then" chain of reasoning ever applied to ol' Pete's situation.
Just give it up and get a life already.
Rose messed his own bed. Rose is the only one who can try to clean it up. For 18 years now, he hasn't bothered thinking about starting.
2007-09-26 19:25:30 · answer #7 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hell no! No degenerate gamblers are allowed in the hall of fame.
2007-09-26 18:23:48 · answer #8 · answered by Tazman 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
..."ding", "ding", "ding"...! You win a World Series Ticket!!!! Now, how do you make it happen...? "Charlie" hustle is being "rail roaded"...
2007-09-26 18:21:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋