I think yes... I'll let you know why later.
Best argument gets the BA.
2007-12-14 03:03:57 · 9 answers · asked by Reduviidae 6 in Sports ➔ Baseball
For example: Rafael Palmeiro... Obvious choice... But a positive steroid test...
2007-12-14 03:11:23 · update #1
Thanks Ryan... Good answer.
2007-12-14 03:17:14 · update #2
tibs... By proven I'm saying they have tested positive or admitted...
Feel free to comment otherwise too... Such as in cases like Clemens... No real proof yet...
2007-12-14 03:21:13 · update #3
Proven? as in:
1. a preponderance of evidence (civil court matter),
2. beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal court),
3. with *any* evidence or innuendo (in the court of public opinion).
Which one?
If it is 1. or 2. how are you going to get these guys into a real courtroom in the first place, what criminal act did they perform? answer: none
If it is a civil matter, who is going to bring the complaint? and what are they going to sue for? Ooohhh, Bonds hit one out of the park, when it should have landed in the 10th row where I was sitting SUE! SUE!
If it is 3, then how do you rightfully and fairly judge them. It seems by your wording that you have already tried, convicted, and sentenced them to MLB 'death'. Is this fair?
Here's another question to consider: How many HRs did Bonds hit against Clemens in the 'roids era? When both are on 'roids, the playing field is 'even', isn't it?
Here is one more question. How many of Bond's HRs were more than 10 yards past the 'wall' that would have been just 1 foot past the wall if he wasn't on 'roids? They still would have been home-runs. Sure his count would be lower, but it still would have been between 714 and 756, and he would have been in shape to go another season to break 756.
.
2007-12-14 03:18:04 · answer #1 · answered by tlbs101 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Obviously if you get elected into the Hall of Fame - you've had an oustanding career. Great numbers, most likely hold a record or two - whether it's a team record or MLB record. If it's proven that a player used any type of performance enhancers, it's all tainted as far as I'm concerned. Who knows if a player would achieve the same things without the drugs or not?
2007-12-14 03:31:03 · answer #2 · answered by Elle 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because the cheated to get there. On the news yesterday they said the only ones that were proven not to have taken steroids, were the Red Sox. Not one player this year at least, was tested positive. Proving you don't need performance enhancing drugs to be great. If the athletes of all types put their minds to it and strive to be the best, then that should be enough. They may not always win, but at least they did it with pride and know they did it honestly.
2007-12-14 03:19:48 · answer #3 · answered by Memere RN/BA 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No cheater that has been caught has ever been admitted to the Hall of Fame and that's the way it should be. Period.
It's the Hall of Fame. A memorial for the greatest players in baseball history.
Those that used steroids, HGH, the clear, and whatever else is out there to achieve numbers good enough to be considered eligible for the Hall of Fame, should be added to the "banned for life" list.
2007-12-14 04:50:20 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe that the players with suspicion of drug use, but no positive test results will be 1st ballot inductees.
The players with positive test results or have been caught with evidence showing receipt of steroids but no prescription will not enter the HOF on the 1st ballot or even at all.
The players that basically confessed and told their stories to MLB to help with the investigations will be 1st ballot inductees.
If there are players not of HOF caliber but have displays of special note in the HOF, their storylines will not have asterisks or special notations next to their achievements.
2007-12-14 03:22:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I say no. That is rewarding them for doing something wrong. It also sends a negative message to future players and kids who look up to them.
If it ok for Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, etc. to take performance enhancing drugs and get rewarded is that not like saying it's ok to take meth or diet pills to stay up all night and study as long as you get good grades in the end?
2007-12-14 03:18:31 · answer #6 · answered by Janet H 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Abstolutely not. I think the key word in your question is "proven users" who have taken performance enhancing drugs. If there is proven evidence, not just somebody's word.....then they should not be granted admission into the Hall of Fame.
2007-12-14 03:13:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No , it takes away from the sportsmanship of any sport.
2007-12-14 03:33:04 · answer #8 · answered by Gayle L 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.
2007-12-14 04:09:20 · answer #9 · answered by †Lawrence R† 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋