are you a racist if you believe that Clemens should go in the hall of fame but not bonds?

Question

face the facts....both played longer and put up more numbers because of use of perfomance enhancing drugs.disagree?

or is it a personality thing?in either case i think that is wrong.am i wrong?

let it fly!!

Answer 1

No more than you for simply asking this question.

Answer 2

Perhaps you don't really know the definition of a racist.
A racist would have a bias against ALL people of a particular race (leaving out the astute observation that we are all actually one race and everyone is a shade of brown, no white nor black)

So, the question would come down to this. If Roger Clemens, in the exact same scenario was let in (given that he's white), but had he been black, not let in, then you have yourself a race issue.

If Bonds was not to be let in as a black man, but would have been let in as a white man, you have yourself a race issue.

However, on your question, although without DNA evidence I can't prove it to you, I am 'pretty' sure that Bonds and Clemens are in fact two different people.

So, you have similar cases, Bonds and Clemens using HGH and/or Steroids to prolong a career, do they get into the HOF.

Bonds and Clemens are two different people so someone wanting in one and not the other 'may' be a race issue, but it still would be rare.

A lot of people that play the Bonds race card do so because they can't accept the fact that Bonds surly disposition actually plays a part in people's opinions.
The fact that he told a grand jury, while still lying to the public could also sway people.

So no, if someone would vote Clemens in and not Bonds, it's actually a very small chance that the decision is race related.

Answer 3

If Clemens is allowed in the Hall of Fame then Barry Bonds should with out a doubt be allowed in the Hall of Fame. Barry Bonds has been one of the best hitters ever just like Clemens has been one of the greatest pitchers of all time. But the real question is, If Barry Bonds is allowed in the Hall of Fame should Jose Canseco be allowed as well???? LOL I think he should be for having the largest head ever in the history of baseball and for being the biggest rat ever

Answer 4

Bonds was more than 'decent' before he left Pittsburgh. He was the best player of the 90s (yes, counting McGwire, Sosa, etc.) even before juicing, already a long for the hall of fame. Also, I'd give Bonds the edge because he would have been great without hitting billions of home runs, while Clemens is Power Pitcher, meaning he's less useful if he's throwing in the low 90s.

And yes.

Answer 5

Numbers are only part of what the voters look for when voting someone into the HOF. How they played the game and integrity are also factors. If it is determined that Bonds, Clemens, or any other candidate used drugs and cheated the game I don't believe they would get enough votes for induction to the HOF, regardless of their numbers. If both are found to have used drugs than both should face the same scrutiny, and if Clemens gets in and Bonds doesn't I believe all of us would have to take a very close look at the race card. However, I must say that I don't believe that would happen, those that cast HOF votes are not that stupid.

Answer 6

what does race have to do with it? neither of them deserve to go because they didn't play the game honestly w/true talent...they cheated, plain and simple, they are cheaters...the more Clemens wines and cries about it makes me believe it all the more that he cheated....any of the players that are mentioned in the report or have been found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs do not deserve to be put in the hall of fame....if they allow these two bums to be put in there then they should put Pete Rose in the hall of fame as well. Then we'll have to drug addicts and a gambling addict.

Answer 7

Not necessarily. You could be a biased Roger Clemens fan. I think that NONE of the following players should be in the Hall of Fame: Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Clemens.

Answer 8

if clemens and bonds did actually use performance enhancing drugs, (i.e. steroids, hgh) lets remember one thing, were the current rules in effect during the time (banning steroids) if not then well they would have to be acquitted of all charges and there records stand as they are. and yes both men are and will be future baseball hall of famers

Answer 9

My opinion- is that they should take away the stats in the years in which they used steroids (if they both used steroids, I'm not sure about Clemens yet) and decide if without those numbers they would get into the HOF. And that's my opinion, not what writers and the media tell people what to think and stuff.

Answer 10

1- Bonds admitted steroid use. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20041204/ai_n11483399

2- Clemens has not been proven yet.

3- Bonds is indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Clemens hasn't.

Should Clemens be kept out of the HOF based on suspicion? You be the judge.

No matter how you spin it, the situation is NOT the same for Bonds and Clemens.

Answer 11

I think it's a personality thing. Clemens put up big numbers his entire career and Bonds, though he had decent numbers, never hit 40 or more home runs until after he left Pittsburgh and his head swelled from growth hormone. Now how many guys actually get better after their 35th birthday?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Bonds#Pittsburgh_Pirates_.281986.E2.80.9392.29
Personally, I don't care who makes the Hall Of Fame. I'm never going to go to Cooperstown and I'm never going to watch the induction cermonies.