I've seen some comedy skits recently about baseball player Barry Bonds making fun of his alleged steroid use. As most people already know, Barry Bonds is close to reaching some records with his home run hits but he's also been at the center of some scandals involving the use of steroids and growth hormones among baseball players. I think it would be shameful for the Baseball establishment to let Barry Bonds into any record book if those records were achieved with the help of steroids.

So the question for debate is
If the Baseball officials find Barry Bonds guilty of using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, should Barry Bonds be allowed into the BaseBall Hall of Fame or any Official Baseball record book?

It’s bad enough that Bonds had what has been reported as the worse attitude for any major sports figure, he was infamous for being an absolute jerk in the locker room and a cry baby. A prominent sports writer, John Feinstein, made a comment a few years ago that of the thousands of athletes he had interviewed for research and articles only one requested a fee for the interview: Barry Bonds. A multi-millionaire for playing a game and he acted like everyone owed him.

There’s no doubt he took performance enhancing drugs, you simply don’t put on the muscle mass like he did in his mid 30’s. Coupled with hair loss, acne, bloated face and increased head size, all the classic symptoms of steroid use are there. Then there’s the calendar that was found during the BALCO investigation that details a daily regiment of drugs.

In 1998 he hit 37 home runs, in 2000 he hit 49 and the next year he broke the all time season record with 73. This stretch coincides with his alleged steroid use. And baseball didn’t start testing for steroids until 2003.

I heard Mark McGuire make a comment that “you still have to put the bat on the ball”. Well, increased strength = increased bat speed, allowing the hitter to sit back just a few milliseconds longer which can make all the difference. With increased strenth coupled with repetitive practice increases bat control so now the batter can put the lumber on the leather more accurately. Consider these factors and during the course of a season those few dozen long balls caught on the warning track suddenly find themselves in the bleachers or McCovy’s cove.

He’s tried to plead ignorance by claiming he really wasn’t sure what all was being injected to his body. Yeah right Barry, multi million dollar athlete and you’re not concerned what’s being injected into your body on a daily basis.

Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire and any other athlete who is found guilty of using illegal performance enhancers should be banned from the Hall of Fame and any record books. No asterisk by their name, completely banned. It cheapens the accomplishments of real baseball players like Hank Aaron, Jackie Robinson, and Babe Ruth.

I don't watch baseball. It's about as exciting as watching paint dry. I grew up in a house full of Cincinnati Reds fanatics, but I never developed an appreciation for the subtle nuances of the Great American Pastime. Watching guys scratch themselves, spit chewing tobacco and whiff at balls in a 0-0 pitcher's duel isn't my idea of a good time.

That said, even I watched with a strange fascination when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were battling for the hitting title several years ago. The probability that both were juicing on steroids makes me regret that interest.

Barry Bonds was supposedly racked by jealousy of McGwire and what 'roids had done for him. So, if you can't beat 'em, cheat like 'em.

I don't feel a bit sorry for the persecution Bonds is suffering through. Americans will put up with a lot. We don't care if our sports heroes are racists, drunks, wife beaters, addicts, bona fide idiots and will sleep with any sentient creature. Just don't be a cheater. Bonds did and got caught doing so. Sucks for him.

IF it is proven Bonds took steroids the only way he should get into the Hall of Fame is if he buys a ticket. His records should be stricken or marked by an asterisk.

The same thing applies to McGwire and Sosa.

If the Baseball officials find Barry Bonds guilty of using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, should Barry Bonds be allowed into the BaseBall Hall of Fame or any Official Baseball record book?

My question involves the "if." Baseball had no steroid policy with penalties attached until 2004.



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/20...id-policy_x.htm

I have a couple of question. What level of "proof" is necessary if Bonds hasn't failed a steroid test?

I realize that the concept of ex post facto may not be applicable to private groups, but should Bonds be punished for breaking a rule before the rule existed?

Allow me to throw a little gas on the fire here. I'm what nighttimer would call a Cincinnati Reds fanatic and a season ticket holder to the Red's Dayton Dragons single A baseball team. Two rows back from 3rd base and a cold Budweiser....just ain't nothing better....ahhh....except maybe sex. Or a Buddy Guy concert. Or a hot interesting topic on AD. Ok, maybe baseball is a little boring, but I love the game.

Anyhow, Bonds record should stand. No question about it. I have no idea if Bonds is a jerk or not. He's never talked smack to me or about me. I think most beat writers are jerks, so that would at least make them even. Meaning, his attitude has nothing to do with his skills.

You can understate the importance of putting the bat on the ball all you want, but that just proves my point. That is the key difference.

Babe Ruth got 714 homeruns. No question he was great. But he batted against pitchers who as a rule, finished the game. There was no relief pitching. They even pitched in extra innings. They used spitballs. They used vaseline. They scuffed the ball. And they had dead arms.

Hank Aaron is the stud. He hit 755 homeruns in an era of relief pitching. He had to hit these homeruns against fresh arms. Spitballs weren't allowed.

Barry Bonds hit all his homeruns in an era of specialized pitching and Tommy John surgery. Pitchers are throwing harder and longer because they have been medically enhanced. Most starters don't last 6 innings. Middle relief starts around the 4th or 5th inning and a closer comes in for the last 3 outs (if he can get the save). Pitchers are not pitching to Bonds. He sets record for walks drawn. So, he has fewer pitches to hit to get this record.

You just can't compare eras. Period. Too much is different. Everyone had some type of advantage. I don't agree with steroids any more than I agree with spitballs or pitchers throwing 16 innings. But if Bonds gets the record, it's a record. Otherwise throw them all out.

There is no question as to whether or not Bonds has taken steroids, he HAS used them, period. The only question is what to do, and my solution is to do whatever it takes to prevent him from getting inducted into the hall of fame and break out the eraser and take his, McGwire's, Sosa's and Palmeiro's [and everyone else who has taken steroids that we know of] out of the record books. I'm a hardcore Boston Red Sox fans in the heart of Yankee-country, but if Manny Ramirez or even God forbid David Ortiz was found to be a CHEATER I would be saying the exact same thing about them. Whatever happened to the integrity of the game of baseball? How can we tolerate and essentially reward cheating in a game as American as McDonald's?

CP

If the Baseball officials find Barry Bonds guilty of using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, should Barry Bonds be allowed into the BaseBall Hall of Fame or any Official Baseball record book?
I'm not a huge baseball fan, but I must admit I was caught up in the excitement when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were battling it out. Especially because Mark is a "homey" (from Surf City, USA, thankyewverymuch). I was disappointed when I learned he was a juicer. Barry Bonds, on the other hand, is just a jerk.

All professional sports have become more about science than the sport. If steroid use is so prevalent and common in baseball, is it really "cheating"? Why doesn't the league just recognize it, and note which players are using what drug, sort of like they do with horses who race while on Lasix or Bute, and keep separate records - juicers and real players. Or maybe they should have a 'Roid League separate from the others. Hey, if guys want to get that Neanderthal ridge on their foreheads and shrink their you-know-whats to the size of walnuts so they can have 30-inch biceps and "break records", more power to 'em! The unfortunate thing is that these artificially enhanced "athletes" are still considered heroes to kids. That's the downside, IMO.

Personally, I think the game should be played by guys who only have the equipment they were born with, simply un-fooled around with - as the orange juice commercial says - and anyone who uses 'roids or whatever shouldn't have records kept of their so-called "accomplishments".

While I do certainly believe he used them, what proof do we have? Without proof, providing any consequences violates our whole judicial concept, does it not? I further have issue with the 'everyone else that we know of' concept. There are certainly many, many players in baseball who have used steroids...to the point where using them only leveled the competing field, in all liklihood. Singling out those few who are currently most suspected is saying that its ok for the vast majority of users, simply because they weren't prominent enough to get themselves caught. This then sends the message that its ok to use drugs, just not ok to get caught doing it (wait, not even that, as without proof, none of those you cite here have really been 'caught' yet, have they?). Further, given that such use likely did only level the playing field, what then is the justification for removing them from the records books? As several prominent players have stated, use of performance enhancing drugs has been ongoing throughout baseball's history. If you want to open up that particular Pandora's box, exactly where then do you draw the line? What about all those who have used amphetamines?

I think it goes without saying that the fans/owners/managers etc. are just as guilty as the players, for fostering/allowing an environment where taking such drugs became so rampant, and yet was ignored by those who could have done something about it. What then should the penalty be for them? There was recently a very good article in ESPN the magazine talking about Bonds' apparent decision to use steroids. During the year in which McGwire and Sosa were battling it out for breaking Ruth's record, Bonds reached the 400 home run/400 steals milestone...the first and only person in history to do so. Bonds was clearly a superior baseball player to either Sosa or McGwire, yet they were receiving all the attention for using their juiced up bodies to hit home runs. It was clear what people wanted to see. Why then the uproar when they got it? This attitude is hypocritical in the extreme....not that that is surprising at all. Fans the world over are renowned for their ability to raise athletes up on a pedastal, only to then further rejoice when they bring them crashing down. It's not the athletes that are guilty here...they have simply provided the product people wanted to see. So, if you want to start handing out penalties--why not cut to the chase and chastise the source? People want to see larger than life heros. Larger than life is exactly what they got.

If the Baseball officials find Barry Bonds guilty of using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, should Barry Bonds be allowed into the BaseBall Hall of Fame or any Official Baseball record book?
yes he should. Quite simply he is the best at his game. There are lots of players on steroids and they don't come anywhere near his level of ability. Plus it is his body and if he is willing to pay the price for continued steroid use then that is his perogative.
Add the fact that i watch sports to be entertained i want to see long ball. not team play.
I want to see the best, not average.
Athletes push themselves above and beyond. That is all Bonds has done.

My knowledge of sports is about as close to zero as it is possible to be, but I will address a more general question here. In records of this kind, we acknowledge the event and not the person. I have no idea who Barry Bonds might be, or what kind of record he might be about to break, but if he breaks it, that fact should be recorded in the proper place.

This seems particularly true when we are talking about a record -- an objective fact -- instead of an award. Suppose this Bonds person was voted "Most Valuable Player." (Is there such an award in baseball? I have no idea.) Suppose that later the organization who voted him that award found out that he did something improper during the time under consideration for the award. Should the fact that he was voted this award be removed from the records? I would say not. If the same organization voted to revoke the award, that fact could also be recorded.

A real life example, from Wikipedia:



Even though Williams chose to resign, she was Miss America from 9/17/83 to 7/23/84, and that fact should remain in the records. Even if the people in charge of the pageant had voted to revoke her crown, I would say that she should still be recorded as Miss America from 9/17/83 until the date that her title was revoked.

If the Baseball officials find Barry Bonds guilty of using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, should Barry Bonds be allowed into the BaseBall Hall of Fame or any Official Baseball record book?

The Baseball Hall of Fame is something of a sham anyway. I don’t think character should have anything to do with inclusion. If it did, then many legends, including Ty Cobb probably would not be members.

It is also a sham because players who belong are excluded for one reason or another. Pete Rose may be a scoundrel, but he got more hits than anyone who ever played the game and did it by sheer hustle and determination. A complete injustice was done to Roger Maris, who broke Babe Ruth’s single season homerun record in 1961. He is not in the Hall of Fame.

Maris has more than adequate credentials including:



http://pw2.netcom.com/~houdini/maris.html

What “sin” has kept Maris out of the Hall of Fame? My opinion is that this “nobody” dared to break the "great" Babe Ruth’s (a man so distinguished that a candy bar sports his name) record. I graduate from high school in 1961 and remember the season well. Both Maris and fellow Yankee Mickey Mantle chased Ruth's record that summer. (it was sort of a preview of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa decades later) Yankee brass, Dan Topping in those days, wanted the record broken.

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlib...Topping_Dan.stm

They, however wanted the “golden boy” Mickey Mantle to hit 61. It didn’t happen that way. For his efforts, Maris was given a big *. The excuse: Ruth had played when there were 154 games and Maris played a 162 game schedule. I’ve always wondered if the asterisk would have been included if Mantle had broken the record.


Then in 1974, Hank Aaron, now a revered legend, broke Ruth's lifetime homerun record.



For his efforts, Aaron was deluged with racist hate mail.

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00006764.html

Although it didn’t happen, some wanted an asterisk by Aaron's name. The excuse this time was that Aaron played more seasons than Ruth.

So now we come to the question of Barry Bonds and talk of asterisks and exclusion from the Hall of Fame.

Fox Sports points out that in the years before he was “suspected” of using steroids, Bonds already had Hall of Fame credentials.



http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5511388

Sheesh, we can’t judge Bonds "in a vacuum." Sounds a lot like Maris and the number of games played and Aaron and the number of years played. Fox Sports doesn’t seem capable of getting it right anymore than its cousin, Fox News Channel.

Bonds belongs in the Hall of Fame. Character? The criteria for induction of into the Hall of Fame are not exactly the same as the ones for entering the “pearly gates” and Bud Seelig (I can just hear Judy Collins singing “Send in the Clowns”) and the other buffoons who have run baseball for the past several years, are no St. Peters.

A more important element is that we live in an age when people seem to want to punish anyone who strays, or is even suspect of straying, to the maximum. I just don’t buy into the idea of maxing everyone out. When and if Bonds fails a steroid test, he should suffer whatever penalties are applicable under current baseball rules--nothing more, nothing less.



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/20...id-policy_x.htm

He's already admitted to taking the "cream and the clear" Hobbes...He just said he didn't know that they were steroids. So if you need proof, there you go. If he's telling the truth [ha] and he didn't know they were steroids, my policy as MLB Commisioner would be "I don't care". And obviously, if he is lying [which he most likely is], then he should be erased from the books.

CP

I like baseball. I've been following the Yankees since forever.

Why does anyone care about this? What does it matter? It's a game. At the end of the day it's just a game. It's 4 hours of your life watching talented people do wondrous things. Who cares how they do it?

Babe Ruth could have speeding out of his skull for all we know. Heck we know he was loaded.

What is this imaginary virtue quest all about really?

Cheaters never win and winners never cheat? HA! Cheaters win all the time kid, get used to it.

Respectfully, you can’t compare Bonds or Aaron to Babe Ruth. Hank Aaron took 12,364 at-bats to hit 755 homers, while Ruth had 8,398. Literally 50% more at bats. Bonds is closer to Ruth, with just over 9,000 at-bats, but he plays in an era of charter jets, human growth hormone, “cream and clear,” 4-star hotels, workout regimen replacing alcohol binges, etc. Forget those “tired” pitchers he was facing, Babe was good enough to be a starting pitcher for the Red Sox back when they could win a world series more often than every 80 years. Babe Ruth hit more home runs than most teams for some of those years. (In 1920, when he hit 54 homers, only the Philadelphia A’s with 64 as a team beat Ruth, the other teams in the league all hit less than 54 total).

If you’re going to compare circumstances, Bonds and Aaron are much more comparable. Even then, you can't compare Bonds vs. the press with the hostility of some racists and death threats towards Aaron as he neared the record. This guy had to literally hit home runs knowing their could be a sniper aimed at him. And, as you note, they both played in the relief-pitcher era. In Aaron’s further defense, I’m pretty sure he hit at least a few of those homers against Gaylord Perry, in an era when the the spitter wasn’t “allowed.”

I wore #44 throughout little league in honor of Hank Aaron (and later Reggie Jackson), but Babe Ruth transcended the game. Despite being the greatest hitter of our generation, Bonds isn’t fit to shine either of their shoes. He’s such a prime example of the selfish, petulant athlete, envious of Sosa/McGuire, and so he poisoned his system with steroids and had so many injuries. The irony is that, even hitting 35-40 homers a year, if he had just stayed healthy, he’d be at 700 homers anyway “the natural way.” He deserves everything that he gets.

If the Baseball officials find Barry Bonds guilty of using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, should Barry Bonds be allowed into the BaseBall Hall of Fame or any Official Baseball record book?

If Bonds had any class, he’d retire before breaking either record. Maybe his injuries are some of his karma gaining on him at just the right time. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

I think that you could make a case for perjury, drug-trafficking and tax evasion as keeping him out of the hall of fame. As for the record books, he should remain unless he is shown to have definitively violated rules under the current steroid policy. Baseball’s hall of fame has many shady characters in it, and let’s not forget a certain ex-USC running back with a dead wife has a bust in the Football hall of fame in Canton. Along these lines, I think that the time to put Pete Rose in the Hall has come as well.

CP, this was the point I poorly attempted to make in my first post when I discussed Bond’s character, because this is what it boils down to. And some might say that sports has little relevancy in society but I think it does.

My father who got me hooked on the game believes that Jackie Robinson had as much to do with moving integration forward in American as much as any other single event with the exception of Rosa Parks. I wasn’t around then but believe him as I’ve read similar opinions.

This quote by Jackie regarding his team mate Pee Wee Reese says a lot about the character of players in the past.


Integrity and humility, quite possible never put into the same sentence with Barry Bonds until just now. Today’s prima donnas like Bonds need to take a lesson from those who came before them. They act as if the records they chase weren’t set by real men who may have hooked a nation on a game as much for the character of the players as the game itself. These older players didn’t treat reporters with disrespect; they understood it was part of their job. I’ve seen Bonds acting like a Class A jerk in interviews (and I may have just insulted Class A jerks).

Bonds, McGuire and the rest have put themselves before the game, something their predecessors wouldn’t have imagined.

Hobbes, I don’t know if you can blame this on the fans. For different reasons a fan of the game will enjoy a 1-0, 2 hitter the same as 9-7 slugfest with half a dozen dingers. After the ’96 strike when attendance and tv ratings dropped, my guess is those who were in charge of the game ignored the obvious for what they may have considered was best for the game. I doubt you’d ever find a letter from a true fan to the commissioner requesting more home runs either through juiced up balls or juiced up players.

At least the long time fans who understand what integrity means to the game and society.

If the Baseball officials find Barry Bonds guilty of using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, should Barry Bonds be allowed into the BaseBall Hall of Fame or any Official Baseball record book?

Baseball needs to carefully, thoughtfully, and methodically study how it needs to react to steroid, human gorwth hormone and other ways that players can enhance their performance.

It is not ultimately going to be as easy as saying that anyone who ever used stuff is to be kicked out of the game.

Baseball needs to atone for its neglect of this issue and find a way to investigate the whole sport and come up with a response. While baseball did not have an official steroid policy, the use of these drugs without a prescription is a violation of the law.

Bonds is the most visisble example of this use gone wrong but we have others including Canseco, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and probable many pitchers to get a look at here.

Not making a policy decision on this issue when it certainly became apparent years ago that some players were juicing is a crime of the league. We can all come to our personal conclusion about Bonds, but the league needs to create a policy that deals with proven steroid use.

I personally don;t think Bonds should be barred from the Hall of Fame with the information we have before us. But I also don;t think baseball should shy away from trying to get performance enhancing onformation out into the public record. If this requires something akin to South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission with broad amnesty I am okay with that. Baseball fans would all be better off getting this information out into the public record.


Bonds is yet another spoiled athlete who feels that the world owes him for sharing his talents with the world. Too many athletes are poor caretakers of their sport and there is a growing public backlash against these millionaires who show little respect or gratitude for the great things that have been given to them.

To those that much has been given, much should be expected. It would be nice to see some of these players put their games ahead of themselves.

I won't be holding my breath.

(also don;t forget that the revered Babe Ruth was a womanizing, boozing profane, disrespectful player that was known almost as much for his antics as his baseball tools.)

I don't believe the bottom line that steroids = homeruns in every case.

Mark McGuire gets bashed because he bulked up and hit mammoth homeruns. While that's a great bandwagon observation, many people don't know that McGuire hit 50 homeruns in his rookie year and almost every year thereafter. For him to break Maris' record, was no stretch of the imagination. He was hitting that level in his first year when he weighed about a buck ninety.

After the juice, his 450' homeruns became 500' homeruns. But they were still homeruns.

And let me restate something somebody missed - you can't compare eras. That was my point. You can't put an asterisk by somebody's name because of different factors (such as Aaron taking more seasons to break Ruth's record). Steroids is a factor, not the bottom line. And Mark McGuire is proof of that.

Personally....let them all use all the steroids they want..I saw Lyle Alzedo on a late night show just before he died...and it was...well, it made an impression. But if these guys are so determined to end their lives early for the sake of money.?
Let them go at it...maybe 50 late night shows will get the point across, maybe 100...who knows how stupid intelligent people can get!!!!

P.S.

Sorry to sound cold, but these are intelligent people making really stupid decisions, I don't even exept this for any age of thought.

After reading some of the replies, I realized that many fans simply don't care whether the baseball players took steroids or not. For those fans, I have 1 question.

What would you say to your son or daughter if they were watching baseball and saw a baseball player starting the season as a skinny beanpole and then ending the season looking like the Incredible Hulk? Is that really what we want baseball to be?

skeeterses,

I don’t find much merit in your post above and your questions about children are loaded. Some on this board get too emotional when children are mentioned. As Charles Barkley pointed out some years ago, parents--not athletes--are primary role models.



http://www.hickoksports.com/biograph/barkleyc.shtml

It is your responsibility to decide what to tell your cheldren about someone turning into the "Incredible Hunk." We should not lay the role model trip on Barry Bonds or any other athlete.

I don’t think fans don’t care about steroids, but I do think that what’s done is done. We will probably never know how many players took steroids. Regardless, we can’t undo the past.

The blame for the current steroid problems should land hard in the laps of the "commissioner," (uh, what commissioner) baseball owners and possibly the player's union. Baseball was asking for trouble when an owner, Bud Selig took over in 1992. Baseball did not have a strong independent commissioner and did not enact a steroid policy with penalties until 2004. What were Selig and owners, including a former Texas Ranger owner who now occupies the highest office in the land, thinking and doing during those twelve years? Why did they rag their feet on developing a steroid policy?

The problem was not new, as Jose Canseco pointed out in his book, Juiced : Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big and in a 60 Minute interview with Mike Wallace.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/10/...ain673138.shtml


The current policy calls for one test each year and random tests for selected players. Penalties range from a ten day to one year suspension. There is nothing in the policy about the Hall of Fame or espunging records. Even if there were, I don’t favor enforcing them retroactively. Some favor even tougher standards, but if and until we get them, players must be held accountable only to current policy.

At the expense of sounding legalistic, I will say again that Bobby Bonds should be subject to current baseball policy. I am more interested in following procedure--the current baseball steroid policy--than punishing Bonds for the sake of kids. If Bonds fails a steroid test, he should be subject to the rules as they now stand—again nothing more nothing less.

Current Baseball Steroid Policy at Bottom of Link

BTW: I have no doubt Bonds took steroids, but we have to have a standard of proof—failing a test.

You need to start a separate threading regarding steroid use. This discussion is about steroids and it's effect on baseball and Bond's potential HR record. Not about our kids.

I've stated the record should stand because steroids is only one factor out of many contributing to more homeruns. All the way from the dead-ball era, dead arms, to conditioning and performance enhancements. If we're going to pick steroids out as a disqualifier, there are many, many more that should be just as subjectively thrown out.

As the Ball 'o Fire as stated, the Hall of Shame is bogus anyhow. Pete Rose broke 4191 and there's nothing nobody can say to dispute that. But Pete got the same punishment as the 1919 White Sox got for taking money to throw a world series when all he did was bet on his team to win when he wasn't even playing. Both were wrong, but the punishment shouldn't have been the same. Given that, it seems just as absurd to me that we throw Bond's achievements out for one thing and allow many other things to stand.

Lastly, unless you get caught using steroids, this is not a bannable offense. The enforcement of steroid use is ridiculous. How can you deny a record when you can't even show how "stringent" the current rules are with a straight face?

People don't want Bonds to have the record or anything because he's treated the public like crap. He reconciles that behavior by saying he doesn't have a problem with the fans - only the press. That would be fine except the press is our only conduit to the players. Contempt for the press = contempt for the fans. It's amazing that 99% of the players don't seem to have the same problems he does with the press.

In summary, I think many people want to make sure that what goes around, comes around. It has as little to do with steroids as much as it has to do with punishment for his behavior. And I'm calling bullcrap on that premise.

That "Bush Jr" has a hand in everything it seems.

Bush Lied, Canseco's career died.

Dayton,
Your point that I didn't miss was that you can compare eras. That's the beauty of the game - the numbers are the numbers. Bulked-up second basemen and shortstops in the 1990's were making us forget how good Honus Wagner, Nellie Fox or Rod Carew. There are only 260 guys in the Hall of Fame, and the current crop shooting up the home run list isn't exactly worthy. It seems to me that we could compare eras before 1990. Maybe I'm wrong.

Canseco's point was that the owners, including Bush, knew what was going on and turned a blind eye. In the quote I provided, Canseco was talking about a time when Bush owned the team prior to his 1994 campaign for governor. You are right. Canseco mentioned three players—three on his team. Whether you like Canseco or not, his book probably had as much impact on the current steroid policy as anything.

A more accurate quote would be that "Bush Jr." (it seems Vermillion converted you) has a hand in a good many things that go south.

Yes, carlitoswhey you can compare eras, but it's like the old thing about apples and oranges. You can't draw any satisfactory conclusions. And that goes for all sports. Who was the greatest heavyweight boxing champion? Some of the leading contenders in chronological order are Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and Muhammad Ali. Who really was the greatest? We don't know; we can't know.

What we do know is that the season high for homeruns currently belongs to Barry Bonds and the career high belongs to Henry "Hank" Aaron. That's reality. The conditions and at bats that Ruth had are completely irrelevant.

For the casual fan, the answer seems to be a resounding 'Yes'! If you doubt this, please explain the success of the WWF.

For all those saying this is a big deal, answer the following question. Should Pope John Paul II be elected to the baseball Hall of Fame? It's hard to argue against his character. This may at first sound ludicrous, but if you start including integrity and character as factors, this is where you end up.

As Victoria Silverwolf stated...records are about the 'event', not the 'person'. If Bonds breaks the records, well, he broke the records then, didn't he? I'm not aware of standard home run deductions for questionable integrity. Further, were such deductions were to be factored in...how many of those currently in the HoF would have to be removed? Would the Hall be mostly empty? Is THAT really what we want baseball to be?

Well, Steroids and performance enhancing drugs should absolutely be considered as cheating- and therefore, the event was not in the lines of the rules, so the 'Event" should be thrown out, absolutely.

It is just like a "win" in , say , Motogp cycle racing. At the end of the day, someone protests the motorcycle, and it had illegal parts on it- well, the win is thrown out. If Barry Bonds has the wonderful personality of Ty Cobb, well, that doesn't matter to me at all- what matters to me is, did he use performance enhancing drugs? That is the one and only question for me. If he did, well, of course he should have his records stripped from him, and all his accomplishments should be thrown out as fake.

You are about to start paying three dollars a gallon for gasoline for absolutely no other reason than greed and you care what juices Barry Bonds stuck in his butt? Shameful.

Sorry, but re Babe Ruth, if anyone deserves the asterisk, he does, given that the Hank Aaron's of his today couldn't even play the game. As otherwise reported in Hammerin' Hank's "I Had A Hammer":

"...but there is one point that I do care about because it hits close to my heart. That's the fact that Ruth played in a time when there were no black players. To me, that's the most relevant point of all, because it . . . goes right to the foundation of the Babe Ruth legend, which is the fact that he towered over all the other hitters of his time. He did that, and there's no denying it. There has never been a more dominant hitter. But it should be understood that he dominated a very weakened field. If black players had been allowed to play in the major leagues at the time, it is highly unlikely that Ruth would have dominated in the manner that he did. Think about it. What would the National League have been like in my time without black players? Who would have been the greatest home run hitters if I had not been in the league, or Mays or Banks or Frank Robinson or Willie McCovey or Orlando Cepeda or Willie Stargell or Billy Williams or Richie Allen? I'll tell you. The white player who hit the most home runs in the National League in the 1960s was Ron Santo, who was almost fifty ahead of the next white player, Eddie Mathews. With no black players in the game Ron Santo--who is not in the Hall of Fame--would have stood well above all the other home run hitters in the league during his time. By the same token, if I had played with only whites, as Ruth did, I would have outhomered every other player in the National League in the sixties by more than 120 (although Harmon Killebrew hit more than I did in the 1960s while playing in the nearly all white American League). In addition, it would have been significantly easier to hit in the National League if there hadn't been black pitchers like Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Ferguson Jenkins, and Bob Veale."

And then we can add in night games, jet travel, larger stadiums [field wise], and, lastly, the pitch that Ruth never had to face, the slider. One might also consider just when the "golden age" of pitching occurred and then consider that Hammerin' Hank just kept on hitting...

Now on to Barry Bonds:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...onds/index.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1939208

'nuff said.

But speaking of players who never got to play, if we equate white baseball with black baseball, then the greatest home run hitter ever, bar none, was Josh Gibson [my mom say him play for the Homestead Grays (right next to her hometown of Duquesne, PA)]. From 1929 through 1946, Josh hit 823 home runs, 89 of which were hit in a single season [so he holds the top two home run records]. And sorry for the Babe and his .340-something lifetime batting average, but Josh's lifetime BA is .391. The late Bill Veeck once remarked: "If you ever let him play in a small place like old Ebbetts Field or the old Fenway Park, Josh Gibson would have forced baseball to rewrite the rules."

And, lastly, not to stray too far off topic, but my all time team:

C - Josh Gibson
1B - Frank Robinson
2B - Jackie Robinson
SS - Ernie Banks
3B - Brooks Robinson
RF - Roberto Clemente
CF - Curt Flood
LF - Hank Aaron
DH - Stan Musial

LHP - Sandy Koufax
RHP - Bob Gibson

Okay, so I "cheated" and put Frank at first...and it seems I've a thing for "Robinsons", and, sorry, but Curt Flood simply had to make the team, not only for his lifetime of good hitting and stellar defense, but also because they once called him everything but a child of God...and Stan the Man is our DH because as George Will once said [and I'm paraphrasing here and the numbers might be slightly off, but you'll still get the point]: Musial had 1,815 hits at home, and 1,815 hits on the road, he didn't care where he was, he just hit...

Sorry, one more, for our best evidence of the racism that still surrounds us and some more on Hammerin' Hank as well:

http://www.howardwfrench.com/archives/2006...s_more_respect/

I think that is a correct and understated point. In fact, I'd go further and say the same goes for the absence of Latino players. Could Babe Ruth hit that many off Pedro Martinez if Pedro was pitching 9 innings a game every three days?

And before you state that Pedro couldn't, maybe he could have. A part of the problem baseball has today and why there are so many bad pitchers, is the 5 man rotation. Pitchers don't have the arm strength they needed to have to make it in the big leagues back then.

But not a bad list. The only autographs I own are an autographed picture of Bill Gates hanging on the wall in my office (I am too geeky for words) and an autographed baseball signed by my favorite player of all time, Brooks Robinson.

If the Baseball officials find Barry Bonds guilty of using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, should Barry Bonds be allowed into the BaseBall Hall of Fame or any Official Baseball record book?

The purpose of banning steriods is to ensure that sports stars don't have to ruin themselves in order to compete.

I think that logic is sound, and that therefore banning steroids in all sports is a good idea.

Barry Bonds should not be recognised because he had an unfair advantage which his fellows did not have.

I completely and totally disagree with this. Sure, that is one of the 'spins' being put forward, but no one in power gives a hoot about athletes ruining themselves. Athletes ruin themselves to compete all the time, and no one raises any issues. Consider football...the sport itself is health endangering (how many old football players have you heard of? Anyone past 65? Short list, isn't it?). No, the one and only reason steroids are being banned is that it became a marketing issue. Fans liked the home runs, but then all of the issues mentioned in this thread became more prominent. But make no mistake, concern for the athletes is far down the priority list.

If your argument is that the leages are bowing down to public demand rather then their own consciences, then you would probably be right. But if public demands for bans exist due to public concern for athletes, then in the end how is my intitial assertion of concern being the rationale, false?

Also, I disagree with your assertion that most sports stars "ruin themselves anyway".

Give a statistic to back yourself up....I mean certainly boxers have been outright killed during matches, but we need to look at overall trends rather then just some examples of permanent personal injury being prevalent in some sports...

Yes, that is my argument. Your statement regarding concern for athletes from the public then being a factor through them would also stand. I think that is a minor factor, but the public hasn't shown much regard for the athlete's before, so I doubt it is a major factor.



Consider football. One of the common analogies is that a tackle in the NFL is like being in a car accident at 35 miles an hour. That's a possible 30 car accidents a day, for 10-12 years or more. How can that not be bad for one's health? As I stated earlier, how many old former NFL players are there? Hardly any..in fact, I can't think of one. Jerome Bettis was recently asked if he had to do it all over again, if he would. He gave a very good answer. He said if you'd asked him that at the beginning of his career, he'd have definitely said yes. But now, with difficulty even getting up in the morning, he wasn't so sure. That's what it takes to be an elite athlete in many sports...you give up your body for your dream. What's more, it's expected that you give up your body for your team. That's what I meant when I said that most athletes ruin themselves...they do anything and everything to make themselves or their team win. Long term health concerns are not even secondary, to any involved.

Baseball is not supposed to be like Football or Wrestling in the sense of athetes ruining themselves to get ahead. For instance, BaseBall Pitchers don't throw the ball at the other team's players. Neither do baseball players tackle each other or hit each other with hockey sticks. I say keep the steroids out. There's nothing in baseball that says that BaseBall players have to sink to the same lows that Pro Wrestlers sink to.