Disgusted with Bonds?

[Hog1]

D,
Did you hear the int the other day on the Dan Patrick show? Pete stated he bet on the Reds EVERY night. he indicated for an extended period.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

D,
Did you hear the int the other day on the Dan Patrick show? Pete stated he bet on the Reds EVERY night. he indicated for an extended period.

I haven't heard that, but this is why he is not in the hall. (and he was banned due to speculation of betting on his team...just like Bonds taking roids.)
Baseball should ban bonds barring an investigation.

[SmootSmack]

Cobbs was one of the worst people in all of sports. From everything I've heard and read he was just an awful awful man. Ironic that someone who really isn't much better in Pete Rose broke his all-time hits record.

I personally don't have a huge problem with Rose being in the Hall for his accomplishments as a player. I just don't think he should be around the sport anymore as most of the damage he did was a manager.

I think we fundamentally disagree on what is cheating anyway.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I haven't heard that, but this is why he is not in the hall. (and he was banned due to speculation of betting on his team...just like Bonds taking roids.)
Baseball should ban bonds barring an investigation.

No Pete was banned for betting on baseball in general and its was always thought that he bet on the Reds. How can baseball ban him on speculation?

[BDBohnzie]

It's the proverbial Catch-22. Baseball needed a "'Roided Barry" to bring the fans back. Once Cal's streak was over, someone needed to carry the torch. That happened to be Sosa, McGwire and Bonds. Baseball shot themselves in the foot for sake of the almighty dollar. They needed fans in the seats, so they looked the other way when it cames to performance enchancers, and what they allowed in clubhouses. Some players took advantage, others didn't. Fast Forward to now. The public took a stance and the MLB stopped in its tracks and basically left the players out to dry.

I've never been a big fan of Bonds. But as far as I'm concerned, he's being used as a scapegoat in the whole ordeal on Steroids. The biggest thing is, he has never failed a drug test (at least one the public knows about). And until he does, I don't think it's quite fair to hold him personally accountable for the entire league in terms of performance-enhancing drug abuse.

Even if Bonds breaks Aaron's record (which he should do in the next few weeks), I'm not sure he even gets into the HOF because of the cloud of speculation and doubt that will rest over his head for eternity. And it's a shame. The fans wanted a better game. They got it, and now questioned how it was gotten, which in turn led to a witch hunt led by gentlemen who had no business meddling their big noses in.

As far as I'm concerned, let these guys 'roid up. What's it to me if half the New York Yankees are on andro, HGH, and anabolic steroids? It's not my decision for these players to injest this crap. Guys have come and gone who have had respected careers who never touched the stuff.

I'll follow the sport regardless. I'm a fan of the game, not the players who play it, because players come and go, but the game is still the game. There isn't a more pure thing than watching a guy put wood on a 98 mph fastball. And while you can argue different things about football, basketball, hockey, curling...Baseball is the only sport where failure (getting out 7 of 10 times) gets you into the Hall of Fame.

[SmootSmack]

It's just like that scene from Casablanca where what's his name (Renault?) says he is "Shocked! Shocked! to find out there is gambling going on here" only to be handed his gambling winnings while making this pronouncement.

MLB is the same way

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No Pete was banned for betting on baseball in general and its was always thought that he bet on the Reds. How can baseball ban him on speculation?

It was "speculation" cause no court of law ever deemed him guilty. Ie: Bonds with roids.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Cobbs was one of the worst people in all of sports. From everything I've heard and read he was just an awful awful man. Ironic that someone who really isn't much better in Pete Rose broke his all-time hits record.

I personally don't have a huge problem with Rose being in the Hall for his accomplishments as a player. I just don't think he should be around the sport anymore as most of the damage he did was a manager.

I think we fundamentally disagree on what is cheating anyway.

I think you're right.

I do think that Rose should be in the hall fyi. I think he should be in because of his accomplishments on the field. He's not cause of what he did as a manager. I think Cobb belongs too, cause being in the hall isn't about being a nice guy, it's about what you did on the field in a legit fashion. Cobb never cheated, Ruth never cheated (that we know of anyway), but we know Bonds cheated.
Why are steroids illegal anyway...why don't we as humans have the right to take them? In small doses, and from what I've been told, take them 3 months at a time, take for 3, off for 3, and you'll have no ill effects.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by jsarno

It was "speculation" cause no court of law ever deemed him guilty. Ie: Bonds with roids.

OK now you're conveniently remembering things incorrectly. They had betting slips and sworn testimony that he had bet. The fact that he wasn't convicted had nothing to do with it. Bonds on the other hand has, as far as we know, no direct evidence against. Sure we all believe he juiced and he probably di. Also Pete Roses situation had a precedent. Gambling have always been strictly prohibited. The performance enhancerment situation has no precedent. Rose's situation was easy to deal with. It didn't involve the entirety of the league.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No Pete was banned for betting on baseball in general and its was always thought that he bet on the Reds. How can baseball ban him on speculation?

Apparently, they were correct, as was suspected. The int was about 2 weeks ago on the DP show with Kieth O. They were as stunned as I was at the admission. There was silence on the air for a moment or two. pretty funny actually.

[BDBohnzie]

The whole Rose thing pisses me off. I'd much rather him come out right away and admitted he bet on games, rather than hide for 15 years, then proclaim guilt in a rue to try and gain support for the Hall. And he can thank the 1919 Black Sox for the precedent.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

OK now you're conveniently remembering things incorrectly. They had betting slips and sworn testimony that he had bet. The fact that he wasn't convicted had nothing to do with it. Bonds on the other hand has, as far as we know, no direct evidence against. Sure we all believe he juiced and he probably di. Also Pete Roses situation had a precedent. Gambling have always been strictly prohibited. The performance enhancerment situation has no precedent. Rose's situation was easy to deal with. It didn't involve the entirety of the league.

I think you're misunderstanding me.
Someone brought up the point, Bonds wasn't convicted of doing roids, therefore we shouldn't do anything. Rose was not convicted either. I am just pointing out the similarities. I'm in no way saying Rose is innocent. There is overwhelming evidence in BOTH cases to prove they are guilty. There is direct evidence...court reports, books implicating Bonds etc. Just no one on the stand saying it under oath right now.

So I ask this question...what if after Bonds gets the record, he retires, then all this drug abuse comes out and he is convicted...what does MLB do?

BTW, there has always been rules banning substance abuse in MLB too...but enforcing it is where MLB lost their path.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

The whole Rose thing pisses me off. I'd much rather him come out right away and admitted he bet on games, rather than hide for 15 years, then proclaim guilt in a rue to try and gain support for the Hall. And he can thank the 1919 Black Sox for the precedent.

Well the reason he's coming out now is cause the previous commissioner (forget his name right now for some reason) said if he admitted it, he'd consider him for reinstatement.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by jsarno

I think you're misunderstanding me.
Someone brought up the point, Bonds wasn't convicted of doing roids, therefore we shouldn't do anything. Rose was not convicted either. I am just pointing out the similarities. I'm in no way saying Rose is innocent. There is overwhelming evidence in BOTH cases to prove they are guilty. There is direct evidence...court reports, books implicating Bonds etc. Just no one on the stand saying it under oath right now.

So I ask this question...what if after Bonds gets the record, he retires, then all this drug abuse comes out and he is convicted...what does MLB do?

BTW, there has always been rules banning substance abuse in MLB too...but enforcing it is where MLB lost their path.

Please give the overwhelming evidence that Bonds used roids because you seem to be the only person with this slam dunk evidence against him. What court reports, I can write a book and what is your other etc...

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Please give the overwhelming evidence that Bonds used roids because you seem to be the only person with this slam dunk evidence against him. What court reports, I can write a book and what is your other etc...

First of all, that guy that wrote the book from Balco can't lie about it, that's Libel...meaning Bonds would OWN him by now from the statements made in the book...so if Bonds is innocent, why not sue him?
2nd- How about the testamony of Gary Sheffield?
3rd: Bonds used steroids in 2003, trainer says on secret recording / Slugger's lawyer sees 'another below-the-belt bash'

I would provide more, but these are common knowledge, and I have to go.