A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
And given the state of baseball's testing then (err, NOW), there's no reason he shouldn't go into the HOF or that he should have an asterisk. Sad truth is that he had the same playing field (npi) as everyone else in that feebly-moderated sport.
"...And given the state of baseball's testing then (err, NOW), there's no reason he shouldn't go into the HOF or that he should have an asterisk. Sad truth is that he had the same playing field (npi) as everyone else in that feebly-moderated sport..."
True. That said, baseball writers abhor him, and when first eligible in 2012, he's got about as much chance of election and induction as Ted Danson.
Why does the media wink at or ignore other famous cheaters in baseball's history such as Gaylord Perry, who named his autobiography Me and the Spitter? Can you believe this guy even had the temerity to approach the makers of Vaseline about endorsing the product.
Could it be that Gaylord Perry wasn't a pr--ck? The baseball journalists are the gatekeepers to Cooperstown. Ballplayers know that. The writers weren't that enamored w/ Steve Carlton either, but Lefty didn't break the most revered record in team sport.
The indictment (and conviction, should it come) gives the writers an out when Bonds becomes eligible.
jazzcyclist wrote:Why does the media wink at or ignore other famous cheaters in baseball's history such as Gaylord Perry, who named his autobiography Me and the Spitter? Can you believe this guy even had the temerity to approach the makers of Vaseline about endorsing the product.
That's easy to answer.
Baseball has a time-honored (and do mean honored) tradition in which the word "cheat" doesn't really exist. Call it gamesmanship or whatever you like. Getting an edge on the opposition by anything short of mayhem has always been considered a part of the game.
I remember in elementary school reading a primer on baseball (written by the likes of a Clare Bee) which described all the things that were part and parcel of the game, starting w/ the spitball and going on through various ways to scuff the ball w/ your belt buckle, what have you.
It's a whole different culture, completely out of tune w/ the English concepts of "amateurism" which pervade track.
The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF after the fact, and then made it retroactive so that it could be applied to Pete Rose. Something about that just doesn't seem right to me.
MJD wrote:Looks to me that they can do whatever they want to BB then based on that(non-racist) precedent.
They've always been able to do what they want. Remember, Jackie Robinson wasn't allowed to join the Brooklyn Dodgers because of some court ruling a la James Meredith. It was strictly a MLB decision.
jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF
That's not true.
The Hall Of Fame, NOT Baseball, passed a rule that anyone on the permanently ineligible(banned) list cannot be a candidate for the HOF. It is not specific to gambling, though certainly the Rose situation was the genesis of the rule. Previously, banned players were excluded by a gentlemen's agreement among voters, Shoeless Joe Jackson being the most notable, but with Rose the HOF made it official.
jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF
That's not true.
The Hall Of Fame, NOT Baseball, passed a rule that anyone on the permanently ineligible(banned) list cannot be a candidate for the HOF. It is not specific to gambling, though certainly the Rose situation was the genesis of the rule. Previously, banned players were excluded by a gentlemen's agreement among voters, Shoeless Joe Jackson being the most notable, but with Rose the HOF made it official.
Does the HOF exist completely independent of MLB? I always thought that it was an extension of MLB. Wasn't the rule passed after the fact? Prior to this rule, there was nothing preventing voters from inducting Shoeless Joe Jackson from being inducted into the HOF despite this so-called gentlemen's agreement. I suspect the powers-that-be passed the rule because of fear that there might be enough voter sympathy for Pete Rose to get him into the HOF.
jazzcyclist wrote:The thing about Pete Rose is that MLB passed the rule banning baseball gamblers from the HOF after the fact, and then made it retroactive so that it could be applied to Pete Rose. Something about that just doesn't seem right to me.
it is absolutely right. I love pete rose (as great a baseball physical talent as there ever was), but I have no problem with retroactive rules like this, they are right and proper and good for society. The HOF is not a democratic institution and should never be one!
paulthefan wrote:The HOF is not a democratic institution. . .
Don't you have to be voted in??
But those votes are by invitation. Is that real democracy?
Well, so are elections in the US. No invites for the under 18s or felons, amongst others.
You make a good point. The constitution gives no one the right to vote. It only stipulates that you can't discriminate with regards to the right to vote on the basis of race (15th amendment) and sex (19th amendment). All other forms of discrimination with respect to the right to vote are perfectly legal.
The Major League Baseball Players Association said last week it was investigating whether to file a collusion grievance against teams for not pursuing Bonds
The Major League Baseball Players Association said last week it was investigating whether to file a collusion grievance against teams for not pursuing Bonds
you've got to be kidding.
I do not get it. What does that quote mean? I am not surprised about the lastest events. Go Giants!
Personally, after all that's occurred, I just can't believe the Players Association would actually do this. Aren't teams allowed NOT TO PURSUE anyone they're not interested in?
I know nothing at all about the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and its Players Association, so what I'm about to suggest is pure speculation.
There are some legal theories under which Bonds could sue the owners for a concerted action--an illegal boycott. So why hasn't Bonds done this, and why is the Players Association (which doesn't seem much affected by this) making the noise? One possible reason is that there is a provision in the cba that says that players cannot assert certain claims against owners--those claim must be brought by the Players Association under the agreement.
Again, I've no idea if that's what this is all about, but it seems to me that it could explain what would otherwise seem so inexplicable. Absent such a clause, I can't imagine why Bonds wouldn't bring this claim directly, if he felt legitimately aggrieved, and I can't imagine why the Players Association would feel that it has enough skin in the game to make it worthwhile pursuing this.
