If a player uses Steroids, should he automatically be DQ'd as a HOF candidate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter New Editor
  • Start date Start date

Dick Shitman

New member
No. They came up in an era where just about everyone was doing it. Not defending the act, but if you weren't juicing your spot was getting taken by someone who was
 
Last edited:
vince tongue;56824 said:
Why do you think mark mcgwire should be in the Hall?? He had a lifetime .263 BA .It's clear he cheated for the majority of his career.He was a one trick pony HR or SO.He had several seasons of 115+ strikeouts
Explain your logic pal.

"For his career, McGwire averaged a home run once every 10.61 at bats, the lowest at bats per home run ratio in baseball history (Ryan Howard is second at 11.32 and Babe Ruth is third at 11.80)."

he was a 1 trick pony, but hittin homeruns at that clip is ridiculous
 
Last edited:
Cheaters don't deserve to be under the same roof as the Bambino, Jackie Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams.

Bonds was already going to Cooperstown, he killed his chances going on the juice.
 
Last edited:
No, are they gonna go back and ban players from the 80s and below who use amphetamines, ban players who played in a segregated era, ban players who use tar pine and cork bats from another era. There still isn't any scientific proof that HGH helps you hit more homeruns.
 
Last edited:
Hip-Hop One;58840 said:
Cheaters don't deserve to be under the same roof as the Bambino, Jackie Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Ted Williams.

Bonds was already going to Cooperstown, he killed his chances going on the juice.

but how do we know that they werent juicing?...thats the problem with the whole situation
 
Last edited:
I think they should be DQ'd. What bigger way is there to cheat besides payin the other team to lose? And also you have to have some punishments to make people more scared to use them.
 
Last edited:
yes or just dedicate a special HOF for all the cheaters and juicers. if not they tarnish the magnitude of making it to the hall
 
Last edited:
millz_flybridge;58886 said:
but how do we know that they werent juicing?...thats the problem with the whole situation

Eh...I don't think anyone has ever argued about those guys juicing.
 
Last edited:
Hip-Hop One;62831 said:
Eh...I don't think anyone has ever argued about those guys juicing.

yea i dont think so either, but they damn sure werent testing for it like they are these days.....so even if they were we wouldnt know
 
Last edited:
millz_flybridge;63066 said:
yea i dont think so either, but they damn sure werent testing for it like they are these days.....so even if they were we wouldnt know

You think hgh and steroids have always been applicable? Come on, remember the era that a lot of those guys played in.

You think Mays could have shot up? Consider the science of the mid twentieth century to the late twentieth century. If someone like Ruth would have had access to steroids he would have put up 100 in a season. It's not comparable, to say "these guys had good numbers, they used drugs."

There has never been a huge spike in statistics like there was from the late 80s to the early 00s. It was because of cheating.
 
Last edited:
If Bonds doesnt get in, then nobody for the rest of time should get in. He was the 2nd best player of the era no matter what he did. He still had to hit the ball. And even then, he barely got anything to hit which makes it even more remarkable that he hit that many.
 
Last edited:
usmarin3;58861 said:
No, are they gonna go back and ban players from the 80s and below who use amphetamines, ban players who played in a segregated era, ban players who use tar pine and cork bats from another era. There still isn't any scientific proof that HGH helps you hit more homeruns.

and there you have it.
 
Last edited:

Members online

No members online now.

Trending content

Thread statistics

Created
-,
Last reply from
-,
Replies
13
Views
48
Back
Top
Menu
Your profile
Post thread…