Unfortunately you are right. No matter who it is - if they excel - the first thought will now be - how much chemical assistance is that player getting. Just like AP. All negative tests - yet time and again - the cloud hangs over him. It is just now - the way of things.

So far this is a good TD - keep it up - though - the subject is getting a bit hackneyed by now.

As did others who were never "caught"...... and some are sure to be in.

That was my point. If he was betting on his team to win..... to me..... meh.....

Given his passion for the game, and the WAY he played. I could seem him only betting FOR his team.... So - does that make a difference? Just a question...

Sorry - 1919...... Jeesh...

The problem is - there is no information of the actual magnitude of the problem in the "steriod" era... you have what, about 100 players on the list? Not all of them are known. And that was only a "select" sampleing of MLB - not the whole league. So who do you keep out? On supposition only? While there may be circumstancial evidence - other than those that have outright admitted it, who do you keep out on "suspicion"? Doesn't sound "fair" to me. And a lot of this is all about fairness. Since he said he didn't do it (and even the jury was hung on that specific set of charges) - the only thing I think that is close to fair is allow him in; (his numbers warrant it). But not until he's gone so there is no "gain" for him personnally in getting in. It's just an opinion. The same issues the writers will be facing when the known users are on the ballet. And since there are possibly others who are aready in (just didn't get "caught). How do you "balance" the landscape? MLB has a huge black eye, just like in 1917. But this time - it's not cut and dried - and as localized in idenifying wrong doing. So - we as fans, the league and the sports writers need to understand it's the dark time again, move on, and do the best we can to not let it happen again.

Either both in, or both out.... But Bonds out is problematic to me. You can't ban someone who has not admitted they took them (even then - since others weren't caught - that is a mess). So to me. Deal with it. Let them in. No astrisks. Just don't let them in until they are dead and buried.

Yep - he broke the "Cardinal" rule. Meanwhile - bilking the public of any confidence that the sport is a "clean" sport is o.k. Baseball was complicit top to bottom. So to me - there is no "moral high ground" to stand on for ANY cheating or rules breaking. Spitballs, gambling, steriods, all fall into the "cheating" realm. Relativism doesn't work here. It's robbing the paying public of watching "fair" matchups.

And that is fair.... given the circumstantial evidence a lot of people may "think" that way. But some on here are saying - he is guilty of taking steriods... period - and because of that - he shouldn't be in the HoF. To me - that is a criminal accusation and thus should be subjected to a tougher standard. That's all. Again, the HoF is a subjective vote. Look at the controversy Nolan Ryan conjures up..... Again - opinion.

Really - it's making a judgement, by definition. The question is - is it one for a criminal case - or a civil case. Given the angst and the impacts to some on here - they consider it a criminal judgement to be made (using the guilty term). as opposed the civil case (what damage was done and what is the remediation). So - if you are going with the "he is guilty" then you MUST use the criminal guidlines. If you are saying - there is evidence that damage was done - then you MUST use the civil guidlines - what damage was done and what are the consequesces in reparations.

As long as they are looking for a guilty verdict then the criminal guides ARE appropriate.

And that is part of the "innocence" I was talking about.


And slinks situational quip on it was quite amusing.....

ANd that is a fair assessment. And you are more than welcome to that - but to date the only two people that really know are Bonds and Anderson. Neither is talking. So.... he is circumstantially guilty - but not in a court of law - at least until I can read some other stuff.

But honestly - I'm tired of the whole roids issue. It happened - no one knows how much it happened, everyone seems to accept the fact that it happened, just no one really knows what to do with it. So.... move on. The mechanisms are in place now. Deal with it from now on. Astrisks? no - because who really knows how many records are tainted (I'm sure it's not just the HR one).

It does if know knows what they really were...

Sorry - but again that is supposition. Not that it isn't part of the circumstantial evidence against Bonds.

And that the really ****t.i.e part..... There's not even a way to take some of the "innocence" back, that was taken from the fans of baseball....

Ventura had no business charging a guy that much bigger than he was even if he was older....

Yep - that is what I think also - but proving it - only if one of them admits it..... Until then it is speculation, that's all.

If'n your talking about the one sided fight and the knuckle sandwiches with the headlock... Yes - Ventura was an idiot.....

He admitted being given a cream treatment of which he didn't know the contents. That's the context. And the guy giving it to him aint talkin right now is he?

Now prove it. And on top of that - he's a HoF'er..... what now?