01-12-2009, 11:39 PM
<!--quoteo(post=11102:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:29 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 12 2009, 10:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11101:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:28 PM:name=Kid)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid @ Jan 12 2009, 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=11097:date=Jan 12 2009, 10:23 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 12 2009, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's the Hall of FAME. How could you keep a guy like Bonds out?
I say let him in, but in the Hall, you tell the whole story.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a reasonable position, but I think you take the entire picture into account. If, even when considering his undoubtedly HOF-worthy numbers into account, Bonds has an overall negative impact on the game, I say keep him out. I think he does, so fuck him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't shred you for voting that way; I just thinking keeping him out taints the story of baseball more than letting him - and all the true ugliness - in. Just look at Pete Rose.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pete Rose shouldn't be let in either. His original crime pushed him close to the line, but didn't merit keeping him out. But the fact that he lied about it for another 17 years, only to admit that he bet on his own team when it was both profitable (he was selling a book) and for him to make his announcement at the same time that the 2004 HOF announcements came out (thereby overshadowing Dennis Eckersley & Paul Molitor), made it far worse. Besides that, the fact that he admits to lying about betting <b>on</b> his own team for 17 years after he was banned means that his denials now that he never bet <b>against</b> his own team meaningless.
I think almost everyone would agree that if Rose actually bet against his own team, he shouldn't be in the HOF. And there's absolutely no reason to believe him when he now says "yeah I bet on them, but not against them."
Between his crime, his lies, the way he had his "come to Jesus" moment, and the outstanding questions on his conduct, Rose's impact is now a net negative on the game and he should be kept out.
I say let him in, but in the Hall, you tell the whole story.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a reasonable position, but I think you take the entire picture into account. If, even when considering his undoubtedly HOF-worthy numbers into account, Bonds has an overall negative impact on the game, I say keep him out. I think he does, so fuck him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't shred you for voting that way; I just thinking keeping him out taints the story of baseball more than letting him - and all the true ugliness - in. Just look at Pete Rose.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pete Rose shouldn't be let in either. His original crime pushed him close to the line, but didn't merit keeping him out. But the fact that he lied about it for another 17 years, only to admit that he bet on his own team when it was both profitable (he was selling a book) and for him to make his announcement at the same time that the 2004 HOF announcements came out (thereby overshadowing Dennis Eckersley & Paul Molitor), made it far worse. Besides that, the fact that he admits to lying about betting <b>on</b> his own team for 17 years after he was banned means that his denials now that he never bet <b>against</b> his own team meaningless.
I think almost everyone would agree that if Rose actually bet against his own team, he shouldn't be in the HOF. And there's absolutely no reason to believe him when he now says "yeah I bet on them, but not against them."
Between his crime, his lies, the way he had his "come to Jesus" moment, and the outstanding questions on his conduct, Rose's impact is now a net negative on the game and he should be kept out.
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena. ![[Image: ITgoyeg.png]](http://i.imgur.com/ITgoyeg.png)