Comments on: More walks than hits (yes, another list appearance by Adam Dunn) This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: BSK Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:05:07 +0000 Was Bonds under the supervision of a doctor? If he was, he didn't break baseball's rules, as they have been explained here.

By: Bryan Monkhouse Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:50:41 +0000 Andy, a reasonable point of view; as to punishment, though, Vincent stated in 1991 that violators risked "expulsion from the game" and , while there are many rules that get broken all the time, very few have a lifetime ban as their ultimate sanction. Rose broke one of those, PED users broke another. So for those few rules, whether or not they were effectively enforced , we are justified in viewing their breach as extremely serious.

By: Andy Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:26:31 +0000 #55, that's true enough regarding timeline, and clearly Bonds or anybody else who used steroids was doing something they knew they shouldn't have. However, I'll still call out the difference between Fay Vincent's decree and the rules about gambling, which are explicit in terms of definition and punishment. There are tons of rules in MLB that get broken all the time, and the punishments range from ignoring them to severe...but to my mind, Vincent's statement about PEDs is pretty much the same as the third base coaching box...nobody paid attention to the rules and there was no clear discipline. Even though it's clearly wrong, it's still not the same as Rose.

By: Bryan Monkhouse Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:22:40 +0000 As to Timeline; Major league Baseball has banned steroids implicitly since 1971, and explicitly since Commissioner Fay Vincent's June 7, memo.
Each team and the players' union received the memo, which begins, "This memorandum sets forth Baseball's drug policy." The memo goes on to say, "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited.... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."
So, any player who used steriods after June 7, 1991, deliberately broke the rules of major league baseball.
Of course it is true to state that the period from 1991- 2002 was characterized by
1) NO enforcement of the rules by MLB
2) growing public outrage that the game was being made a mockery of

the result, under pressure from congress, was the 2002 basic agreement, which for some , means that PED's were effectively only banned in the 2003 season. this is incorrect, as the 2007 Mitchell report clearly stated, and I quote:
"Many have asserted that steroids and other performance enhancing substances were not banned in Major League Baseball before the 2002 Basic Agreement. This is not accurate. Beginning in 1971 and continuing today, Major League Baseball's drug policy has prohibited the use of any prescription medication without a valid prescription. By implication, this prohibition applied to steroids even before 1991, when Commissioner Fay Vincent first expressly included steroids in baseball's drug policy. Steroids have been listed as a prohibited substance under the Major League Baseball drug policy since then, although no player was disciplined for steroid use before the prohibition was added to the collective bargaining agreement in 2002.

"It is also inaccurate to assert, as some have, that baseball's drug policy was not binding on players before it was added to the collective bargaining agreement. Many players were suspended for drug offenses before 2002, even though none of those suspensions related to the use of steroids or other performance enhancing substances. Some suspensions were reduced in grievance arbitrations brought by the Players Association, but no arbitrator ever has questioned the authority of the Commissioner to discipline players for 'just cause' based on their possession, use, or distribution of prohibited drugs."

As to "Proof" , well, what is "proof" ? The standard that juries are told to adopt is the absence of reasonable doubt; If you have a reasonable doubt that player x used steriods after 1991,when it first became crystal-clear that they were banned, then you have no proof.

The Rose case is instructive; the evidence against him would never have stood up in court; yet we "know" that he was guilty; MLB new that their evidence was weak , and that a competent attorney would drive a truck through it; therefore they cut a deal with him; he agreed to be banned for life, in exchange for no official finding by MLB that he had bet on games. Pete was suckered; we the fans didn't need an "official" finding , and he has been guilty ever since.

By: Andy Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:25:58 +0000 I also agree with Detroit Michael. Without rhetoric, though, #50 is right. Rose very clearly broke rules in a very black-and-white fashion with clear evidence (and admission). It is not clear that there is any proof that Bonds broke any MLB rules (remembering specifically the timeline that various rules were implemented.)

I'm sure Rose is not the only player or manager to have bet on games in which he participated. But in the absence of proof that any of the other guys actually did it, they cannot be banned, and for Bonds it's the same way.

By: Bryan Monkhouse Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:19:47 +0000 Detroit Michael is right, we need to tone down the rhetoric. For my part, in the spirit of tolerance, I withdraw the "shocking" and replace it with
"I am shocked" which is a report on my reaction, rather than an implied comment on opposing points of view. To respond to Chris Walters, I have made , and do make, no "moral judgments" , on racism, cheating, or any other human activity , We are talking about who "belongs" in the HOF; If Cobb was the greatest racist of all time, it would have precisely zero relevance on that question. Rather, I have tried to point out that cheating and getting caught has consequences, one of which, historically , has been ineligibility for the HOF. If Bonds didn't cheat; then of course he belongs in the hall on the basis of his record. If he did, he doesn't ; Chris and I have polar opposite views on whether he did or not, but it's not a moral question , but one that ultimately will be judged by a jury ( the voters) . I don't get a vote, but IMHO, he, and several other stars of the early part of this century with a similar history,should not be inducted.

By: Detroit Michael Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:55:51 +0000 Several posters on both sides of the "should Barry Bonds be inducted into the Hall of Fame" should show more tolerance for opposing viewpoints. There are reasonable arguments going both ways on the issue. It is not "absurd," "shocking" or "inane" to hear a viewpoint that differs from your own.

By: groundball Thu, 22 Sep 2011 05:03:31 +0000 Well, even for his time Cobb was more a racist than his contemporaries. (Dude, was "insanely" racist)

with PEDs regardless, I cant take them into account really (other than maybe how inflated were their stats, thanks to it) with the Hall of Fame. Like it or not, baseball ignored it and didnt set up rules dealing with it till many of those in question were retired or nearly so. (and I'd love to keep Bonds out, I loathed the guy, but if I was voting I'd still have to vote for him first ballot. It shouldnt be about like/dislike, it should be good enough or not-though good enough should be where the subjectiveness come into it)

By: Chris Waters Thu, 22 Sep 2011 04:40:16 +0000 He has no business in Cooperstown

And you really have no business pontificating. Rose clearly BROKE the rules. Clearly. Bonds did not. Clearly. How narrow-minded are you to not differentiate between the two? Please take a look at "Only Baseball matters" for the details. I really enjoy this blog, but stuff like this is so inane. What you say in total is really well-reasoned and thought-out, so please leave the moral judgments to idiots like Brown and Passan at yahoo: they get paid for being the enforcers of morality for the whole of western civilization ( even though they probably can't spell "civilization" )..

Still, you are a heck of a lot better than the dimwit that is Liam. Hey, Liam, you never cheated on your Income Tax forms? Never looked at someone else's answers in grade school? Never strayed from your GF or BF? Why don't you get off your high horse and GET A LIFE!

I apologize to everyone else other than Liam for this rant.

By: Bryan Monkhouse Thu, 22 Sep 2011 03:39:53 +0000 Rose and Bonds , Shoeless Joe-- Of course, as many have said, their accomplishments belong in the museum as part of the history; but as inductees, I am shocked that anyone could even consider their candidacy. Sure, all three would have walked into the Hall (which didn't exist in Jackson's day) based on their skills and accomplishments as players if they had just not cheated late in their careers - @33, Bonds was a great player whose statistics easily would have qualified him, but ,like Jackson and Rose before him, he voluntarily disqualified himself .
When a player is inducted into the Hall , he is being honored by his sport, by cheating, he dishonors the sport, and in fact makes a mockery of the competition, since fair play is the essence of sporting competition; there's plenty of cheating and scheming and double-dealing in the rest of life, Wall street fleeces investors for billions, nobody gets prosecuted and 3 years later honest folks can't get a job ah but we can escape into sports,because over on the playing field, there everyone plays by the rules and the winner has done it fair and square
Rules for being inducted into the hall of fame
1. Have a career of excellence
2. Don't get caught breaking the rules
was Cobb a racist?, yes, like the majority of his teammates
did Ruth cork his bat? maybe, he didn't get caught.
was Mantle a skirt-chasing drunk? yep, but baseball has no rules against it.

We don't need the HOF to tell us who the best players are and were; The record speaks for itself ; Bonds' numbers belong right here;and show us he was one of the best that ever played. He has no business in Cooperstown