user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
if it wasn't illegal when he was playing, he shouldn't be penalized. although wasn't he the one who testified in congress and swore up and down that he didn't take any steroids?
by LCD on Mon Dec 04, 06 12:46pm
[+]
He didn't exactly say he didn't take steroids, he just sort of, used 'politician speak' to skirt the question.
Voted : Yes, he should be voted in, first ballot.
They'll never know, for sure, who was juicing and who wasn't, or for how long or how much. Plus, the owners turned a blind eye as long as the players were producing. I say judge him by his stats, not by what he might have been doing. Despite the bans, the world of juicing has just begun, not ended. Eventually, everyone will be doing it, but it will be controlled.
Voted : No, he shouldn't be voted in, because of the steroids scandal
If, when he was in front of the Congressional committee, he'd done more than plead the Fifth, I'd be behind him. He acted like he had something to hide, and damned himself in my eyes.
Voted : Don't know
Only if his performance before supplement use warrants it.
Voted : Don't know
Legally, like Barry Bonds, it's never been proven he used steriods. So he is innocent until proven guilty. But then the HOF election process is not a legal process. It is not an objective body. It is subject to politics, favoratism, cronyism, and discrimination. BASEBALL NEWS WRITERS are the voters, so it is not an objective process.
C'mon Man pay attention to the numbers/ He played a position that is full of players better than him. yeah he had a 583 HR's but he also only had 1600 hits and that is terrible for a HOF first basemen. He is in only in the top 10 in only one of the main categories used to determine great hitters, and you say a shoe-in for a first time ballot? He was a great slugger but not a great overall hitter. I don't think his numbers are good enough for a first time ballot. The HR's might get him in the HOF, but that is the only number he has going for him.
NO Way, I mean in what way is he even rememberable in baseball for except his steriod power homeruns, hmm ???
Voted : Yes, he should be voted in, not in the first year though.
who cares baseball sucks anyway unless its the playoffs
Voted : No, he should never be voted in, because his numbers aren't good enough.
He has the 2nd FEWEST number of hits of all other Hall Of Famers. NO!
Voted : No. If it wasn't illegal at the time, then it doesn't count. Laws are not retroactive.
Besides, he's anti-spanking so I'll defend him to the death...
|
|