Comments on: If you’re anti-Barry Bonds now, how can your position about him change over time?

By: survivor3306

survivor3306 — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:34:16 +0000

One thing to realize about Ann Killion – she never lets truth inhibit her argument. Most professional writers value truth and make their argument to persuade without lying. But Ann will saying anything, so you have to always fact check her when she makes a declaration. Remember the women in the locker room argument that was raised due to the Jets incident in 2010? A reader objected to the double standard that women were free to enter and see male athletes undressed while men reporters never got the same access to women athletes, like when they cover the WNBA. Ann responded that the conditions were exactly the same, thus winning the argument with the ignorant reader. But of course she knows that the conditions are not the same. WNBA only lets reporters in for a brief time, the players will always be dressed, and no cameras are allowed. Hence a vast double standard exists. But Ann didn’t want to admit to that so she lied. People may not care about that issue but the point is don’t ever trust what she says without checking facts from a real professional. .

By: louiespoon

louiespoon — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:21:00 +0000

FRANK THOMAS…….

By: umrguy42

umrguy42 — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:15:00 +0000

Also, the “Black Sox” weren’t the first, nor the last, group to throw games (and possibly a World Series), despite what Baseball would have you think. And the list of people *after* includes a couple folks IN the HoF, if memory serves. Look it up.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:13:17 +0000

This is from a movie, right? Because those guys never existed.

By: andyvictory

andyvictory — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:23:37 +0000

What ever happened to credibilty? Why do we CONSTANTLY ramble on and on about Bonds, Maguire, and Sosa types? Remember Ken Griffey Jr? Remember Frank Thomas? Remember AMERICAS FAVORITE PAST TIME? Forget all the media-freindly contraversy and forget all these half-whits who stained a wonderful thing. Cut, quit, and move on from the cheaters who made this sport illegitimate. Get back to what made it as amazing as it once was. Great baseball, riveting history, role models with enormous/unselfish hearts, and children’s heroes putting on a show.

By: jeffbbf

jeffbbf — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 06:01:50 +0000

what if, in 10 years, scientific research proves that steroids provides no discernable advantage for a baseballl player? As someone mentioned above, what if, in 10 years, it’s proven that 90% of the league was using? Either way, those are 2 potentially valid reasons for a voter to change their mind. Right now, users look like cheaters unworthy of enshrinement. Pete Rose would have made the HOF before he bet on baseball games. Shoeless Joe would have made the HOF before the 1919 world series. Just because Barry had the resume to get into the HOF before he started cheating doesn’t mean he should be allowed in.

By: ducksk

ducksk — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 02:36:54 +0000

B bonds is a world class ahole. Everyone that know anyting about him knows it. Should it eliminate him from HOF? With all the PED crap it’s enuff fore. F/u Barry

By: stercuilus65

stercuilus65 — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:28:59 +0000

Rose DID bet on games he managed!

By: phillyphannn83

phillyphannn83 — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:09:35 +0000

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again…Shoeless Joe and Pet Rose are two completely different situations. Shoeless Joe and his teammates threw the World Series in which they played! Pete Rose merely bet on games he was not involved in – I say again, games he was NOT involved in. He never bet on a game in which he played or managed. It is no different than you or I betting on baseball games. Pete Rose deserves to be in, Shoeless Joe no. As for steroids players…they wouldn’t get my vote, ever.

By: joecool16280

joecool16280 — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:40:35 +0000

You – 1

Sports”writers” – 0

By: unlost1

unlost1 — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:26:04 +0000

fine if ya wanna change your view on Pete Rose too

By: makeham98

makeham98 — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:48:55 +0000

Didn’t Rose sign an agreement that excluded him, all the while continuing to deny? And then later on, while clear that he was being held to what he signed, “revise” his stories, more or less admitting that he had been lying all along? And we’re supposed to take him seriously? Good luck with the marriage, Pete, at least you have that going for you.

By: stoutfiles

stoutfiles — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:46:04 +0000

A nuke from N. Korea is launched at San Fran and Barry Bonds uses his steroid leg strength to leap miles in the air to take the explosion head on saving the city, as seen in the movie Iron Giant.

Then, and only then, would I forgive him.

By: randygnyc

randygnyc — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:24:16 +0000

I’m sure many voters, like myself, know that these steroid users are talented enough to be in the HOF. The thought of them being voted in on the first ballot is disgusting to me. At the very least, I’d vote no for the first few years. I’m sure MANY writers agree with me.

By: savvybynature

savvybynature — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:59:23 +0000

Are we electing him as a player or manager? Because he wasn’t anything special as a manager. He was as a player.

By: clydeserra

clydeserra — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:56:51 +0000

OK, his playing days were over. But were his managing days over?

No. No they weren’t. That is even worse.

By: savvybynature

savvybynature — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:34:40 +0000

Of course he did, and he also happens to be a huge ass hat too, btw, in case there is one person out there who hasn’t noticed yet.

In that sense, no one is defending him. I’m merely saying that based on his contributions to the sport he easily deserves induction to the Hall.

A case can be made to keep him out as a deterrent to anyone in the future who may consider betting on the game, but then shouldn’t that argument apply to the PED users as well? Isn’t there even more incentive to deter future PED use, considering it has been a much bigger problem recently?

By: offseasonblues

offseasonblues — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:25:35 +0000

Why is intellectual consistency required to cast a subjective vote? Denying Bonds and Clemens first ballot entry is a legitimate protest, I think.

By: kehnn13

kehnn13 — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:19:54 +0000

I’m tired of the Pete Rose defense. Since the Black Sox scandal, the cardinal rule of baseball has been “Don’t bet on baseball.” He knew the rule, he broke the rule. I am more inclined to be forgiving of those who used PEDs prior to 2002 than I am of those who broke the cardinal rule. Things were a lot more sketchy regarding PEDs.

By: itsabergthing

itsabergthing — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:05:20 +0000

Barry Bonds and Pete Rose are both Hall of Famers regardless of their negatives. The Hall of Fame is in place to recognize the greatest players the game has to offer, and both of these players more than fit that criteria.

By: dowhatifeellike

dowhatifeellike — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:56:26 +0000

Right. I’d rather see the voters err on the side of caution because once someone is in, they’re in for good.

By: dowhatifeellike

dowhatifeellike — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:54:57 +0000

18ttstreet – yes, he did it. He gambled on baseball after his playing days were over. Now tell me how that’s worse than pumping yourself full of illegal synthetic chemicals to achieve greater glory.

By: lpd1964

lpd1964 — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:54:52 +0000

I wouldn’t vote for Bonds, as for Rose, I would put him in as the all time hits leader obviously but wouldn’t allow him to manage because of the gambling issue.

By: wpjohnson

wpjohnson — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:37:25 +0000

It won’t change whatsoever. The Hall of Fame needs to clean up its membership. It already has too many mediocre players. It doesn’t need cheaters.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:33:30 +0000

They are only unconvincing, until they aren’t….at which point she can change her mind.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:31:58 +0000

Intellectual consistency is in no way a myth. There are plenty of people that use it in the professions an personal lives.

By: moogro

moogro — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:03:10 +0000

The voters are ridiculous and cowardly, the process is weird. But I think there is a little wiggle room for the wait-and-see. It’s not like all information stops as of today. They are curating a museum by committee, for better or for worse. For example, there are lots of artists that have set the world on fire in recent history, but it will take time to situate them in the textbooks.

By: koufaxmitzvah

koufaxmitzvah — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:02:55 +0000

They should first remove the ban of Shoeless Joe and and then they can remove the ban of Pete Rose.

By: 18thstreet

18thstreet — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:02:44 +0000

I’m fascinated, to no end, by Rose’s defenders.

He did it, you know.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:32:32 +0000

I’d be better with that if she didn’t spend her whole column explaining why the arguments of others are utterly unconvincing.