Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
bonds is a conundrum for sure. there's innocent til proven guilty, and there is the admission from the man himself that he used creams and the like, but 'didn't know' what they contained.
as for the record. it seems every major record is always called into question when there is a chance it has fallen, or will fall. seems that whenever a large-mouth bass is caught that will threaten a very long standing record, there are immediate accusations of weighting the fish. when someone shot a huge buck that might be the new record, immediately people started with accusations. it's the same in this situation.
i'd imagine that when (if?) secretariats records in the derby and belmont fall, you'll have howls of protest--look at when monarchos ran a few years ago for example!
they say records are made to be broken, but sometimes it's not very popular. people tend to shy from change, maybe this has something to do with it. but then, maybe bonds being very unpopular doesn't help. he's hard to cheer for to begin with.
|
All good points in the past few posts...bottom line: Bonds would be in the HOF (assuming he has used roids) without them. He is the best player of my lifetime, you can argue the best ever...gold gloves, stolen bases AND power. We may never know the truth...but why is Bonds the one everybody wants to point fingers at? Ruth drank like a fish, Ty Cobb was a racist pig...the HOF isn't for nice guys, it's to honor achievement in the sport.