Throughout the history of baseball dozens of players have been suspended because of drug and alcohol abuse, and in more recent years, steroid use. Of course performance enhancing drugs lead to negative stigma among ballplayers like Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Jason Giambi. Whether the accused player admits his usage, denies it, or apologizes for it is irrelavent. Once he’s done it, he’s tainted. It’s over. Any records broken or goals met are disregarded or demeaned because of that player’s “history.”
However, players are also looked down upon by their ball clubs and their fans if they prove to be immoral in life off the field. Shoeless Joe Jackson was banned from baseball for life because he did not report his teammate’s involvement in throwing the World Series in 1919. Pete Rose was banned from baseball after betting on a Cincinatti Reds game while he was coaching. Do these men deserve to be kept out of the hall of fame?
Many say yes, that if they weren’t kept out their lives would emplify that gambling and betting inside of baseball is acceptable. I disagree. These men were punished for their by being banned from baseball. I think that should mean that they are no longer allowed to play, coach, etc. However, I do not think that because of their crimes that their athletic accomplishments are negligable.
I think that issues of steroids are completely different. Joe Jackson and Pete Rose did commit crimes but those crimes did not affect their performances on the field. Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds (may) have taken drugs that actually enhanced their performance. In that case their records should be left out of the hall of fame because they are not genuine.
Good research and facts help set up your strong opinion. Well stated. Excellent links.
1.0
Comment by prof washburn — April 2, 2006 @ 11:57 pm