Tweet
Re: Barry Bonds Sports Illustrated steroid article
Beyond wasting his career, it's even more unfortunate Strawberry pissed away his life and decided to do it all while he was supposed to be a father. Deciding to throw away his athletic talent seems less indicative of what sort of person Strawberry is than his decision to assault the pregnant mother of his child, snort up half of Columbia, neglect his child support payments, commit a hit and run, ad nauseum. He makes Canseco seem like a choirboy. I can't recall a bigger miscreant in the last 20 yrs and that's including Belle, Steve Howe, Gooden, Eric Davis, Vince Coleman, and any other bad news bears you want to throw in.
I genuinely wonder at what point does an athlete's reprehensible personality outweigh their athletic acheivements? At what point do people stop cheering the homeruns because the man hitting them is such a repulsive person? (To be honest, I didn't see a whole lot of people cheering Bonds' 70 HR's). How morally bankrupt does a player need to get before his personal life completely negates his athletic acheivements?
For me, Strawberry reached that point.
Would the HOF let in a player who, for example, was a career .370 hitter but also a convicted child molestor? I would say they probably wouldn't, so it makes me wonder where the line is. I understand that HOF'ers aren't required to be angels and that the HOF solely looks at a player's baseball career, but if I'm correct in thinking (hoping) that they wouldn't let in a convicted child molestor then apparently there is some line in regards to a player's personal life. I wonder what that line is. Has any player been barred from the HOF solely because of his personal life? (I don't count Rose because his gambling broke a specific MLB rule. I'm just referring to a situation where a player's personal life is so morally reprehensible that, while it didn't break any specific MLB rules, they just couldn't be admitted to the HOF).
Rudy.
Beyond wasting his career, it's even more unfortunate Strawberry pissed away his life and decided to do it all while he was supposed to be a father. Deciding to throw away his athletic talent seems less indicative of what sort of person Strawberry is than his decision to assault the pregnant mother of his child, snort up half of Columbia, neglect his child support payments, commit a hit and run, ad nauseum. He makes Canseco seem like a choirboy. I can't recall a bigger miscreant in the last 20 yrs and that's including Belle, Steve Howe, Gooden, Eric Davis, Vince Coleman, and any other bad news bears you want to throw in.
I genuinely wonder at what point does an athlete's reprehensible personality outweigh their athletic acheivements? At what point do people stop cheering the homeruns because the man hitting them is such a repulsive person? (To be honest, I didn't see a whole lot of people cheering Bonds' 70 HR's). How morally bankrupt does a player need to get before his personal life completely negates his athletic acheivements?
For me, Strawberry reached that point.
Would the HOF let in a player who, for example, was a career .370 hitter but also a convicted child molestor? I would say they probably wouldn't, so it makes me wonder where the line is. I understand that HOF'ers aren't required to be angels and that the HOF solely looks at a player's baseball career, but if I'm correct in thinking (hoping) that they wouldn't let in a convicted child molestor then apparently there is some line in regards to a player's personal life. I wonder what that line is. Has any player been barred from the HOF solely because of his personal life? (I don't count Rose because his gambling broke a specific MLB rule. I'm just referring to a situation where a player's personal life is so morally reprehensible that, while it didn't break any specific MLB rules, they just couldn't be admitted to the HOF).
Rudy.
Comment