DeLuca1967 Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 How about Bruce Smith and the 'Football Hall of Fame'? Bruce came in as a fat slob. Suddenly he is ripped and missed 4 games for a "drug" supension? I don't think is was ever 100% clear if it were roids. Should he be kept out? Should players like Shawne Merriman be kept out no matter what he does for the rest of his career?
smokinandjokin Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 How about Bruce Smith and the 'Football Hall of Fame'? Bruce came in as a fat slob. Suddenly he is ripped and missed 4 games for a "drug" supension? I don't think is was ever 100% clear if it were roids. I thought it was 100% clear it was coke?
HopsGuy Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 I thought it was 100% clear it was coke? I thought it was pretty clear. Bruce didn't get bigger, he got smaller. I remember once anecdote that when his agent would to call Bruce's place around 10 AM during the '85-'86 off-season and be told to wait to see if he was up. The next year, he was out at the gym at the same time. Someone lit fire under Bruce to make him one of the greatest defensive linemen of all time. I often wonder what those magic word were. In my mind it went something like "Bruce, if you bust your butt a little bit, you'll be able to claim injuries at the beginning of training camp and avoid all that crap. Now put those wings down and get to work. You'll thank me later."
apuszczalowski Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 How about Bruce Smith and the 'Football Hall of Fame'? Bruce came in as a fat slob. Suddenly he is ripped and missed 4 games for a "drug" supension? I don't think is was ever 100% clear if it were roids. Should he be kept out? Should players like Shawne Merriman be kept out no matter what he does for the rest of his career? Merriman should be kept out as long as his play is affected by the roids. If he never touches it again and he has a HOF worthy career, he should be in. I don't ever remember hearing about Smith on roids. McGwire was supposedly taking roids his entire career or atleast when he was breaking records. I guess in your opinion this means Andrew Peters isn't a lock for the Hockey hall of Fame
DeLuca1967 Posted January 10, 2007 Author Posted January 10, 2007 I thought it was pretty clear. Bruce didn't get bigger, he got smaller. I remember once anecdote that when his agent would to call Bruce's place around 10 AM during the '85-'86 off-season and be told to wait to see if he was up. The next year, he was out at the gym at the same time. Someone lit fire under Bruce to make him one of the greatest defensive linemen of all time. I often wonder what those magic word were. In my mind it went something like "Bruce, if you bust your butt a little bit, you'll be able to claim injuries at the beginning of training camp and avoid all that crap. Now put those wings down and get to work. You'll thank me later." He got smaller but much more defined. Taking a 300 lb man to the gym and pumping him with roids doesn't give you a 300 lb Mr USA. He would lose a lot of mass when the fat burned off. Roids wouldn't replace that mass. It was always assumed to be coke. Never released or proven.
DeLuca1967 Posted January 10, 2007 Author Posted January 10, 2007 Merriman should be kept out as long as his play is affected by the roids. If he never touches it again and he has a HOF worthy career, he should be in. I don't ever remember hearing about Smith on roids. McGwire was supposedly taking roids his entire career or atleast when he was breaking records. I guess in your opinion this means Andrew Peters isn't a lock for the Hockey hall of Fame Won't Merriman always be affected by the roids? Also, Lets not bring Peters into a thread about athletes. He has no place.
The Poojer Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 i think mcgwire should be in the HOF, i also think Pete Rose & Barry Bonds belong...sure steroids (in bonds and mcgwires(?) case are illegal), you still need to perform...unless they show 'roids improve hand/eye coordinaton..then I am in favor of them being in the HOF...Rose on the other hand belongs. maybe moreso than Ripken...without charlie hustle, ripken would be just another really really really good(aka great) player....hey wait! I have deluca on ignore...but I love your HOF analysis today How about Bruce Smith and the 'Football Hall of Fame'? Bruce came in as a fat slob. Suddenly he is ripped and missed 4 games for a "drug" supension? I don't think is was ever 100% clear if it were roids. Should he be kept out? Should players like Shawne Merriman be kept out no matter what he does for the rest of his career?
Alaska Darin Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Roids wouldn't replace that mass. Is there any subject you're not prepared to show your ignorance on?
apuszczalowski Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 i think mcgwire should be in the HOF, i also think Pete Rose & Barry Bonds belong...sure steroids (in bonds and mcgwires(?) case are illegal), you still need to perform...unless they show 'roids improve hand/eye coordinaton..then I am in favor of them being in the HOF...Rose on the other hand belongs. maybe moreso than Ripken...without charlie hustle, ripken would be just another really really really good(aka great) player....hey wait! I have deluca on ignore...but I love your HOF analysis today aslong as Roses gambling was done while he was not playing, his accomplishments on the field say he should be in. Its like OJ, his play on the field is enough to put him in and keep him there Mcgwire, bonds and Sosa would not be HOFers if it wasn't for their Home run records. Steriods gave them the extra power to hit the balls for home runs, therefore they should not be in if it is proven they took roids. Roids inhance their performance so therefore they don't deserve it.
GoodBye Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Oh...I thought you guys were talking about McDonald's Big Mac. Nevermind...
The Poojer Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 perhaps, and i will not argue, because it is against the rules, that said, i think that the game itself causes these players to seek out any means possible to gain an edge...technology leads to pitchers throwing 100+ mph, equipment technology helps players every step of the way..sadly the only thing left is brute strength to get an upper hand, and in order to collect a paycheck is to beat technology...whats left..the hopes that a wonder drug will make you stronger to offset everything the legal means are throwing at you..not saying it is right..but it has to be tough to realize that no amount of physical work will surpass the technical aspects of the game....that is why i tend to be a little less harsh on the bonds, mcgwires, sosa's et al..plus I love the dimension it gives this great game! chicks(and I) love the long ball aslong as Roses gambling was done while he was not playing, his accomplishments on the field say he should be in. Its like OJ, his play on the field is enough to put him in and keep him there Mcgwire, bonds and Sosa would not be HOFers if it wasn't for their Home run records. Steriods gave them the extra power to hit the balls for home runs, therefore they should not be in if it is proven they took roids. Roids inhance their performance so therefore they don't deserve it.
smokinandjokin Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Mcgwire, bonds and Sosa would not be HOFers if it wasn't for their Home run records. Steriods gave them the extra power to hit the balls for home runs, therefore they should not be in if it is proven they took roids. Roids inhance their performance so therefore they don't deserve it. It was an era that changed the game and needs to be recognized. The era's best players need to be included, along with all of the conversation and footnotes that go along with their suspected transgressions. Drugs were used, but the league knew it. The ball was juiced. The strike zone was downsized. The league expanded, which diluted the quality of pitching. All of those factors led to more home runs. And yet we are going to punish great players who would've been great hitters regardless, because they were on steroids? Ten years' worth of players don't get in? Where do you draw the line? The league rode those players to get itself out of one of it's darkest periods. To take a holier-than-thou approach when it comes time to remember their legacy, both good and bad, is pathetic.
Recommended Posts