To my knowledge, Bonds has never testede positive for a banned substance.

So while suspicion is certainly warranted, whatever happened to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?"

By that reasoning, no one would ever be found guilty of murder unless someone witnessed the crime.

By that reasoning, no one would ever be found guilty of murder unless someone witnessed the crime.

Huh?!?! The fact that plenty of murderers whose crimes weren't witnessed are convicted tells you that you can be "proven guilty" without the crime being witnessed.

These people writing the tell-all stuff are not under oath and it's uncertain how truthful and reliable all of this is. Bonds has not tested positive for a banned substance. Based on this, I don't think the case against him is conclusive. I strongly suspect him of juicing, yes, but *as of now* I don't think the burden of proof has been satisfied.

Now you can argue that the "burden of proof" on baseball is lower than the "burden of proof" in the criminal courts, and that's fine, but argue that -- but your statement above doesn't seem to logically follow from my original statement.

Using your Bonds logic, didn't Rose get all of his hits before he gambled on the game?

As for it not being against the rules, steriod use was against the LAW. I'm puzzled by this whenever I hear it: It wasn't against the rules . . . .

DUDE WAS BREAKING THE LAW. Just because it isn't enumerated in baseball's rules, doesn't mean it is not illegal.

Again, the issue with Rose is that his actions got him banned from the game, and in doing so made him ineligible for the Hall. The timeline is not the problem here.

As for whether or not Bonds was breaking the law, he hasn't even been arrested for anything yet. I don't mind baseball adopting a lower standard of proof in these matters than the courts, but shouldn't he at least be charged with a crime before we say he broke the law? Is he even being investigated for criminal activity?

DUDE WAS BREAKING THE LAW.

Maybe. Probably, even. But as far as I know, he hasn't been convicted in a court of law, and "innocent until proven guilty" is still the law of the land (Bush-designated "unlawful combatants" excepted, of course).

And in any case, there's still a difference between breaking "the law" and breaking the rules of baseball. If Bonds' alleged crime were, say, tax evasion, would you still say he should be banned from the game?

Personally, I do think it should be the other way around: steroid use should be against the rules of baseball, but not against the law. But that's not the situation, and we shouldn't argue for a punishment just because we think there "should" be a rule against it.

If one dings Bonds out of the HoF, they will also have to ding all the others admitted, accused or rumored of doping.

Jorge Piedra
Alex Sanchez
Mark McGwire
Jose Canseco
Rafael Palmeiro
Sammy Sosa
Jason Giambi
Juan Gonzalez and
Ivan Rodriguez

among others. And how should we adjust the record books for all of the alcoholic players before steroids?? And what of the dope smokers of the 70s or the cocaine freaks of the 80s??

To this point, I am unaware that Bonds has tested positive for anything. When he does, then think about dinging him, not before.

Is the idea of performance enhancers anything out of the ordinary for Major League Baseball? Hardly. Especially if it wasn't illegal at the time. Do you realize that pitchers sneaked vasoline and threw spitters? That umps called balls and strikes for the catcher and rewarded the catchers with favored calls? That coaches and managers steal signals? That players hit many homers with rubber in their bats? That players like George Brett used pine tar to high on the bat? This idea of gaining an advantage is not only the norm in baseball, it is almost as traditional to baseball as hotdogs, peanuts and beer.