Do you support the use of the asterisk in the record books/HOF for steroid users?

Question

Let's face it, steroids were a huge part of baseball a few years back. They were so available for players to use and not get caught and A LOT used them. No one can deny that it defined an era of baseball.

As we know, there is controversy about the Hall of Fame and the record books.

In all honestly, do you support actually putting an asterisk by those numbers/players in the record books and Hall of Fame? Or should there be a section in the Hall of Fame for those steroid users? Guys like McGwire and Bonds still had huge impacts on baseball.

Answer 1

I think that if you put an asterisk for the Steroid Era then you would have to start going back and putting asterisk's for many other era's as well. You would have to have a Greenie Era, Cocaine Era (remember in the early to mid 80's stolen base records were being dismantled by coked out players). An asterisk for pre-west coast team records, an asterisk for 154 games versus 162 games. You can define it as an Era but you can not mark up the record books. The players at that time found an advantage that was illegal on the street but legal within the bounds of their game so their records stand.

Answer 2

I do not support the use of asterisks or a separate HOF section.



Doing so would give those with the asterisks special recognition for accomplishing records and status so much against the norm they need to be singled out. If there are any players we and the HOF voters think should have an asterisk, those are the ones who should not be enshrined in the HOF.



Attaching asterisks to suspected and known steroid users would provide extra undeserved attention to those players. It would allow others who cheated but were neither suspected or caught to continue go undetected.



McGwire and Bonds had impacts on baseball - let it stand with their reputations being tarnished forever.

Answer 3

I say no.

After all, there are plenty of records from when baseball was WAY different then now, in big ways, and we don't put an asterisk next to those records.

For example, what's the most unbreakable record in baseball? A LOT of people will say, well, Cy Young's record of 511 wins, of course! And it's 511 wins, everyone knows that. No one will get credit for breaking Cy Young's record until they get 512 wins.

BUT. He won 72 games before 1893... when the pitcher's mound was only 50 feet from home plate! And players had been allowed to use a bat with one flat side until 1893!

But there aren't any record books that have "* Cy Young won 72 games when the pitcher's mound was only 50 ft. from home plate," and no one considers the 'real' record to be 439 wins.

Answer 4

I believe the 1st answerer to an quantity. genuine, steroid regulations have not been in impact for many of those gamers' careers. besides the fact that, there are a lot of athletes in baseball who play the sport genuine and don't use steroids to get forward. interior the top, I even tend to lean in the direction of asserting that the records shouldn't count selection. If a undeniable participant would not have been on steroids, might he have had the profession he did or might he have broken the checklist(s) he did? so some distance as i'm worried, Hank Aaron is the domicile run king and Roger Maris hit the main homers in a season.

Answer 5

You know what, I used to think that way. I thought if you took steroids or HGH or whatever you get asterisked and maybe even blackballed like Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa. I have know taken a softer approach after realizing that whatever they take THEY STILL HAVE TO HIT THE BALL or field the ball. These ballplayers are still great athletes and if your going to ban substances let it be all of them because even the greats like Wilie Mays, Mantle and Aaron have admitted to taking uppers called bennies by the handfuls. That hasn't been scrutinized. I say police it know but give those ballplayers credit for being a handful from the many. You still need the talent to play that game at their levels.

Answer 6

I don't much like asterisks at all, for anything, but, if they are 100% positively sure that the player took steroids then I do support their names being either italicized or highlighted when listed with other ballplayers who did not use any "illegal" substances.



I just get really turned off when I see an asterisk.

Answer 7

Hi Socks,.. Well for starters I am not a fan, But I do have an opinion on this issues,...Such being,..There are rules, & anyone who breaks the rule should be disqualified,..No ifs, no ands, & no buts,..You break the rule, then you are out,..The record books need to be reserved for those who play it straight. No exceptions,..otherwise there is no point in having rules,.. It is all about honor,.. as far as I am concerned, honor trumps a few points on ones batting average score,..One wonders what impact the players you mentioned would have had, had they not tried to gain an unfair advantage, over others by cheating,..A cheat is a cheat, & a fraud is a fraud,..& honor, is it's own reward. Cheaters do not belong in the record books, or in any hall of fame,..Those places of honor need to be reserved, for honorable men. & the names of those who cheated, should not be attached, in any way,..

Answer 8

The asterisk doesn't really do anything. If you ask me their recods should be banned from baseball all together.



Guys like Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc. who would be sure HOFers if it wasn't for steroids ruin baseball and makes guys like Griffey & Thomas seem guilty by association just because they put up monster numbers in the steroid era.

Answer 9

I do not. There's no way to determine accurately who did and who didn't. So some users would be untainted by an asterisk, while one might be given to someone who is actually clean. Let the numbers be what they are and let the baseball historians sort it all out.

Answer 10

No because MLB knew players were using steriods and turned a blind eye since it put fans in the seats again and interest in baseball ( home runs) soared. They would be hypocrites to go back now and say that it was wrong.

Answer 11

No. I don't want my tax dollars wasted on this foolishness. Punctuation ain't free, y'know.



You publish your own edition of this record book and you pay for the asterisks. Go right ahead.

Answer 12

Yes. For example: NY Yankees 1996 - 2012*

Answer 13

Nope. Too bad that Marc Ecko put that asterisk on Bonds historical ball.

Answer 14

No, because before you put an astrisk next to the record, you have to prove that the player used steriods. If they could prove it, there would be a lot more consequences than just an astrisk.

Answer 15

No asterisks and no Hall for the cheaters. Ever!!