PEDs Will Get Pete Rose Into the HOF

YAZMAN · December 19, 2007

Think about it, if only one, just one, of the players implicated in using steroids gets elected, then how can they keep Charlie Hustle from taking his rightfully earned seat in Cooperstown?

Thumper · December 19, 2007

Think about it' date=' if only one, just one, of the players implicated in using steroids gets elected, then how can they keep Charlie Hustle from taking his rightfully earned seat in Cooperstown?[/quote']

Because it still hasn't been "proven" that they've done steroids, where as Rose admitted to the gambling. HOWEVER if congress finds Bonds guilty of perjury, and he STILL gets in, then dammit Rose better be inducted right behind him.

Jayhawk Bill · December 19, 2007

Think about it' date=' if only one, just one, of the players implicated in using steroids gets elected, then how can they keep Charlie Hustle from taking his rightfully earned seat in Cooperstown?[/quote']

I had thought that Bonds et al had used steroids and other PEDs to help their teams win, while Rose had, by his actions, questioned the integrity of the game as a contest where both sides were trying their utmost to win.

rician blast · December 19, 2007

I had thought that Bonds et al had used steroids and other PEDs to help their teams win' date=' while Rose had, by his actions, questioned the integrity of the game as a contest where both sides were trying their utmost to win.[/quote']

Let's focus only on PLAYING career. IMO, Rose was more driven by winning than virtually any player I've ever seen.

As for Bonds and those who've been convincingly implicated in PED use, that usage, I believe, has much less to do with helping their teams win than helping them to put up big numbers, make money, etc.

Thumper · December 19, 2007

Let's focus only on PLAYING career. IMO, Rose was more driven by winning than virtually any player I've ever seen.

As for Bonds and those who've been convincingly implicated in PED use, that usage, I believe, has much less to do with helping their teams win than helping them to put up big numbers, make money, etc.

4,256 hits, that's not something just anyone can do. And it shows how well of a hitter Rose truely was. He didn't need the longball to make success. Rose played the game for what it was, and got screwed over gambling. And he claims, and I believe him, he never bet against his team. He had faith in his team to bet on them to always win.

Even more so... betting on a team doesn't risk changing the outcome of the game, where as using roids to increas strength, you could change a double into a home run. Rose didn't do anything that could affect the outcome of the game. Especially if he bet on them to win, because isn't that the objectve to begin with... to win?

ORS · December 19, 2007

How do you know he always bet on them to win? Because he said so? He also previously said he never bet on them at all, and that has been recanted. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Thumper · December 19, 2007

How do you know he always bet on them to win? Because he said so? He also previously said he never bet on them at all' date=' and that has been recanted. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.[/quote']

I can't say for sure that he always did. But like I said, for some reason, I do believe him. I think he's a genuine person who isn't a lying sack of s*** like Bonds or Clemens.

ORS · December 19, 2007

Based on what? The guy has already lied. That says a lot more than a "feeling".

Jayhawk Bill · December 19, 2007

Let's focus only on PLAYING career. IMO' date=' Rose was more driven by winning than virtually any player I've ever seen.[/quote']

Except, maybe, Mark McGwire. Mark McGwire, when he was on the playing field, was all about winning.

HOF vote for McGwire? He's got the credentials to support it, same as Rose...

***

As an aside, I was watching that game where Rose took out Ray Fosse hard at home plate in a game that meant nothing (unless one had wagered on it), significantly danaging Fosse's career. I don't consider that to be a mark of HOF caliber integrity.

As for Bonds and those who've been convincingly implicated in PED use, that usage, I believe, has much less to do with helping their teams win than helping them to put up big numbers, make money, etc.

I would submit that achieving athletic excellence through PED use had more to do with winning than betting on games involving one's own team.

Thumper · December 19, 2007

Except, maybe, Mark McGwire. Mark McGwire, when he was on the playing field, was all about winning.

HOF vote for McGwire? He's got the credentials to support it, same as Rose...

***

As an aside, I was watching that game where Rose took out Ray Fosse hard at home plate in a game that meant nothing (unless one had wagered on it), significantly danaging Fosse's career. I don't consider that to be a mark of HOF caliber integrity.

I would submit that achieving athletic excellence through PED use had more to do with winning than betting on games involving one's own team.

Isn't McGwire under scruitny for steroids? I don't think he belongs should he be confirmed as having used steroids. Now if they can't get a case on him, I'll bit my tounge.

And Rose's play against Fosse was pure baseball. I don't think Rose had a grduge on Fosse, he just wanted to win, and not using steroids he had to play hard.

Jayhawk Bill · December 19, 2007

Isn't McGwire under scruitny for steroids? I don't think he belongs should he be confirmed as having used steroids. Now if they can't get a case on him' date=' I'll bit my tounge.[/quote']

McGwire never used steroids on the playing field. If he did use steroids, he did it from the locker room, near where Pete Rose used to bet on MLB games in which his team would be playing.

And Rose's play against Fosse was pure baseball. I don't think Rose had a grduge on Fosse, he just wanted to win, and not using steroids he had to play hard.

The All-Star Game is an exhibition game...at least it was until the infamous tie game.

Hitting Fosse with enough force to cause severe injury, when simply sliding home was the option most MLB players would've used in any game, was a dirty trick intended to cause harm. At the time, fans nationwide questioned Rose's character for doing such a thing.

BTW, what makes you think that Rose never used PEDs?

26 to 6 · December 19, 2007

I can't say for sure that he always did. But like I said' date=' for some reason, I do believe him. I think he's a genuine person who isn't a lying sack of s*** like Bonds or Clemens.[/quote']
Great player? ABSOLUTELY. I don't think that his playing ability represents who he is as a person though. Pete, as a person, has always rubbed me the wrong way. But I cannot disagree with the notion that if Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, etc. get inducted that there should be cosideration for making an exception for Pete Rose. And while we're at it lets open up pandora's box and get Joe Jackson in there too, and if we really want to stretch it, while we're on the topic ofmaking HoF exceptions, we can try to make a case for Sadoharu Oh. lol

..but in all seriousness, if Bonds, McGwire, etc. get in, Rose deserves it too.

rician blast · December 19, 2007

As an aside, I was watching that game where Rose took out Ray Fosse hard at home plate in a game that meant nothing (unless one had wagered on it), significantly danaging Fosse's career. I don't consider that to be a mark of HOF caliber integrity.

I thought the point I made was quite clear, that Rose was as fierce a competitor as there was in terms of trying to win...if the Rose-Fosse incident wasn't the quintessential effort to win I don't know what is.

While I think its disgusting that a player would execute such a crushing hit on a catcher in an exhibition game, I don't think that particular example is effective at all in measuring "HOF caliber integrity."

Appropriately, I'm pretty sure that it's never been even hinted that the Fosse hit plays into him not being in the HOF.

I would submit that achieving athletic excellence through PED use had more to do with winning than betting on games involving one's own team.

I said that their PED use was more driven by their seeking to achieve personal goals, $$$$, etc. than reaching team goals. We're talking motivation here, not by-product of the PED usage. I have trouble believing that Clemens and Bonds, assuming they used PEDs, did it for the good of the team.

Jayhawk Bill · December 20, 2007

Appropriately, I'm pretty sure that it's never been even hinted that the Fosse hit plays into him not being in the HOF.

I'm pretty sure, then, despite your handle, that you're not old enough to remember the first couple of years after Rose's retirement as a player, then, before the gambling scandal broke.

The Fosse play, as well as a play in the 1973 National League Championship Series in which Rose bowled over New York Mets’ shortstop Bud Harrelson in an attempt to break up a double play, fueled criticism of Rose in some quarters. Following 1973, he was regularly booed for several years, not just in Shea Stadium, but by a significant segment of fans in many National League parks. These fans apparently considered Rose a “dirty” player.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pete-rose-the-ballplayer/

Treder supports Pete Rose for the HOF, but the excerpt demonstrates my point: Rose was despised by many for his style of play long before the gambling scandal broke. It's tough finding other articles to link from those pre-Internet days, but trust me, there were many.

***

You wanted to focus on playing career: my point is that Rose's playing career was marked by controversy, in contrast to Mark McGwire's. I've demonstrated that point.

Got anything on McGwire, except for those steroids he may have used OFF the playing field?

I said that their PED use was more driven by their seeking to achieve personal goals, $$$$, etc. than reaching team goals.

I don't know what they were thinking. I suspect that you don't, either: you feel that you know, but that's an opinion.

I do know that gaining muscles to play better aids better play, and that better play aids winning. MLB banned Rose because gambling calls into question the integrity of the game. Steroid use may be bad, but guys who cheated to get an edge are already in the Hall of Fame. That's been regarded differently by HOF voters and MLB Commissioners for years than gambling.

..but in all seriousness, if Bonds, McGwire, etc. get in, Rose deserves it too.

I can see a case for all three of the players you cite, as well as Joe Jackson, Sammy Sosa and Roger Clemens.

Can we just make Bud Selig a scapegoat and forgive all of the players in history? :dunno:

Soxfan1 · December 20, 2007

Who could you guys see "pulling a Rose" and admitting steroids years after retirement that was on the Mitchell List?

rician blast · December 20, 2007

I'm pretty sure, then, despite your handle, that you're not old enough to remember the first couple of years after Rose's retirement as a player, then, before the gambling scandal broke.

Incorrect assumption. I do recall him being hated by many for the Fosse hit and for his never-quit style. As I stated though, that has no bearing on him being in the hall or not.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pete-rose-the-ballplayer/

Treder supports Pete Rose for the HOF, but the excerpt demonstrates my point: Rose was despised by many for his style of play long before the gambling scandal broke. It's tough finding other articles to link from those pre-Internet days, but trust me, there were many.

In response to my saying Rose played harder than others, you stated that Rose "took out Ray Fosse hard at home plate" and "I don't consider that to be a mark of HOF caliber integrity. The hit, while over the top, doesn't represent a lack of HOF integrity...and the cite you've provided is ineffective...I don't see anywhere where the article says anything about the hit being a knock on his HOF-caliber integrity as a player. Being despised for playing hard, which is supported by the article you referred to, is much different than being viewed as short on HOF integrity. However, thanks for posting a cite that supports my position that he played to win...I owe ya one.

You wanted to focus on playing career: my point is that Rose's playing career was marked by controversy, in contrast to Mark McGwire's. I've demonstrated that point.

After the fact, you're attempting to conveniently redefine the meaning of your statements.

You stated "I had thought that Bonds et al had used steroids and other PEDs to help their teams win, while Rose had, by his actions, questioned the integrity of the game as a contest where both sides were trying their utmost to win." To that I replied that as a player Rose played as much, or more, to win as anyone, and IMO was more win-oriented than the 'roid boys. Now you say you simply meant that his career was filled with controversy? That doesn't fly.

I don't know what they were thinking. I suspect that you don't, either: you feel that you know, but that's an opinion.

Your contention was that they did it to help their teams. Now you say you don't know what they were thinking. Well, which is it?

Assuming it is your opinion, as you stated in your 2:18 pm post, that players use PEDs to help their teams, I suppose you believe Andy Pettitte's story that he felt an obligation to get back and help his team? I disagree with your assertion that players primarily use PEDs to help their teams...rather I believe players who use PEDs generally do so to help themselves in terms of stats, adulation, and money.

We can agree to disagree on this one.

Jayhawk Bill · December 21, 2007

Your contention was that they did it to help their teams. Now you say you don't know what they were thinking. Well, which is it?

Assuming it is your opinion, as you stated in your 2:18 pm post, that players use PEDs to help their teams, I suppose you believe Andy Pettitte's story that he felt an obligation to get back and help his team? I disagree with your assertion that players primarily use PEDs to help their teams...rather I believe players who use PEDs generally do so to help themselves in terms of stats, adulation, and money.

We can agree to disagree on this one.

If you're going to quote me, use the actual words.

I never mentioned Andy Pettitte in this thread; I've previously pointed out with respect to Pettitte that hGH use for joint injury recovery is illegal.

If one tries to improve one's performance, though, it doesn't necessarily call into question the game's integrity. Gambling on one's own games does.

I do recall him being hated by many for the Fosse hit and for his never-quit style. As I stated though, that has no bearing on him being in the hall or not.

********. Character matters for HOF selection. From the official instructions to the voters:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Bold added.

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/bbwaa.jsp

Destroying two other All Stars' careers through nasty play is a factor in assessing sportsmanship and character (as is gambling). Most players never inflict a serious injury upon another player through the entire course of their careers. Rose inflicted two, and the fans booed him as they booed Bonds as a result.

The hit, while over the top, doesn't represent a lack of HOF integrity...and the cite you've provided is ineffective...

Now you're presuming to know better than the fans who booed Rose, and the BBWAA voters, and the owners of the HOF, just as you presume to know the exact motives of those who used PEDs.

And as you presume to know better than I do.

I'm pretty sure, then, despite your handle, that you're not old enough to remember the first couple of years after Rose's retirement as a player, then, before the gambling scandal broke.

Incorrect assumption. I do recall him being hated by many for the Fosse hit and for his never-quit style.

My apologies. I shouldn't question your memory, given your choice to ignore fans, baseball writers, and the actual voting guidelines. All others' opinions excluded, your personal choice to champion Rose is rational within your personal code of ethics.

Thumper · December 21, 2007

BTW, what makes you think that Rose never used PEDs?

Because if he was using PEDs then he'd have a lot less hits and a lot more home runs. Anyone with a good eye and a quick swing can get a hit, it's the juice that'll turn you into a power hitter.

Jayhawk Bill · December 21, 2007

Because if he was using PEDs then he'd have a lot less hits and a lot more home runs. Anyone with a good eye and a quick swing can get a hit' date=' it's the juice that'll turn you into a power hitter.[/quote']

You took the bait.

Pete Rose admitted to using illegal performance-enhancing drugs on the David Letterman Show.

26 to 6 · December 21, 2007

Did he? I'm sure he used Greenies and other amphetamines, I hadn't heard that he admitted PED use on Letterman though lol. Interesting. When was this, recently? Like within the past year or 2?

Thumper · December 21, 2007

I'm in the same boat here with 26 to 6, I've never heard of this. If that's the case then why hasn't it be more publicized? Then if it comes out that he was using it during his time of play, well then he's just screwed himself.

rician blast · December 21, 2007

If you're going to quote me, use the actual words.

I never mentioned Andy Pettitte in this thread; I've previously pointed out with respect to Pettitte that hGH use for joint injury recovery is illegal.

never said you mentioned Andy. I said based on your position, that PEDs are used for the benefit of the team, I suppose you believe Andy. I did not misquote you, only accurately paraphrased what you said. You are misrepresenting the facts.

If one tries to improve one's performance, though, it doesn't necessarily call into question the game's integrity. Gambling on one's own games does.

No s***. I never commented, though, on the games integrity...I commented on Rose's desire to win, which your own source supports. Beyond that, you're misrepresenting the discussion again.

********. Character matters for HOF selection. From the official instructions to the voters:
Bold added.
http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/bbwaa.jsp

Destroying two other All Stars' careers through nasty play is a factor in assessing sportsmanship and character (as is gambling). Most players never inflict a serious injury upon another player through the entire course of their careers. Rose inflicted two, and the fans booed him as they booed Bonds as a result.

All that is true and its a great attempted misdirection....but I stated that the ARTICLE you referenced never said anything regarding Rose's integrity being a HOF factor. Reread the article if need be, but I was correct. You are misrepresenting the discussion again.

Now you're presuming to know better than the fans who booed Rose, and the BBWAA voters, and the owners of the HOF, just as you presume to know the exact motives of those who used PEDs.

And as you presume to know better than I do.

I said it was my OPINION that PEDs were used by players to benefit themselves. You stated that it was your opinion that they do it for their teams. So where exactly is my presumption to know better than you? This is the most egregious example of your recent string of misrepresentations.

You play fast and loose with others words, a tendency that seems to have no end. At least now its evident why you're the stat-man you are. Your inability to construct your OWN position(s), to be true to those positons and to support them without misrepresenting others is quite apparent. I find your approach disengenuous. I guess its only natural that you'd prefer to rely on information constructed by others that hopefully, for your sake, is less refutable.

Now go along, come up with your next illogical, unsupported, rambling discourse in which you recast the discussion in some new light while misrepresenting my words. I'll turn the ******** filter on and we'll see if any of your next post gets through. Somehow I doubt it.

Jayhawk Bill · December 22, 2007

So where exactly is my presumption to know better than you? This is the most egregious example of your recent string of misrepresentations.

You play fast and loose with others words, a tendency that seems to have no end. At least now its evident why you're the stat-man you are. Your inability to construct your OWN position(s), to be true to those positons and to support them without misrepresenting others is quite apparent. I find your approach disengenuous. I guess its only natural that you'd prefer to rely on information constructed by others that hopefully, for your sake, is less refutable.

Now go along, come up with your next illogical, unsupported, rambling discourse in which you recast the discussion in some new light while misrepresenting my words. I'll turn the ******** filter on and we'll see if any of your next post gets through. Somehow I doubt it.

Did you enjoy insulting me personally because you ran out of logical arguments? :lol:

Let's look at what positions you did present before reverting to insults:

never said you mentioned Andy. I said based on your position, that PEDs are used for the benefit of the team, I suppose you believe Andy. I did not misquote you, only accurately paraphrased what you said. You are misrepresenting the facts.

You posted:

"I suppose you believe Andy Pettitte's story that he felt an obligation to get back and help his team?"

You jumped to represent a belief on my part.

I responded:

"I never mentioned Andy Pettitte in this thread; I've previously pointed out with respect to Pettitte that hGH use for joint injury recovery is illegal."

That's a very rational response.

***

You also posted:

"I disagree with your assertion that players primarily use PEDs to help their teams...rather I believe players who use PEDs generally do so to help themselves in terms of stats, adulation, and money."

That's where I demanded a direct quote. I never said that players use PEDs PRIMARILY to help their teams. I had posted:

"I don't know what they were thinking. I suspect that you don't, either: you feel that you know, but that's an opinion.

I do know that gaining muscles to play better aids better play, and that better play aids winning."

and

"I had thought that Bonds et al had used steroids and other PEDs to help their teams win, while Rose had, by his actions, questioned the integrity of the game as a contest where both sides were trying their utmost to win."

I suspect that you jumped to conclusions from the latter quote, posted first. I never said that magnanimous caring for the team was the motivation. It might've been; it might've been what you suggest. The point was, and is, that good playing stats and achievements help one's team, and that gambling doesn't.

No s***. I never commented, though, on the games integrity...I commented on Rose's desire to win, which your own source supports. Beyond that, you're misrepresenting the discussion again.

I took an article that referenced explicitly that fans hated Rose in the 1970's, booing him from ballpark to ballpark. Once again:

"The Fosse play, as well as a play in the 1973 National League Championship Series in which Rose bowled over New York Mets’ shortstop Bud Harrelson in an attempt to break up a double play, fueled criticism of Rose in some quarters. Following 1973, he was regularly booed for several years, not just in Shea Stadium, but by a significant segment of fans in many National League parks. These fans apparently considered Rose a “dirty” player.

Treder supports Pete Rose for the HOF, but the excerpt demonstrates my point: Rose was despised by many for his style of play long before the gambling scandal broke."

I am misrepresenting nothing. Your implication that Treder's support for Rose, despite the facts he cites, turns those facts into falsehoods

"Being despised for playing hard, which is supported by the article you referred to, is much different than being viewed as short on HOF integrity."

is where I called ********.

All that is true and its a great attempted misdirection....but I stated that the ARTICLE you referenced never said anything regarding Rose's integrity being a HOF factor. Reread the article if need be, but I was correct. You are misrepresenting the discussion again.

You are misrepresenting my original post, reposted for clarity right above here. My point was that people despised Rose's character as far back as the cited incidents. I'm the guy who posted, for those who didn't know, that character is explicitly a HOF voting criteria. Needlessly injuring other players reflects on Rose's character. I disagree with your bolded words above. Your atempt to claim that my disagreement with Treder makes me wrong is both faulty logic and, um, misdirection.

I said it was my OPINION that PEDs were used by players to benefit themselves. You stated that it was your opinion that they do it for their teams.

Quote me. I said that it helped their teams to win--I didn't make any claim with respect to motivation, be it personal gain or altruism.

My position, if you'll go back, was:

"I had thought that Bonds et al had used steroids and other PEDs to help their teams win, while Rose had, by his actions, questioned the integrity of the game as a contest where both sides were trying their utmost to win."

I'm not wavering: use of steroids helps a player's team win. Gambling does not.

Did he? I'm sure he used Greenies and other amphetamines' date=' I hadn't heard that he admitted PED use on Letterman though lol. Interesting. When was this, recently? Like within the past year or 2?[/quote']

Greenies are a form of PED: they enhance performance at risk of adverse side effects, and that's why they were used (and later banned).

Here are the details:

In an appearance on the Late Show taped Monday, Rose was asked by host David Letterman whether he ever used any performance-enhancing drugs as a player. Rose said he never did, but when prodded about "greenies," explained that he used them -- though they were nothing more than "diet pills."

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/story/9701288

The show was taped October 2, 2006.

"Greenies" weren't then outlawed by MLB, but using them without a personal prescription was illegal.

From just before amphetamines were added to the tested drugs:

"Illegal amphetamines should be banned as performance-enhancing substances," Selig wrote. "It is time to put the whispers about amphetamine use to bed, once and for all."

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2005/05/01/selig_seeks_tougher_steroid_rules/

And from the first season thereafter:

Baseball's steroid-testing program is now in its fourth season and its third incarnation, having been strengthened twice under pressure from the federal government. However, until last November baseball had resisted banning amphetamines, synthetic stimulants that, some within the game argued, were not true performance-enhancers -- an assertion that is contradicted by leading authorities on the use of drugs in sports.

"There was a huge outcry [in the scientific community] when baseball claimed there was no evidence that amphetamines were performance-enhancing," said Gary Wadler, a professor of medicine at New York University and a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency. "But stimulants can be potent performance-enhancers."

What baseball officials knew for certain was that amphetamine use was so widespread -- at various times in recent years, players have estimated the usage rate to be as high as 85 percent -- it had become an accepted part of big league culture. Steroids get more publicity, but baseball insiders knew amphetamines -- which can increase a person's energy, alertness and sense of well-being -- had a bigger impact on the game on a day-to-day basis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401584.html

CrespoBlows · December 22, 2007

I can't say for sure that he always did. But like I said' date=' for some reason, I do believe him. I think he's a genuine person who isn't a lying sack of s*** like Bonds or Clemens.[/quote']

How in the f*** does this make any sense to you at all?

Pete Rose is a genuine person who isn't a lying sack of s***?

What the f***? How in the world do you actually believe that?

rician blast · December 22, 2007

OK, time to wrap up and move on, but before doing so I offer the following example of your approach in this thread. You stated:

(1)

I never said that players use PEDs PRIMARILY to help their teams.

and you posted:

(2)

I didn't make any claim with respect to motivation, be it personal gain or altruism.

Yet the record shows that you did say:

(3)

I had thought that Bonds et al had used steroids and other PEDs to help their teams win...

Quote #3 directly contradicts #1 and #2.

You have been exposed.

Cocos Disciples · December 22, 2007

You have been exposed.

:lol: Dick.

Jayhawk Bill · December 22, 2007

You have been exposed.

As what? As a guy who points out that players' using steroids helps teams win? :blink:

I'm not claiming motivation; I'm claiming effect. You refuse to accept that after repeated clarification, relying upon your semantic inference to try to call me a liar. And you consider it worth your time to spew entire paragraphs, off-topic, strictly for the purpose of attempted personal insult as a tangent.

Have a good evening, Rician Blast.

rician blast · December 22, 2007

Dick.

Terrific contribution, Coco. :lol:

rician blast · December 22, 2007

As what? As a guy who points out that players' using steroids helps teams win?

Never mind, we'll not be making each other see the light that the other sees, so it's a good time to drop this particular issue. You claim to have been personally insulted. You claim I called you a liar. You refer to my illustration that you've contradicted yourself as semantic inference.

Yet if you reread your own posts objectively you'd see that you said players use PEDs to help their team...then deny saying it. I've simply pointed out the inconsistency. To implies motive...not by-product.

Have a good night.

Edit:

If you are that insecure that you can not handle feedback I suggest you develop a thicker skin...not everyone is out to get you, Bill. Lighten up.

Cocos Disciples · December 22, 2007

Why do people love to attack Jayhawk Bill? Do they feel threatened? Seriously, its ridiculous.

Sign In

PEDs Will Get Pete Rose Into the HOF

Recommended Posts

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Status Updates