Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Should athletes who admit cheating lose awards won?

by Josh K / February 18, 2005 1:34 AM PST
Greenwell bitter about losing '88 award to Canseco

FORT MYERS, Fla. (AP) -- It was in 1988 that Mike Greenwell was runner-up in the American League MVP voting, and now he wants everyone to know why: Jose Canseco, who won the award, cheated.

Canseco's book released this week discussed his steroid use and named other players who he said used the substance that has been banned from baseball. His tainted success, Greenwell said Thursday, deprived other players of recognition and honors.


I think he's got a good point. Canseco has admitted in his book that he was cheating throughout his major league career. My feeling right now is that since he confessed, all of his awards should be taken back and given to the guy who came in 2nd that year, and maybe he should even have all of his stats expunged. Total home runs: 0. Total RBIs: 0. etc.

I suppose it may come down to when steroids were banned, but what do you think?
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Should athletes who admit cheating lose awards won?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Should athletes who admit cheating lose awards won?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Revisonist History
by duckman / February 18, 2005 1:46 AM PST
Collapse -
Wasn't cheating
by Rick S / February 18, 2005 2:06 AM PST

technically

Baseball had no rules relating to steroids. Granted steroids are illegal but there were no rules inplace forbidding them in baseball.

Although the award may be tainted there is no legal ground to take it away.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) How about yet more asterisks in the record books?
by Dick White / February 18, 2005 2:30 AM PST
In reply to: Wasn't cheating
Collapse -
Well if they can give Maris one for his record
by Rick S / February 18, 2005 3:20 AM PST

than why not give them to the roided up monsters now?

Collapse -
The Maris asterisk was removed.....
by Josh K / February 18, 2005 3:42 AM PST

...a number of years ago, sadly not until after he died, so he never got the satisfaction of seeing his achievement fully recognized.

Collapse -
Just curious
by Roger NC / February 18, 2005 2:34 AM PST
In reply to: Wasn't cheating
Granted steroids are illegal but there were no rules inplace forbidding them in baseball.


While granting no explicit rules (and as a society we're in the process of rejecting most expectations of fair play and reasonableness), couldn't the fact of winning by doing something ILLEGAL be construed as wrong as something against the rule book? Shouldn't the rule book be rules for the game/sport IN ADDITION to not supplanting the laws of the land?

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
Collapse -
We're talking MLB here
by Rick S / February 18, 2005 2:38 AM PST
In reply to: Just curious

The League that let Steve Howe "come back" 7 times from cocaine addiction.

The League that has one of the owners as commissioner.

Now get your damned Vulcan logic out here!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Fair counter point, but not Vulcan, only twisted. LOL.
by Roger NC / February 18, 2005 2:41 AM PST
In reply to: We're talking MLB here
Collapse -
If that were the practice
by Dan McC / February 18, 2005 3:40 AM PST
In reply to: Just curious

you could back a couple of buses up to the player's entrance of every football game in the country. How much of that behavior would be legal outside the sport's context.

"Sure I dragged him to the ground on Main Street, Your Honor, but it was a clean hit. I didn't clip him!"

Happy

Dan

Collapse -
If they get to keep them
by TONI H / February 18, 2005 2:23 AM PST

does that mean that Pete Rose should finally be given the awards he actually EARNED and were denied to him AFTER he admitted wrong doing?

TONI

Collapse -
Pete broke the rules of baseball
by Rick S / February 18, 2005 2:28 AM PST

What awards do you speak of?

Collapse -
His gambling on baseball began after he stopped playing
by Josh K / February 18, 2005 2:37 AM PST

Therefore I don't see how his on-field achievements would have changed any.

I think he belongs in the Hall as a player.

Collapse -
I completely agree
by TONI H / February 18, 2005 2:43 AM PST

The commission has withheld the rewards/awards he actually earned and never got as extra punishment...while the whole time they have allowed actual 'criminals' who broke the laws of the land to continue to get up that ladder of recognition.

TONI

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) what rewards/awards were with held?
by Rick S / February 18, 2005 2:47 AM PST
In reply to: I completely agree
Collapse -
Pete belongs in the Hall of Fame
by Rolway / February 18, 2005 2:59 AM PST
Collapse -
But he agreed to Vincent's terms
by Rick S / February 18, 2005 3:12 AM PST

lifetime ban.

Collapse -
I think the ban should remain in effect
by Josh K / February 18, 2005 3:16 AM PST

He could still be admitted into the Hall for his achievements, with a note about the ban and the reason for it included. In fact, it would serve as a good lesson for kids visiting the Hall, that cheating may have short-term benefits but will have long-term consequences, and that it's dishonorable.

Collapse -
He is in the hall in that manner
by Rick S / February 18, 2005 3:19 AM PST

that have recognized his achievements they have displays of his bat(s), gloves, shoes, etc., he's just not in the players wing with a bust.

Collapse -
While that may be true
by Dan McC / February 18, 2005 3:57 AM PST
In reply to: I completely agree

Enforcing civil law is not Baseball's jurisdiction, upholding the integrity of the game is. Aside from letting a guy play and not letting him play, Baseball does not have many meaningful options for enforcement. If Baseball had just fined this bum and left it at that it would have been a disservice and would not stand today as an example to instruct the behavior of the players.

Dan

Collapse -
me to and what harm was betting?
by Mark5019 / February 18, 2005 5:13 AM PST

im confused unless they think he would intentinally screw up to lose?

Collapse -
Throw a game on purpose? ? ?
by Dan McC / February 18, 2005 5:19 AM PST

No one would ever do that!

</sarcasm>

Dan

Collapse -
You're probably too young
by TONI H / February 18, 2005 7:09 AM PST

to remember the infamous nine trials..........

Which was why the 'rule' was put in to begin with...however, Rose wasn't betting until after he stopped playing, if I remember correctly. He was still managing/coaching, maybe.

Which is why I think he should have been able to still get into the Hall Of Fame.....even with a lifetime banning for baseball itself. His record stood on his abilities not on something he did long after the fact.

TONI

Collapse -
Pete Rose was managing the Cincinnati Reds....
by Josh K / February 18, 2005 9:56 AM PST

....when he was betting on baseball. The evidence indicated that he was indeed betting on his own team -- to win. But it's just a small step from that to deliberately making some bad managerial decisions, e.g. leaving the starting pitcher in too long in order to ensure a loss you've bet on.

Collapse -
oh yeah?
by Dragon / February 19, 2005 8:49 AM PST
he was indeed betting on his own team -- to win. But it's just a small step from that to deliberately making some bad managerial decisions, e.g. leaving the starting pitcher in too long in order to ensure a loss you've bet on.

OK, Im driving 70 mph. Its just a small step from driving over 70, so I should be punished?
Collapse -
If the speed limit is under 70, then YES
by Josh K / February 20, 2005 10:36 PM PST
In reply to: oh yeah?

Gambling on baseball is illegal. Rose was never accused of trying to fix games and was only banned for the crimes he actually committed.

Collapse -
Games in which he had a duty to perform
by Dragon / February 21, 2005 12:29 AM PST

Since he allegedly betted on his own team, it looks to me like that wouldve been an additional incentive to win. That should be an exception to the rule.

Collapse -
So breaking the law should be OK....
by Josh K / February 21, 2005 12:57 AM PST

....if it adds to the incentive to win?

I guess that ends the whole steroid thing right there, doesn't it.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Thats why in the 'real world' we have courts
by Dragon / February 28, 2005 10:53 AM PST
Collapse -
But I know of them
by Dan McC / February 18, 2005 12:05 PM PST

Rose was still in Baseball. He was managing and betting on Baseball. Were it up to me he would be banned from going to see any MLB events, any minor league event, and watching any game played will ball and stick, either in person or on TV.

Dan

Collapse -
well in a baseball game
by Mark5019 / February 18, 2005 8:13 AM PST

unless its the pitcher kind of hard to do

but then baseball isnt a sport anymore its just a money maker

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?