do you guys/gals think players should be allowed to enter a Hall of Fame even though they may have had a criminal or some other past while playing, yet put up great and impressive numbers during their playing career? Examples: Pete Rose, Albert Belle, etc.
I think so....even though a player might have a criminal past, it doesn't mean that their achievements on the field/court were any less. Maybe the only way that they are driven and feel satisfied is when they are playing their sport. A lot of ppl have difficulties with things that are not part of their "passions." Sure what they did might have been wrong, but does that mean that when they were on the field that they were any less deserving than the next person?
I make Machiavelli look like a weenie.
that is the exact answer I was hoping everyone would go for. You hit the nail on the head their gal. Why should athlete's achievements be sacrificed because of off the court/field issues and problems.
thx....my dad and I had a yelling match over this very debate...needless to say he conceeded in the end LOL [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
I make Machiavelli look like a weenie.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks