Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan So it seems that Barry Bonds' record-breaking homerun ball will be branded with a large asterisk before being handed over to be displayed in Cooperstown. Good idea? Bad idea? To me, it seems a bit much. While I have little doubt that Bonds did use steroids, the fact remains that MLB didn't do anything to stop him, nor countless other players that used the stuff.
Originally Posted By DAR It's a bad idea. I'm no fan of Bonds but that is for the Hall of Fame to decide if the ball should be marked this way.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan From the article I read, the person who bought it for $700,000 put it to a public vote on a website, and branding it with an asterisk won. I wonder if the ball becomes the property of the Hall of Fame, and they could somehow remove the asterisk, or perhaps they might display it in such a way so that the asterisk doesn't show?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The person who bought is fashion designer Marc Ecko -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Ecko" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M arc_Ecko</a> I know more about him than I do about baseball. Wait...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The ball's Ecko's, he can do what he wants with it. I'd prefer to see him not brand the ball, but I'm a baseball purist. I would have preferred the ball go straight to the Hall without any kind of an auction, much less this type of vote.
Originally Posted By jonvn Actually, it's rather distasteful. We aren't owners of historical items, we're caretakers. It's as if someone wanted to mark up a piece of artwork. For example, suppose you were rich enough to buy DaVinci's Mona Lisa. OK, you own it. Do you then have the right to have a party where you burn it to ashes? Right now, if you own a building that is historical in nature, you can't mess with it too much. If something is declared a landmark, you can't just raise it and put up a laundromat. There's more to it than simple ownership.
Originally Posted By Mr X **Right now, if you own a building that is historical in nature, you can't mess with it too much. If something is declared a landmark, you can't just raise it and put up a laundromat.** Isn't this more like someone who purchased that book depository in Dallas? Could they tear THAT sucker down?
Originally Posted By Mr X Well then, someone can just spraypaint "Steroid User!" on the building in Dallas, and we'll be all set.
Originally Posted By utahjosh If you own it, do what you want with it. That goes for the Mona Lisa, too.
Originally Posted By jonvn Well, no, you can't. Like in the case of historical buildings, you can't just tear them down.
Originally Posted By Mr X Jon is right, there are laws about this stuff Josh (not sure specifically about the Mona Lisa, but I'm pretty sure you can NOT deface it without consequenses even if you could purchase it...not to mention the fact that you wouldn't WANT to since you'd be throwing away huge amounts of money).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't think this baseball and the Mona Lisa are quite in the same league (pun intended). And I'm a baseball nut. It's arguable that marking it with the asterisk makes it historically more meaningful. 40 years from now when few remember the steroids controversy and some kid is in Cooperstown saying "why does that ball have an asterisk, grandpa?" grandpa can answer "well, back in my day there were these players who used steroids, see, and it was a big controversy, and..." You could argue it actually makes the ball mean more to its dubious era than not having it.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<Fashion designer....30 pairs of shoes....hmm.....>> im not sure where your going with the shoe part. personally I think the ball should be put in cooperstown with nothing on it. While it may be marred in controversy, it is still the ball that broke the record. Plain and simply it means something to baseball fans. however, unlike buying something that is already deemed a landmark or historic piece, the ball is not historic for any particular reason than just being part of a game. It is no different then baseball card companies buying up all of Babe Ruth's uniforms and cutting them into little pieces. Im surprised that Topps didnt offer to buy the ball to make some Game Used cards.
Originally Posted By Fe Maiden I agree with Dabob2. I think the ball will make a fine centerpiece when the HOF creates a wing for this era of baseball. Along with all the other accomplishments and milestones, steroids should be a part of that story.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 If they are going to do that then Shoeless Joe Jackson needs to go in as does Pete Rose with astericks so when the grandson asks why they can talk about the Black Sox scandal and gambling in baseball. I think the ball, Shoeless Joe and Rose all need to go in with no indicators. It's silly. MLB is responsible for this issue. They ignored and turned their heads when they needed McGwire and Sosa to pump life back into the league. Unfortunately they pumped more than that into the league. Bonds is the poster child for the era of steroids. It's sad.
Originally Posted By pecos bill It is sad, the game has been violated. All in the name of a bunch of selfish, fame mongers who knew what they were doing was wrong. I have zero respect for any of these artificially enhanced mutants. I say take the ball and throw it into the bay where it belongs.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Shoeless Joe no more or less a cheater than Mr Bonds...and Pete Rose...he accomplished what he did...period. I have no problem with them displaying the ball in a display marked with a huge asterisk - actually marking the ball seems somewhat silly. No one put a hocker on any of Gaylord Perry's stuff did they ? And I agree -- When McGuire - Sosa locked in a drug infused battle and TV ratings were up - a certain commish looked the other way -- now they are getting tough, suspending minor leaguers for 1/2 year etc ..
