Should Lawrence Taylor be removed from the HoF? (1 Viewer)

[Sinrman]

I know voters are supposed to look at only ON FIELD activities when voting on someone, but shouldn't they keep a certain level of integrity even after being voted in? If he is found guilty on rape, should he be removed? If so, forever? For 10 years? 25? Where do we draw the line? Let's say someone is voted into the HoF and then kills someone. Should they remain in the HoF? If not, then rape is ok, but murder is not?

Just trying to get a feel for what people think and if there is a gray area or it's straight black and white...

 

[anakin]

Let's say someone is voted into the HoF and then kills someone (OJ Simpson)

 

[Tecumseh]

I think a case could be made that conviction for a capital crime should be grounds for removal, but then OJ would still be in.

 

[ookook]

My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life.

So no.

 

[Sinrman]

Let's say someone is voted into the HoF and then kills someone (OJ Simpson)

I would agree, but if you follow the fine line of the law, he WAS found not guilty (whether you and I think it's a crock or not).If LT is found not guilty of rape and just the lesser crimes, then maybe I wouldn't go so far as to say he should be removed. But if he IS

found guilty....................

 

[Sinrman]

My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life. So no.

So someone could retire, be voted in, and turn into a serial killer/rapist, and you're cool with that?

 

[Banger]

No.

 

[Sinrman]

I think a case could be made that conviction for a capital crime should be grounds for removal, but then OJ would still be in.

Like I said to anakin, whether we think it was right or wrong, he WAS found not guilty. There will always be that shroud of "GUILTY"around him forever, but in the eyes of the law he's a free man (for THAT particular criminal action). Sure, he was found guilty ina civil suit, but that's different...

 

[Mario Kart]

My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life. So no.

So someone could retire, be voted in, and turn into a serial killer/rapist, and you're cool with that?

How does this concern his football playing days? Maybe it was his brain trauma from all the concussions.

 

[cobalt_27]

My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life. So no.

So someone could retire, be voted in, and turn into a serial killer/rapist, and you're cool with that?

Yes.

 

[SugarNuts]

Just like being in the NFL, being in the HoF is a privelage. Guys want to be in it. Sure it is based off your performance playing, but if someone is elected, and commits crimes, then absolutely he should be removed. Should OJ be removed? I say yes, but like one stated, he wasnt found guilty. If LT is found guilty, then yes he shoulod be removed. He's already had his 1st, 2nd, 3rd (etc) chances...

 

[spider321]

The courts let OJ off the hook, and I don't "think" it's a crock, I KNOW it's a crock. O.J. Simpson stabbed those 2 people to death without question.

That being said, noone should ever be removed from the HoF.

 

[FUBAR]

I think a case could be made that conviction for a capital crime should be grounds for removal, but then OJ would still be in.

Like I said to anakin, whether we think it was right or wrong, he WAS found not guilty. There will always be that shroud of "GUILTY"around him forever, but in the eyes of the law he's a free man (for THAT particular criminal action). Sure, he was found guilty in

a civil suit, but that's different...

 

[Matt Waldman]

My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life. So no.

So someone could retire, be voted in, and turn into a serial killer/rapist, and you're cool with that?

Yes, because it is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the Life Hall of Fame. If that were the case, who knows how many of these players wouldn't qualify. There is a point as fans where I believe we need to have perspective that a great football player is just that, and trying project any other greatness onto person is our fault. We need to separate our adoration of on-field accomplishments from the true human we know little about outside the lines. If I were to take a child to the HOF it would be a great teaching moment to show that just because a player is great on the football field it doesn't make him someone to admire in life, which I think (if you take moments like this consistently) will help instill perspective and compassion about people.

 

[spider321]

Yes, because it is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the Life Hall of Fame. If that were the case, who knows how many of these players wouldn't qualify. There is a point as fans where I believe we need to have perspective that a great football player is just that, and trying project any other greatness onto person is our fault. We need to separate our adoration of on-field accomplishments from the true human we know little about outside the lines.

[/thread]

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Michael Irvin and the white powder around his nose say "no"

 

[Air Stich]

Keep him in. Are we going to go back in history and remove every athlete who was convicted of a crime? Will we have to list which crimes are OK and which ones get you booted?

Statutory Rape - you're out

DUI - you're still in

LT is a scumbag. We knew that before he got involved with a 16 year old prostitute. But he's one of the greatest football players ever to play the game, so he should be in the Hall of Fame.

 

[jurb26]

No, absolutely not. He is in for what he did on the field, not off of it.

 

[David Yudkin]

For starters, OJ was not found guilty of murdering anyone. He was found liable in a civil suit, which carries no jail time and has a much different legal standard (50.1% vs. 100% in a criminal trial). He was, however, found guilty of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. IMO, that is worse than what LT has been charged with, and there has been no movement that I have seen to revoke OJ from the HOF. LT also has not even been tried yet and who knows how that will play out. Tayloy has also had several other legal issues over the years and I have never heard any mention of kicking him out of the HOF.

There has been at least one instance when someone would have been kicked out of a major sports Hall of Fame. IIRC, Alan Eagleson was a member of the hockey HOF and was found to have emblezzled player union funds. He was essentially voted out of the HOF and set to be expelled, but instead he resigned and removed himself on his own.

 

[ICON211]

For starters, OJ was not found guilty of murdering anyone. He was found liable in a civil suit, which carries no jail time and has a much different legal standard (50.1% vs. 100% in a criminal trial). He was, however, found guilty of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. IMO, that is worse than what LT has been charged with, and there has been no movement that I have seen to revoke OJ from the HOF. LT also has not even been tried yet and who knows how that will play out. Tayloy has also had several other legal issues over the years and I have never heard any mention of kicking him out of the HOF.

There has been at least one instance when someone would have been kicked out of a major sports Hall of Fame. IIRC, Alan Eagleson was a member of the hockey HOF and was found to have emblezzled player union funds. He was essentially voted out of the HOF and set to be expelled, but instead he resigned and removed himself on his own.

LT has been accused of raping an underage girl. In your opinion trying to steal back stuff that you believe was stolen from you is worse than that? Really?This is a tough one because if these things happened before they came up for vote neither one would have gotten in the HOF. But whats the standard for kicking someone out and what do you do, have reviews of everyone that is in every five years or something like that?

 

[anakin]

Yes, because it is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the Life Hall of Fame. If that were the case, who knows how many of these players wouldn't qualify. There is a point as fans where I believe we need to have perspective that a great football player is just that, and trying project any other greatness onto person is our fault. We need to separate our adoration of on-field accomplishments from the true human we know little about outside the lines.

[/thread]

Matt you couldn't have said it any better. My point was that it has already happened in the HOF. OJ was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to a longer term due to in part from previous actions. Yes in a civil case you need 51% of proof. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty ie: not 100% as that standard could not be met without unadulterated video proof or a confession.

 

[Wadsworth]

For starters, OJ was not found guilty of murdering anyone. He was found liable in a civil suit, which carries no jail time and has a much different legal standard (50.1% vs. 100% in a criminal trial). He was, however, found guilty of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. IMO, that is worse than what LT has been charged with, and there has been no movement that I have seen to revoke OJ from the HOF. LT also has not even been tried yet and who knows how that will play out. Tayloy has also had several other legal issues over the years and I have never heard any mention of kicking him out of the HOF.

There has been at least one instance when someone would have been kicked out of a major sports Hall of Fame. IIRC, Alan Eagleson was a member of the hockey HOF and was found to have emblezzled player union funds. He was essentially voted out of the HOF and set to be expelled, but instead he resigned and removed himself on his own.

LT has been accused of raping an underage girl.

In your opinion trying to steal back stuff that you believe was stolen from you is worse than that? Really?This is a tough one because if these things happened before they came up for vote neither one would have gotten in the HOF. But whats the standard for kicking someone out and what do you do, have reviews of everyone that is in every five years or something like that?

Any sex with an underage girl is rape.

 

[ICON211]

For starters, OJ was not found guilty of murdering anyone. He was found liable in a civil suit, which carries no jail time and has a much different legal standard (50.1% vs. 100% in a criminal trial). He was, however, found guilty of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. IMO, that is worse than what LT has been charged with, and there has been no movement that I have seen to revoke OJ from the HOF. LT also has not even been tried yet and who knows how that will play out. Tayloy has also had several other legal issues over the years and I have never heard any mention of kicking him out of the HOF.

There has been at least one instance when someone would have been kicked out of a major sports Hall of Fame. IIRC, Alan Eagleson was a member of the hockey HOF and was found to have emblezzled player union funds. He was essentially voted out of the HOF and set to be expelled, but instead he resigned and removed himself on his own.

LT has been accused of raping an underage girl.

In your opinion trying to steal back stuff that you believe was stolen from you is worse than that? Really?This is a tough one because if these things happened before they came up for vote neither one would have gotten in the HOF. But whats the standard for kicking someone out and what do you do, have reviews of everyone that is in every five years or something like that?

Any sex with an underage girl is rape.

I understand that, but in this case he is also accused of forcible rape and what is your point?

 

[JohnnyU]

My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life. So no.

So someone could retire, be voted in, and turn into a serial killer/rapist, and you're cool with that?

apples and oranges.

 

[Neal Cassady]

no

 

[Kree]

I guess it depends on how you view the HoF and processes therein. Whether the HoF is looked upon as purely an adoration assortment of skills and talent for the great players or some sign of respect that stretches beyond what they did on the football field.

Its sad that a lot of fans (Not anyone here specifically but in general, the homer types mainly) who can't seem to differentiate between the two for their players in general, let alone the legends of their team. Simply playing for your team or being a football great doesn't mean they deserve some form of special defense from the masses.

Either way, the HoF is about what they've done on the football field. If they removed LT I wouldn't be that surprised based on what he allegedly did, but its not like we can simply move on and ignore what he did as a player for modern football.

So yeah, pretty much what Waldman said (Great post).

 

[David Yudkin]

For starters, OJ was not found guilty of murdering anyone. He was found liable in a civil suit, which carries no jail time and has a much different legal standard (50.1% vs. 100% in a criminal trial). He was, however, found guilty of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. IMO, that is worse than what LT has been charged with, and there has been no movement that I have seen to revoke OJ from the HOF. LT also has not even been tried yet and who knows how that will play out. Tayloy has also had several other legal issues over the years and I have never heard any mention of kicking him out of the HOF.

There has been at least one instance when someone would have been kicked out of a major sports Hall of Fame. IIRC, Alan Eagleson was a member of the hockey HOF and was found to have emblezzled player union funds. He was essentially voted out of the HOF and set to be expelled, but instead he resigned and removed himself on his own.

LT has been accused of raping an underage girl.

In your opinion trying to steal back stuff that you believe was stolen from you is worse than that? Really?This is a tough one because if these things happened before they came up for vote neither one would have gotten in the HOF. But whats the standard for kicking someone out and what do you do, have reviews of everyone that is in every five years or something like that?

Any sex with an underage girl is rape.

I understand that, but in this case he is also accused of forcible rape and what is your point?

 

[David Yudkin]

For starters, OJ was not found guilty of murdering anyone. He was found liable in a civil suit, which carries no jail time and has a much different legal standard (50.1% vs. 100% in a criminal trial). He was, however, found guilty of criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. IMO, that is worse than what LT has been charged with, and there has been no movement that I have seen to revoke OJ from the HOF. LT also has not even been tried yet and who knows how that will play out. Tayloy has also had several other legal issues over the years and I have never heard any mention of kicking him out of the HOF.

There has been at least one instance when someone would have been kicked out of a major sports Hall of Fame. IIRC, Alan Eagleson was a member of the hockey HOF and was found to have emblezzled player union funds. He was essentially voted out of the HOF and set to be expelled, but instead he resigned and removed himself on his own.

LT has been accused of raping an underage girl.

In your opinion trying to steal back stuff that you believe was stolen from you is worse than that? Really?This is a tough one because if these things happened before they came up for vote neither one would have gotten in the HOF. But whats the standard for kicking someone out and what do you do, have reviews of everyone that is in every five years or something like that?

Any sex with an underage girl is rape.

I understand that, but in this case he is also accused of forcible rape and what is your point?

LT is charged with the equivalent of staturoty rape, which in this case there state there is a zero tolerance policy for. Meaning that even if she said she was legal or he didn't know her age it doesn't matter. I do not believe the third degree charges ae indicting him on anything that involves forcible or assault and what he is up for is basically only sex with a minor. I'm not condoning it, but I do not believe he forced her to do anything or beat her up . . . but I haven't followed everything on this one . . .

 

[Chase Stuart]

Replace him with Pat Tillman is the shtick answer.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Maybe Goodell will suspend his HOF bust for 4 games.

 

[Riffraff]

No, you don't take away prior awards or accomplishments.

Say an 8 year old Spelling Bee champion is now age 16 and becomes an unwed mother working on the streets to survive. Do we take the Spelling Bee trophy away?

If a war decorated Medal of Honor recipient at age 25 turns into a wife beating drunk with PTSD at age 45. Does Congress strip him of his war hero status?

And the exact opposite applies as well: If a life long criminal finally turns his life around at age 56, do we take away all his convictions?

The answer is no to all of them.

 

[Tau837]

Yes, because it is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the Life Hall of Fame. If that were the case, who knows how many of these players wouldn't qualify. There is a point as fans where I believe we need to have perspective that a great football player is just that, and trying project any other greatness onto person is our fault. We need to separate our adoration of on-field accomplishments from the true human we know little about outside the lines.

[/thread]

Probably should have made this a poll.

 

[CiscoKid]

I know voters are supposed to look at only ON FIELD activities when voting on someone, but shouldn't they keep a certain level of integrity even after being voted in? If he is found guilty on rape, should he be removed? If so, forever? For 10 years? 25? Where do we draw the line? Let's say someone is voted into the HoF and then kills someone. Should they remain in the HoF? If not, then rape is ok, but murder is not?Just trying to get a feel for what people think and if there is a gray area or it's straight black and white...

This really should have been a poll...Anyway, no, you cannot remove him from the HOF. While I really like Chase's answer to replace him with Tilman, once he has been voted in for his on the field accomplishments, off the field / post NFL activities shouldn't get him removed no matter how totally pathetic they may be. I have a possible money making opportunity for the NFL / Hall, though. Given this new set of circumstances, maybe they could set up a new attraction where you could spit on his Canton bust for $5.00 if he's convicted - they would make a mint off this while allowing the public a way to express themselves on what they think about his new activities.

 

[SSOG]

I would agree, but if you follow the fine line of the law, he WAS found not guilty (whether you and I think it's a crock or not).

If LT is found not guilty of rape and just the lesser crimes, then maybe I wouldn't go so far as to say he should be removed. But if he IS

found guilty....................

Umm... you do realize that Simpson is currently serving a 33-year prison sentence for criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, assault, robbery, and using a deadly weapon, right?Anyway, off-the-field issues should not factor into honors received for on-the-field performance. If you count off-the-field issues negatively against some people, do you have to count it positively for others? I mean, if we start penalizing "exceptionally bad character" guys, don't we have to start rewarding "exceptionally good character guys"? Does John Lynch jump from "borderline Hall of Famer" to "first ballot lock" because of his charitable work? Does two-time pro bowler Luther Ellis suddenly merit HoF consideration because he adopted 6 children, many of them older biracial children who otherwise wouldn't have been adopted?

Outside of "off-the-field" issues that are designed to gain an illegal competitive advantage on the field (i.e. throwing games or taking steroids), "character" shouldn't be a consideration in awards balloting unless the award explicitly states that character is a criteria. If LT had any Walter Payton Man of the Year awards, go ahead and strip those from him... but the HoF? No.

 

[heidbrink]

Replace him with Pat Tillman is the shtick answer.

I laughed. +1 in the "No" camp.

 

[Adebisi]

Pretty sure it's the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the Pro Football Hall of Nice Guys.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

No. I don't think you get removed even if you rape, kill and then burn a busload of nuns while wearing your NFL uniform. You do however get executed/Life, but the hall stays intact. I don't think there are provisions to strip one of the hall IIRC.

 

[Sinrman]

I must say that I'm a little surprised by the # of no answers. Yeah, I should probably have done this as a poll, it would have been even more interesting to watch the vote unfold.

 

[Avery]

I can't believe that some people seriously thinks that something an ex-player does over 15 years after his playing days should effect an award he received for being a player.

 

[Pickle Rody]

No - for a variety of reasons already posted.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

No.

 

[Sinrman]

I can't believe that some people seriously thinks that something an ex-player does over 15 years after his playing days should effect an award he received for being a player.

Well, my thinking is this -- if you join a Hall of Fame, no matter the sport, you are being given the highest honor in your sport. You are considered the best of the best. But along those lines, you are held to an even more higher standard than those who are not put into the Hall. You are what everyone who plays your sport and the fans look up to and strive to be. If a player is heavily scrutinized during his playing days (and can be given fines, put on probation, or suspension), then why should that end after they retire? I'm not saying that if they do some blow or something not-as-serious they should be immediately pulled. Lord knows we aren't all perfect and you have to do nothing bad after your retire in order to remain in the Hall. But the most heinous of crimes (which I would basically say rape and murder) I would think they would at least be considered. I agree with Matt that it could be considered a "teachable moment," and that's a very valid position.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life. So no.

We're not putting them in the HoF because they were nice guys and role models.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Why the hell are athletes considered role models in the first place? If they can run, throw, catch a ball we're supposed to have our kids look up to them? That's OUR fault. There are plenty of athletes who are great examples of being a man off the football field. But just because we look up to someone ON the field doesn't mean we should be forced to look up to them OFF the field.

There is a huge difference between those two and I think there's something seriously wrong with you if you can't separate the two.

 

[Sinrman]

Why the hell are athletes considered role models in the first place? If they can run, throw, catch a ball we're supposed to have our kids look up to them? That's OUR fault. There are plenty of athletes who are great examples of being a man off the football field. But just because we look up to someone ON the field doesn't mean we should be forced to look up to them OFF the field.

There is a huge difference between those two and I think there's something seriously wrong with you if you can't separate the two.

Won't get an argument out of me on that one... to me, military vets, firemen, policemen, etc. should be the role models, not sports people.

 

[The Kansas Comet]

No. Do we put players in the Hall of Fame because of the charity work they did off the field or because they helped little old ladies cross the street in their home towns?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life. So no.

So someone could retire, be voted in, and turn into a serial killer/rapist, and you're cool with that?

I'm not cool with what he did but in terms of what he did on the football field, he's a Hall of Fame player.If they don't want those type of people being represented in the Hall of Fame, put some kind of clause in the induction process that if you do THIS, then you may be subject to being removed. If they don't want something like that put in, then he's a Hall of Famer.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Why the hell are athletes considered role models in the first place? If they can run, throw, catch a ball we're supposed to have our kids look up to them? That's OUR fault. There are plenty of athletes who are great examples of being a man off the football field. But just because we look up to someone ON the field doesn't mean we should be forced to look up to them OFF the field.There is a huge difference between those two and I think there's something seriously wrong with you if you can't separate the two.

Why do we root for, pay money to and even fight over people who can run, throw, and catch a ball? If you're going to do things like root for, pay money to and fight over people who can catch a ball, throw far and run fast, then you're going to have people look up those people who do it best, it's just the way it is. You also have put everything into your mind in a neat little box when you say "our fault" like everyone is in the same situation as everyone else.I may have been brought up by 2 parents in a middle class family but there are hundreds of thousands of kids being brought up in today's society that have 1 parent, who are on welfare and dream to be like Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods and Brett Farve. In a perfect world, these guys wouldn't be role models but we live in a world that is far from perfect.

 

[ShaqAttaq]

he's more famous now. he deserves it even more

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Why the hell are athletes considered role models in the first place? If they can run, throw, catch a ball we're supposed to have our kids look up to them? That's OUR fault. There are plenty of athletes who are great examples of being a man off the football field. But just because we look up to someone ON the field doesn't mean we should be forced to look up to them OFF the field.There is a huge difference between those two and I think there's something seriously wrong with you if you can't separate the two.

Why do we root for, pay money to and even fight over people who can run, throw, and catch a ball? If you're going to do things like root for, pay money to and fight over people who can catch a ball, throw far and run fast, then you're going to have people look up those people who do it best, it's just the way it is. You also have put everything into your mind in a neat little box when you say "our fault" like everyone is in the same situation as everyone else.I may have been brought up by 2 parents in a middle class family but there are hundreds of thousands of kids being brought up in today's society that have 1 parent, who are on welfare and dream to be like Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods and Brett Farve. In a perfect world, these guys wouldn't be role models but we live in a world that is far from perfect.

You can look up to them on the field. But that's different than looking up them off the field. The two are not mutually inclusive.