While I agree completely with your stance, I don't really know what you want from the Hall. Are they supposed to reject it on principal? To be honest, I expect they're ecstatic that the ball is going to be there at all, regardless of how it is mutilated.

Sure, I'd like they to say something like, "While we really think you shouldn't do this sort of thing to pieces of history, we're also really glad that this particular piece of history will be residing here in our museum."

The Hall of Fame is about debate. Guys who should be there, guys who shouldn't be there, etc. The ball will add to that. It's a non profit organization. I really, really don't understand the anger over this. It's not about preserving moments, it's about preserving discourse.

I sent the HoF an e-mail thanking them for their decision, and hoping that they prominently feature the asterisk so that future generations of baseball fans can look at that ball and see the record for what it is - tainted and probably fake. Now mutilating a real record ball, liek Hank Aaron's record-holding 755th HR ball, that would be awful.

Get over it. The guy paid a lot of money for the ball. It was his right to do whatever he wanted with it.

Shouldn't the entire wing (era) have the asterisk. Do we remove the asterisk from home runs that he hit off of pitchers who enhanced their performance?

Thus starts a trend of rich people injecting themselves into a story in which they do not belong.

Instead of just accepting a plaque saying "donated by nice guy" at the HOF, they will sign their future contributions or affix a picture of their face to it so they can say they are in the baseball HOF.

The HOF shouldn't accept a defaced item.

Sure, the ball is part of history.

But so is everything that has happened to it after it was hit: the scrum to retrieve it; the auction in which Ecko was the winning bidder; Ecko's website vote; the outcome of that vote; and the actual branding--possibly with asterisks in several spots to make it impossible to fail to display an asterisk.

The Hall is a site for preserving history, and in this case that means preserving the full story of this ball before it arrives there. History isn't always neat or pretty, and often things happen--very often in political history--that we don't agree with. It is wrong to be disgusted with the Hall for accepting this ball with an asterisk, since that asterisk will be part of this ball's history.

They should try to get the bloody shirt from the scrum too.

Let it go, David. Don't sweat the small stuff.

The ball will just serve as a reminder of how stupid people were acting at this time, right before practically every player in the league for 20+ years was revealed as a steroid user.

That's fairly lame of Ecko, and the Hall. On the other hand, this is the same crew/mentality that frowned on a _Bull Durham_ reunion/event because they didn't like the politics of Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon.

Sometimes, baseball endures *despite* its custodians...

Without the asterisk, the ball is just another item from a famous moment.

With the asterisk, the ball is a conversation piece for an entire era of baseball.

Years from now, when I walk through the HoF with my kid(s), they might ask what baseball was like when I was growing up. I can't think of a better symbolic representation than this. I can't wait.

Baseball is a sport with a sordid past, present, and likely future. More importantly, though, the Hall of Fame reflects on that past, attempts to honor what deserves it and to unearth what others might've preferred to ignore. That's the point of history. The ball adds to that, especially with the asterisk. I don't like what Ecko's doing to it, but of course the Hall should accept it. It promotes discourse, and when an artifact of history ceases to do that, it's obsolete.

It's not "small stuff," not for baseball. The * on the ball is another lame and ridiculous framing of the debate to the shoulders of one man. It's faux history and it's personally vindictive and it's an example of the continued white-washing (counter-historical whitewashing, I might add) of sport, physical enhancements, drugs, cheating, and even the effects of such drugs. Yes, the HOF is a private institution and yes they make a host of silly decisions and have a number of baseball "experts" in their midst, but this is (in my view) absurd.

So, is the HOF now going to caveat Babe Ruth because he played in a segregated era? Is the HOF going to have an exhibit of greenies, pills that surely many of its inductees used throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s? Is the HOF going to place a sign by Gaylord Perry describing how he took pride in cheating?

My problem with it (before the rage against Bonds commences) is one of principle. I appreciate history as history and as debate, I don't need it framed for me by an Internet vote--where Billy from Des Moines voted 756 times--and defaced by some self-righteous baseball fan.

And, in a baseball sense, that's what this is: the destruction (intentional I might add) of a piece of history. Similiarly, if George Bush or Bill Clinton had a diary while he was president and someone got a hold of it and scribbled all over it that one was a war criminal or that one couldn't keep his hands off interns, I'd be upset. (I'd want to see Joe Jackson's uniform as it was, not with "cheater" painted across it's chest.) It's not a matter of how I F-E-E-L or what I T-H-I-N-K, it's a matter of perserving something in it's original form. It's history and ought to remain such. And, if Bonds really is so bad (and many of you think that he is), then (and here I'll contradict myself) place a small plaque next to the ball with a few choice sentences about the Ecko controversy.

In short, baseball fans and historians don't need a piece of history branded to remind others of it's controversy. Then again, this is from people and an institution that fails to induct Buck O'Neil or allows Bruce Sutter entry, but not Goose Gossage, and not Bert Blyleven. Now those are debates!

In point of fact, I do usually understand the difference between "its" and "it's." :)

Thanks for the link, David,

I emailed them and told them they should reconsider. They are involving themselves in a publicity stunt, put on by a publicity hound. It is shameful. And, not for nothing, listening to the results of some ridiculous on-line poll is hardly the kind of barometer most people should use for big decisions.

Reading the entire article, you can see that the Hall is helping Ecko figure out how to brand the ball. That's disgraceful.

I think even this debate here suggests that the asterisk on the ball is not inherently evil. It's a divisive issue and I think it is cool that the Hall of Fame will reflect that.

As for the issue of segregation, greenies, etc... why shouldn't the HoF mention those things as well? If anything, it is covering up things like this that put the institution of baseball in this spot of the public's eye in the first place.

Of course, I could be wrong. Which is why debate is good.

It isn't a "publicity stunt"-- it's a cultural prank. But it was up for vote, and most people felt the ball should have an asterisk. It doesn't diminish the achievement, but it does an excellent job of reflecting the discussion and debate that surrounded the achievement, and the "steroid era" of which the ball is symbolic.

Regardless, the HOF should have the ball, and Ecko spent 3/4 of a million to allow the debate around the record to be reflected in the exhibit. May you all should have spent your time voting 756 times if you cared so much about the outcome. One of the options was to give the ball to the hall unblemished.

Stop decrying the desecration of the temple of baseball. It's a museum of baseball history, and the asterisk reflects that history.

People are so fucking stupid. Its ok to damage the ball? Are you fucking kidding me. GOD THIS IS INFURIATING.

If its done to this ball then every single piece of memorabilia that may or may not have been part of, hell I cant even say illegal sense steroids were not illegal, debatable event should now be treated the same and marked.

People are so ignorant and have such short term vision they are not thinking of the damage this kind of action will bring about.

Shame on every single of you that supports this kind of gross negligence.

When Bonds is proven guilty and shows up positive on a drug test i will then seek approval of branding his famous 756 baseball. Untill then Barry is the best and always will be...If you have so much to say people why was he never been caught, he has only hit 762 homeruns, was that not enough time to ever catch him taking illegal meds, yeah, thats what i thought, this is a joke, and marc echo will never live this down!!!

I spent a while composing a response, but gave up. In the face of rants like gregory's, there isn't much to be said that will change somebody's mind, or even cause them to open it.

So, my grossly negligent self will go back to work, blissfully ignorant of the impending doom. Meanwhile, I recommend therapy.

If they had put the ball into the HoF intact, just as many people would be screaming it deserved the asterisk. This is the era of baseball we are living in, folks. And I hope people will remember it that way.

The problem i have with branding the ball, is that I believe this whole outrage over steroids is going to look pretty ridiculous in 10-20 years.

I don't know if Roger Maris' 61st HR ball is in the hall, but imagine how stupid it would look now if they had branded it back then, when it probably would of been fairly easy to get a majority to vote for it.

Also, I don't like the HOF capitulating to this attention whore so easily. I get the sense that if the HOF showed a little backbone and refused to accept it with an asterix, Ecko would relent. He's already saying that they might not actually brand the ball, instead marking it some other way. Plus, from the way he set up the vote with 3 options and hiding the results, it seemed like he was trying to rig it in favor of donating it straight to the HOF, by dividing up the negative votes into two categories and not letting people see which one was leading. Finally, it's pretty obvious that Ecko just wants publicity, and the easiest way to get more pub at this point would be not following through with the asterix, after all "no such thing as bad publicity."

It's funny how folks who have little problem with what Bonds did to the game can get their knickers in a twist about the "mutilation" of a baseball.

I wouldn't say that ball has been mutilated. More like tarnished. Which is totally fitting.

If Ecko is a jerk, well, that's totally fitting, too.

Oh, God: Perricone and Kent are here with more whining and special pleading for the great cheat.

Oh yes, because a more profound view (or an alternate perspective) of the whole banal mess is just not acceptable. It's nice to see that baseball and cheating have been so properly put into perspective by you and others. No wait, oh yes, it hasn't you just want to attack anyone who doesn't agree with you. Interesting that you never refute the actual points (or the words) that I write. I wonder what your response will be when Mitchell's list comes out and it's filled with players that you never expected.

The only way that list could have players I didn't expect at this point is if they reveal players from the 50s.

I wonder what your response will be when Mitchell's list comes out and it's filled with players that you never expected.

My response will be to discount their achievements in the way I've discounted Bonds's.

"Banal mess" is right. A banal mess, no small part of which was Bonds's own doing, deserves a publicitity stunt and a defaced baseball.

HLAM: I don't think you have the slighest idea about the numbers of players in every sport imaginable who're taking substances to enhance their performance. Maybe you're five or six and these guys are your heroes. But, the reality is that most are highly competitive individuals doing whatever they can to make themselves as good as possible and to make as much money as possible. Cheating? Yeah, there's that, with the stuff that's been banned by whatever sport they're playing...not the gray area/have it both ways bullshit of MLB.

I'd venture to guess that most pro or aspiring athletes don't consider enhancing their performance (from LASIK to Tommy John, from some Dominican drug store to Balco, from "pep" pills to Red Bull, from something at the mall's supplement store to something at the rich man's supplement lab) "cheating." I'm sorry to insult you, but I don't think that you have an honest understanding of human nature, of sport, of winning, or of the gray areas that surround us all every damn day.

Actually, the HOF *DOES* discuss things like racial issues, women's role in the sport, etc. I would venture to say that in the future, the use of steroids and their impact on the game will be discussed. Maris' ball could easily have an asterisk - more games in the season. SHOULD it? I don't think so. Should the Bonds ball? As a matter of humor, sure. As matter of history, no. As someone mentioned, I hope they display the ball with the asterisk hidden. And, steroids or not, you still have to be able to hit the friggin ball in the first place.

Actually, the HOF *DOES* discuss things like racial issues, women's role in the sport, etc. I would venture to say that in the future, the use of steroids and their impact on the game will be discussed. Maris' ball could easily have an asterisk - more games in the season. SHOULD it? I don't think so. Should the Bonds ball? As a matter of humor, sure. As matter of history, no. As someone mentioned, I hope they display the ball with the asterisk hidden. And, steroids or not, you still have to be able to hit the friggin ball in the first place.

Oh, Kent, you're not sorry to insult me. Be honest. Here's what I know: you're a Giants fan and so a huge apologist for Bonds. It's just human nature.