This has been discussed a ton, but I’m curious as to people’s current view. I’m looking for a simple Yes or No answer. Do you, personally, want to keep the PED ERA out of the HOF? If you want to explain your response, please do.
I voted “No.” 1. The HOF is full of cheaters already. 2. Many of those tainted by the PED label did nothing against the rules at the time. 3. The HOF is a lesser historical museum without many of these players in it.
Yes, along with people who corked bats and cheated in other ways. (If using PED was against the rules. If it was permissible, I have no problem with them being voted in).
Like spit ballers, as an example?
Yes, but I also suspect every player who ever played of using PEDs. Why wouldn’t they?
So my ideal situation would be a completely empty HOF, and the creation of a new hall that, right from the start, is not meant to shut out those suspected of PED use.
I have no idea what this means. It sounds like you meant to vote “no.”
Suspected PED users? No. No one should be kept out if they never failed a drug test (and the 2003 survey testing doesn’t count because it was fail/pass.) Or if there was never a paper trail that connects them with illegally obtained drugs from a BALCO or other undisputed source of PEDs. Why suspect a Bagwell, for instance, and not a Frank Thomas?
Proven PED user should be defined as any that were proven/admitted per above, and were guilty of using an illegally obtained substance OR failing an MLB test (which means that the what was found in their tests was a banned substance at the time of the test.)
In the case of a Proven PED user, if the player was a marginal candidate, the the PED use should deprive him of a vote, but that is up to each individual voter. If the player is a sure-HOFer (determined by whatever method that voter uses to determine a sure HOFer) then that player deserves a vote.
Special case applies to those players that were not only PED users, but were proven to be involved in distribution of PEDS to other players, and/or were involved in obstructing an MLB investigation into the process. In those cases the suspect players are innocent until proven guilty, so the burden of proof is high. Examples: Jose Canseco would never get in, since he admitted to distribution and recruitment. Bonds is on the bubble, since he’s been accused of spreading it, but the accusations are not 95% reliable. Clemens is suspect, but if nothing comes out in the next few years, he deserves entry. ARod may be guilty of obstruction, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Bonds, Clemens are on my wait list.
So, since I do think some players (even just users) may lose my support for their HOF candidacy, I had to vote “Yes” in the poll. Although I’m not sure that’s what the poll is asking, since feel that PED use should NOT automatically disqualify a player.
This. Bonds and Clemens not getting in on the first ballot is an absolute travesty.
Yep. I don’t think trying to cheat is good for the game. I do understand the opposing view.
That’s perfectly acceptable. I don’t think it’s good either. However, since it was established long before my birth that it would be overlooked I personally have a hard time applying the thought process to today’s players.
I’m kind of obnoxious about things like this. I don’t even like players pretending to have caught a ball they know they didn’t.
I’d rather keep them out. Even if it wasn’t specifically against the rules of baseball, it should be taken for granted that you also need to follow the law.
But only in cases where it was actually proven. Anyone can be “suspected” of anything.
Baseball has been full of cheating since day one. People giggle about or ignore old school tricks like cutting grass on a slant, growing it too long, soaking fields, spitballs or other such things. They gloss over that the color barrier meant that the best weren’t actually playing. Guys using sharpened spikes to hurt fielders just seems to show that the older players were tougher. No one cares about players doing amphetamines. But they get all up in arms about PEDs. I don’t get it.
Baseball didn’t give a damn when the steroid era was going on. Quite the opposite, they rewarded those players. People wanted to hang Jose Canseco from the nearest tree for writing his tell all book that gave details on much of the who and when and how of the steroid era, now he’s still personal non grata for MLB, but they’re going to act all holier than though regarding users?
If we are going to pretend that the best players from the era didn’t exist, then no one from the era should be in. MLB, it’s teams, other players, even the writers via books and news papers all made money because of this. They profited off of Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, etc. and now they want to shut them out. It’s ridiculous. It’s an era of baseball, just like any other era.
I voted no in case you can’t tell.
Well said. I agree.
Voted “no.” One compelling argument I’ve seen lately is that many of the PED guys who got “caught” were only named because their labs came under federal investigation. There were likely many other PED users who, by happenstance, were never outed. Is it really fair to keep some of those guys out because their lab happened to slip up, even though they never failed an MLB-sanctioned drug test?
But is it really fair that players who did not cheat will be left out of the HOF because their career numbers don’t measure up the cheaters “enhanced” stats?
Outside of those who were “caught” we don’t know for sure who else were using, but they shouldn’t escape some type of punishment – although, in my case there should be some type of “scaling down” their career numbers, however imperfect that should be.
I just think it’s funny that so many have concern for players who broke the law and broke the rules, and not about those with integrity and may suffer for it. What if Fred McGriff was steroid free? Any other era, his homer total would have gotten him in? What if Larry Walker and Tim Raines are ‘crowded out’ by cheaters, and they were actually clean? Why is there no concern for those who put up great numbers but were diminished by cheats like McGwire and Bonds and Sosa.
We have no idea about the 90% who were not ‘caught,’ but not all of them cheated, that’s for sure. Those are the victims of voters and fans who don’t give one damn about cheating.
I would instead include the controversy as part of their bio …
Joe Schmoe was a seven-time All Star, a career .320 hitter, hit 520 home runs, and twice tested positive for performance enhancing drugs.
Put the facts on their plaque. Then let history judge.
A year ago, I would have voted yes.
But now I’ve found that it is essentially unfair to keep players out of a sports museum for what amounts to nothing but a guessing game.
I’m starting to believe that Jose Canseco was close to the mark when he said that 80% of the players were using P.E.D.'s. If not that much, more than 50%, anyway. And we really can’t know if a player was “clean” or not. It’s entirely possible that Maddux and Pedro, or even, gasp, Derek Jeter, used HGH or whatever during the course of their careers.
So fuck it, basically. It was an era of inflated stats, so just let in the best of the best. Bonds and Clemens, for starters.
Yeah. If it wasn’t against the rules, how is it cheating?
There’s a case against letting in those who were caught after they made them against the rules. I’d probably still let them in, but at least the accusations of cheating will be accurate.
So would you want players who have admitted they used PEDs in the past taken out of the Hall? For instance, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Mike Schmidt, etc.?