Originally Posted by Hendu
We fans and the media and MLB turned a blind eye in the late 90s/early 2000s, so shouldn't we have to suffer the consequences of a "tainted" HOF? We created this problem; the players who (allegedly) used were just giving us what we asked for.
I am betting that the HOF voters will differentiate the wild west era from the testing era. Manny Ramirez, for example, won't get in while Bonds, Clemens and maybe even Palmeiro will eventually get in after a number of years of being punished.
Why should a player who cheated, a player who broke the law to gain an advantage not have that count against him when it comes to Hall of Fame consideration?
Being inducted into the Hall of Fame isn't like earning a promotion through your productivity on the job. The Hall of Fame is a place where the players that define what is great about baseball are celebrated, not where you go if you hit 500 home runs.
If you tell a grand jury you took money from gamblers who paid players to throw baseball games, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame when one is created to celebrate baseball. If you bet on major league baseball while managing major league baseball, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame. If there is evidence that you enhanced your performance with illegal and banned substances, putting other players you are competing with in a position where they may have to consider using illegal and banned substances, you don't belong in the Hall of Fame.
Whether nobody cared about McGwire or Sosa when they were chasing Maris is irrelevant. By the ends of their careers most fans cared, and by the time Bonds was chasing Aaron, even Congress cared about performance enhancing drugs. There is no need for a special wing in the Hall of Fame. There is no reason for Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens et.al. -- you can even throw in Rose -- to be in the Hall of Fame because actions that they are remembered for are the antithesis of Hall of Fame worthy.