So where are you now on steroids and the Hall of Fame?

[Frobby]

Barry Bonds did it.

Roger Clemens did it.

Rafael Palmeiro did it.

And most everyone believes Mark McGwire did it.

So where do you go with this, insofar as the Hall of Fame is concerned?

I have to admit, I am having a hard time with this one, mostly because there are so many players where we will never know if they used steroids or not. If I could draw a bright line with steroids/HGH users on one side and non-users on the other, I'd gladly keep the users out of the Hall of Fame. But that isn't possible. So where do you draw the line? Do you have to be convicted in a criminal case? Named in the Mitchell Report? Have a positive drug test? Give evasive answers at a Congressional hearing, without ever admitting anything? Get named in Canseco's book or Grimsley's affidavit? Just look like the type?

And what about the guys we never suspected? What happens when we learn, after a player is in the Hall of Fame, that he used PEDs (or that there is serious evidence that he did).

This one isn't easy.

[JamesI]

This one is very easy. Use steroids/HGH, wave your chances at cooperstown goodbye.

I would be in favor of removing elected players who turned out to be steroid users as well.

[NJOriolesFan]

What about a player that none of the above applies to? Has never tested positive or admitted anything or been named in any report? However, we all "know" he took something.

SAMMY SOSA

We are drawing lines all over the place and it is starting to look like one of those multiple-laser alarm systems you see in museums in the movies.

[geschinger]

I have no problem with any of 'em being in the HOF if they're deemed worthy. But if anyone is inducted who has been caught, the HOF should not whitewash it. It should be made clear if a particular HOF inductee was a user.

[DrungoHazewood]

There is no way to draw a line in the sand, there is no way to identify who used and who didn't, and there's absolutely no way to quantify the effect of the various types, dosages, quantities and frequency of use among the likely thousands of players who used something sometime.

I'd simply fall back on the Hall's only quasi-standard they've ever had: how did you do in relation to your peers? That's it. If your numbers and your performances measure up to the Hall's standards, you're in. I don't see any other workable solution unless you're going to ban everyone who's played in the era since PEDs were first used in sports (basically 1950-present).

What's really going to happen, and I'd bet almost anything on this, is this:

1) Players A-Z had HOF performances.

2) Players C-P used steroids.

3) Players A, B, D, G, J, K, Q, R, S, W, Z were accused of using steriods.

4) Players C, E, F, H, I, L, M, N, O, P, T, U, V, X, Y get elected to the Hall.

[Moose Milligan]

I'd simply fall back on the Hall's only quasi-standard they've ever had: how did you do in relation to your peers? That's it. If your numbers and your performances measure up to the Hall's standards, you're in. I don't see any other workable solution unless you're going to ban everyone who's played in the era since PEDs were first used in sports (basically 1950-present).

I agree with this. Doesn't mean it's right, but a bunch of players (I'm assuming the Mitchell report skims the surface) were juicing.

Label this "the steroid era" and move on...

[Mad Mark]

I think we're getting way ahead of ourselves here, on a number of fronts.

So, the "Steroid Era" is over, eh? Hooray! But, wait...here comes the "HGH era", to be followed by the "Next Big Undetectable Thing era" to be followed by the "Gene Splicing" era.

That doesn't even take into account the changes I think we all accept as good: better nutrition (starting in the 50s and continuing through today) and weight training. How about better field conditions?

We're obsessed by the bright shining light that's directly in front of us. What about all the others?

[DrungoHazewood]

It's a case by case basis. If you believe steroids helped to put a player over the top, you keep him out, if you believe it was an unfair advantage. One person, one vote.

That's what's going to happen, and the end result will be what I said earlier. Players who didn't use, or only did very infrequently, will be out. Players who did use but were never caught will be in. Players who don't look like users will get passes, while big sluggers or guys built like Clemens will be lumped in with the shunned.

We'll probably have our fair share of Ray Schalks and Red Fabers. Guys who don't deserve the Hall, but will be enshrined for their supposed righteousness in the face of supposed evil. Best candidate? David Eckstein.

[Boy Howdy]

Open the doors of the Hall to McGwire, Palmeiro, Bonds, Clemens et al.

They were outstanding performers amongst a number of peers that were also juicing. We'll never be able to identify exactly who's who, but if you start banning guys from the HOF, then I think you have to start stripping them of their gold medals too.

What's that you say? There are no gold medals in baseball?

Yeah, I know, but there are World Series rings. Should we strip the 2000 Yankees of their World Series title and award it to the runner up Mets? If a Met's exposed as a user, shall we move on to the next best team? Will the record books someday tell our great-grandchildren that the 1998-2007 Devil Rays won ten consecutive championships?

You can't undo history, so I think you just have to put this era in its' context over time, much as we do now with the Deadball Era etc...

[Flosman]

When do you guys think the Steriod era began? I would not be at all surprised if it was much earlier than many would think. Does anyone think a Kingman, Reggie, Deer, Nettles or whoever are just as likely to have tried to get an edge has the guys in more recent times? I bet if we look back we will find guys that had big spikes in power. The PED's have gotten better but they were widely available and used in sports in the 70's. Just thought it might be an interesting topic to discuss.

[Flip217]

What's really going to happen, and I'd bet almost anything on this, is this:

1) Players A-Z had HOF performances.

2) Players C-P used steroids.

3) Players A, B, D, G, J, K, Q, R, S, W, Z were accused of using steriods.

4) Players C, E, F, H, I, L, M, N, O, P, T, U, V, X, Y get elected to the Hall.

Dammit Drungo! Always with the formulae...here I am with a notepad and paper, trying to work out who's accused, who's used, and who's left out. It's like one of those logic problems

At any rate, I think you're probably right -- being accused, along with anecdotal evidence, will keep some players out. Actual evidence will absolutely keep players out.

Maybe you just vote on performance, and everybody knows that steroids, HGH, etc. were used, and that sort of colors the way we look at them, in the same way we look at dead-ball era stats and say, "Well, yeah, but it was a different game back then." (Didn't realize Boom Boom had basically just said this - sorry!)

[SoBo]

When do you guys think the Steriod era began? I would not be at all surprised if it was much earlier than many would think. Does anyone think a Kingman, Reggie, Deer, Nettles or whoever are just as likely to have tried to get an edge has the guys in more recent times? I bet if we look back we will find guys that had big spikes in power. The PED's have gotten better but they were widely available and used in sports in the 70's. Just thought it might be an interesting topic to discuss.

Couldn't agree more. Who says guys like Reggie or Fisk or whomever didn't use the juice in the 70's? The Steel curtain was fueled by steroids, why not baseball players. Was it as rampant as it was in the 90's to present day, probably not. But I'd wager a hefty amount that there were guys hittin' juice in the 70's. So that makes things fuzzy when you look at the HOF. My personal opinion is let them all in. It sucks for the random fringe star that never used and probably would have had the stats to make it in a different era. But to vote guys in or out based on some perceived usage or non-usage is silly. Had Palmeiro not been stupid enough to get caught, he would be the poster child for the clean steroids-era player. So to say a guy like Clemens is dirty, but a guy like Pedro isn't, is a joke. So vote them all in if their stats justify it. This time frame will always be known as the steroid era, just as players in the dead ball era have their stats adjusted to the era, so will these players.

Then the question becomes, when will the steroid era end, if ever? PED's are rampant in all professional sports in my opinion. When so much money is on the line, competitors are going to try and find any angle they can. Even golfers and Nascar drivers. Just like hedge fund managers and inside traders on Wall Street.

[RShack]

I completely agree with both Drungo (post#5) and Mad Mark (post #7). What I would do is let people in (or not) based entirely on their performance compared to their peers. I would also do something else that they're not gonna do either, which is have a place in there about roids and other PED's, showing whatever there is to show about that. It could be part of "The Rest-Of-The-Story Wing", where they also have info about other HOF'ers, like Ty Cobb, and Pete Rose (who should be in), and Shoeless Joe (who should be in), etc. I don't think they're gonna do either one of those two things. I think some guys well get left out based on a smattering of factoids and insinnuendo.

The truth of the matter is that, while there are a perfect amount of rules to cover whatever happens in a ballgame, there's not a perfect amount of rules about who gets into the HOF. It's a museum, but what they're gonna do is leave out people who are important in the history of the game. On the other hand, if they did it my way, not only would they simply be telling the truth, I also bet "The Rest-Of-The-Story Wing" would be one of the high traffic areas, visitor-wise. When I'm gonna puke is when they put Bud in but leave Barry out. If they had the wing I'm talking about, they could have a little Bud display in there too. That way, they could talking about Pete's betting, and Roger's needling, and Bud's pimping. They'd all be right there, next to each other, where they belong. They could call it "The Weasel Wing" for short.

[DrungoHazewood]

I completely agree with both Drungo (post#5) and Mad Mark (post #7). What I would do is let people in (or not) based entirely on their performance compared to their peers. I would also do something else that they're not gonna do either, which is have a place in there about roids and other PED's, showing whatever there is to show about that. It could be part of "The Rest-Of-The-Story Wing", where they also have info about other HOF'ers, like Ty Cobb, and Pete Rose (who should be in), and Shoeless Joe (who should be in), etc. I don't think they're gonna do either one of those two things. I think some guys well get left out based on a smattering of factoids and insinnuendo.

The truth of the matter is that, while there are a perfect amount of rules to cover whatever happens in a ballgame, there's not a perfect amount of rules about who gets into the HOF. It's a museum, but what they're gonna do is leave out people who are important in the history of the game. On the other hand, if they did it my way, not only would they simply be telling the truth, I also bet "The Rest-Of-The-Story Wing" would be one of the high traffic areas, visitor-wise. When I'm gonna puke is when they put Bud in but leave Barry out. If they had the wing I'm talking about, they could have a little Bud display in there too. That way, they could talking about Pete's betting, and Roger's needling, and Bud's pimping. They'd all be right there, next to each other, where they belong. They could call it "The Weasel Wing" for short.

There already are displays in the Hall of Fame Museum that highlight players who aren't enshrined in the Hall of Fame itself, including many of those banned for life. Rose's name and picture are all over the place. I've always thought that recognizing that they made on-field contributions but keeping them out of the biggest honor in the sport was a fair way to deal with guys like Rose, Jackson, and Jim Devlin.

[Leitch]

Put 'em in if they've had the career, and if you've got proof that they used steroids then include it in the exhibit or whatever.