What say you? Do PED abusers get into the HOF?

[kairos12]

I say no.

Flame on!

[True Dough]

1. I'm okay with it

But I think there should be an asterisk next to their name in the shrine, something making it clear that the player was found to have taken performance enhancing drugs. Their legacy is tainted and should be remembered as such. That said, drug users put up some of the best stats in baseball history and there's no way of knowing exactly how much the drug use accounted for those totals -- an extra 10%, 20%, more?

So it's best to acknowledge their accomplishments but also recognize that they were known cheats, IMO.

[rurallib]

2. I have wrestled with this one over the years

Baseball players have always used what they thought were performance enhancers from day 1. It was only in the last few years that science came up with PEDs that could really enhance performances.

I can't even remember some of the stuff I heard over my younger years that players used. "Speed balls" seems to come to mind. Surely a baseball historian could give quite a treatise on PEDs over the years.

I also remember that Babe Ruth through much of his career used what at the time was an illegal substance - or at least one that was not for sale in the US - and that was alcohol.

There are also tales of various methods of cheating that have been employed from day 1. Everything from razor sharp spikes to signal stealing to possum grease. All things added together, cheating in baseball is hardly unique.

Many players who cheated are already in the hall of fame. The players that used today's PEDs are considered different because there form of cheating really, really worked - I always point to Brady Anderson's 50 HR year as the shining example. Should they be punished for that?

And my considered opinion is I really don't care. Personally I would let players in, with some statement that some of their accomplishments were accomplished with drugs that have since been banned in the sport.

This probably isn't going to affect many players anyway. MacGwire and Bobby Bonds are the only two I can think of. Both probably would have made it without using drugs. Maybe Rafael Palmeiro. Oddly enough, their use of drugs may end top keeping them out.

IMHO I can't think of any other players that were thought to use drugs that had the credentials to make the hall. Certainly not Sammy Sosa who had some spectacular drug enhanced years but was pretty mediocre beyond that.

Oops - I see I left Alex Rodriguez off that list. Hard to leave him out of the Hall.

Used to so love baseball, but the drug era and the money ended that love affair.

[The Polack MSgt]

3. If the HOF is to have any meaning

Then the best players from every era must be there.

None of the players enshrined from any time are clean and free of sin.

The old timers played in a deliberately weakened league. For 50 years there were rules keeping out exceptional black, native and Hispanic players. All the pitchers' and hitters' stats were inflated by a big contingent of weak players to beat up on.

From the 1940s until 2010s long road trips and back to back day-night games didn't sting as hard because amphetamines were commonly available and widely used.

But even aside from all that and the hypocrisy involved with not acknowledging it - Why have a HOF if the all time Cy Young award winning pitcher the all time home run hitter and the all time hit leader are all barred from inclusion.

That's not a HOF that's a selective propaganda generator pushing a false narrative

[CanSocDem]

4. On this point....

...I thought the Roger Clemons saga was interesting. From his congressional testimony and other interviews I got the distinct impression that he was more interested in another years salary than he was interested in playing by the rules. So I'm thinking that the HOF isn't even that important to the modern day, highly paid athlete.

I agree: "that's a selective propaganda generator pushing a false narrative."
.