Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

[RaychelSnr]

In case you were hiding under a rock this morning (and some of you might've been like me) another year has passed with known steroid users from the height of the steroid era being denied entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

The 2014 Inductees included Gregg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas. Craig Biggio missed the cut by just two votes, and will likely have a real shot at making it in next season.

In what will be the biggest living HOF class since 1941, the three players above will be joined by managers Tony LaRussa, Joe Torre and Bobby Cox.

However, missing from the HOF at this stage are still Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons, each receiving approximately 35% of the votes. Both players should be shoe-ins for the Hall, but thanks to their ties to PEDs both have been shut out by the Baseball Writers Association of America thus far.

Another PED-linked player, Rafael Palmero, will be dropped off of the ballot after receiving less than 5% of the vote needed to keep a player on.

Should PED players get to be in the Hall of Fame? Let us know your thoughts!

[elgreazy1]

One word: Hell no.

[lhslancers]

Re: Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

Since a lot of these writers seem to be making judgment calls on who used how much and when maybe they can dissect a guy's career and see if he was a HOF before they were tested or suspended for use. I don't think steroids were illegal when Bonds used.

TBH I think if a player has the creds to get in he should get in. How many players did Clemens pitch to that were using?

Piazza is going to get screwed because he had back acne? Rumor? Inuendo? I think it's BS. And while they are at the writers should let Rose and Shoeless Joe in the sanctimonious creeps.

[Irishwhiskey119]

Ofcourse they should be in the Hall of Fame.

There will be PED's in sports forever. It will only get more diverse and easier to hide.

[braves_94]

I must be in the minority. But there is no way we can determine, with certainty, who used and who didn't. Just like we don't know if anyone else over the course of the game's history did. And as far as the "character clause" Sean Casey one of the greatest baseball ambassadors, didn't get one vote. You can't just use the clause to penialize somebody, then completely ignore it as a positive. Biggio spent his whole career in Houston and was great to the community. Despite that and the automatic 3,000 hits is supposed to be, he didn't get in in his SECOND ballot. I understand the luster of a first balloter, but come on. How can you justify someone with 3,000, 15th all time in runs, not get in. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens should get in, because you can't use one qualification just for reason not to elect someone. The positive has to count for something. And Sean Casey not getting a single vote is proof positive. Bonds and Clemens were HOF'ers before, and they should get in. And so should Jeff Bagwell and Mike Piazza. Frank Thomas was a first balloter, on what? The strength of his 2 MVPS? Bagwell just had one, but the numbers are insanely similar. So since because Thomas was taller by the good graces of God he gets in?

[DrJones]

Re: Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

I think it's BS. And while they are at the writers should let Rose and Shoeless Joe in the sanctimonious creeps.

The writers (and the Veterans Committee) have no say in the matter. Both have been banned by MLB.

[Chip Douglass]

Re: Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

I hate the puritanicals on both sides on the debate: on the one hand, the writers who refuse to vote for the prominent (and obviously statistically qualified) steroid users purely because of their PED use; on the other, the writers who ignore steroid use altogether and vote for candidates based solely on the statistics.

I don't think steroids should be a disqualifier, nor do I think they should be totally ignored. In the case of Bonds, Clemens, and A-Rod in the future, they deserve admission for the simple reason that all 3 are among the greatest players in the history of the game and arguably North American sports as a whole. For that reason alone, they deserve admission and recognition in baseball's premier shrine.

[DrJones]

Re: Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

Yes. Anyone on the ballot should be judged on their on-field accomplishments only. At some point, somebody will get elected to Cooperstown who will later be found to have used PEDs, and the whole thing will come crashing down (the hypocrisy, not the Hall).

[DamnYanks2]

Re: Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

Yes, I’m damn tired of these holier then thou, elitist sports writers. Gurnick is everything wrong with this process, the hall is for the fans not these egostistical hypocrites. The Steroid Era happened whether they like it or not. It's now part of the history of baseball, and to just tell the public to forget about that Era is stupid.

These guys played, and they starred, and guess what, they weren't terrible people like the media would like you to think. They made some grave mistakes, but steroids did not make Barry Bonds into the star athlete he was, he was a five tool player before and an easy hof'er, Roger Clemens was not dominant just because of his fastball. Those two were two of the greatest to play the game with or without steroids.

What's even worse is players like Bagwell and Piazza are getting unfairly treated because they played in that era, even though no evidence has been found, they are getting thrown under the bus too, this is all just so wrong.

[lhslancers]

Re: Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

The writers (and the Veterans Committee) have no say in the matter. Both have been banned by MLB.

I stand corrected. Funny how the MLB didn't start investigating roid use until Congress stepped in. We all know if they didn't do something anything their monopoly might have been jeopardized.

[Brandon13]

Re: Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

In my opinion you either need to vote in every player who is HOF worthy - regardless of their known/suspected PED use - or keep them all out of the HOF. The risk with the latter is in arbitrarily deeming players clean or dirty based upon little more than, in many instances, a gut feeling. In all likelihood, there either already is a juicer or two in the HOF, or there will be very soon because we just didn't peg those particular guys as PED users. It's also quite possible that a clean and deserving player will be kept out of the HOF (at least for a little while) because of unfounded suspicions by the voters.

I'm not really big on the, "well this guy was a HOFer before he started using PEDs" argument that is sometimes used to differentiate between the HOF worthiness of players like Bonds and Clemens and Palmeiro and Sosa. It's just impossible to play that game and know for certain that you're right. I'm OK with some sort of self-imposed moratorium on voting in known/suspected users, but that doesn't work with the 5% of the vote requirement necessary to remain on the ballot.

So with all that said I guess I'm of the opinion that we need to place votes for players based solely upon their on the field play, and regardless of their status as a PED user.

[DrJones]

Re: Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

These guys played, and they starred, and guess what, they weren't terrible people like the media would like you to think. They made some grave mistakes, but steroids did not make Barry Bonds into the star athlete he was, he was a five tool player before and an easy hof'er, Roger Clemens was not dominant just because of his fastball. Those two were two of the greatest to play the game with or without steroids.

See, to me that misses the point. It doesn't matter whether Bonds et al are terrible people or not. Professional sports are full of terrible people.

[OSUFan_88]

Re: Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

Ty Cobb is in the HoF, yes? So let's not start the standard of terrible people being in the HoF.

The problem with this whole argument is that some people are too lazy to factor in when steroid use began. In the case of Bonds and Rocket, they were both obviously well established players in the game of baseball and likely HoF players before they took steroids.

Then you have guys like Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro who quite clearly were great players because they took steroids.

The BBWAA is just too lazy to look deeper and instead just want to give these guys a scarlet letter rather than look past a sin for true greatness. It's stupid, arbitrary and wholly unfair, but then again, that's the HOF selection process.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

Ok no, that's not at all where I was going with the" terrible people" comment. I have no idea how you arrived at that. My point was, baseball writers, the commish, and some fans have this notion that McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens etc, any steroid user was just a horrible human being.

The media treated these individuals like they were real criminals, and a lot of the public bought it.

[nuke_21]

Yes they should if steroids were not the sole reason they succeeded. Ie. Clemens and Bonds. This is baseball's fault for having no testing. Also, there is no gurantee that everyone in HOF is clean and innocent. Plenty of players used steroids, but most didn't put up HOF numbers.