Would you still vote for any of these guys?

[Hammerin Hank]

Why aren't guys who fail the drug tests banned from the HoF anyway? Isn't it similarly as bad as betting or throwing games?

[imgreat95]

I would still vote for any one of them.

[Chadwick]

Why aren't guys who fail the drug tests banned from the HoF anyway? Isn't it similarly as bad as betting or throwing games?

(1) Because the Hall of Fame's Board of Directors has enough sense not to impose its own punishment on players and let the Commissioner's Office handle it.

(2) No, it's not. And it's nowhere close.

(3) Nothing that's been made public, to date, would convince me any of those players listed is anything less than a bona fide Hall of Famer.

[E.Banks#14]

I'm only talking on their first ballot here, but the only one of those players I would vote for is Sammy Sosa. The other 3 have been proven to use some type of performance enhancing drugs, whether or not it was illegal at the time, is irrelevant to me. Unlike Sammy's corked bat, you can't go back and check to see if these guys were using in their primes. So we're left to assume that if they're using now, they were using back then.

[rockin500]

Why aren't guys who fail the drug tests banned from the HoF anyway? Isn't it similarly as bad as betting or throwing games?

no its not similar. not at all. throwing the game makes it as real as the WWE.

[imgreat95]

How can you go back and check to see if Sammy was using corked bats??

[moviegeekjan]

Not nearly as bad as fixing games or any activity that causes permanent banishment from the game.

[DTF955]

I voted for Sosa and Bonds for the following reasons:

1. Each plays the outfield and has proven abilities in more than batting. Bonds is an excellent fielder, Sosa a very good one in his prime IIRC. Both also steal lots of bases.

2. Sosa's never been shown to have taaken steroids, he's just like a Gaylord Perry *ever if* he corked his bat a lot. And we don't know if he did.

3. Bonds had MVP seasons before he started juicing up, if you go by the looks in pictures, fromt he slimmer 1991 to the bulky 2001 - take his career 1986-97 and he's in, though not a 1st ballot possibly.

I might stil vote for the other 2, becasue if they used something (well, I think we know McGwire did, right?) it was not banned at that time. It's like talking about spitballers in the era before 1920. Sure, it's illegal now, but the point is, it wasn't back then.

However, McGwire is another Harmon Killebrew (sp?) or Reggie Jackson, players who were dominant because of their power. McGwire in fact had incredible years in the middle '90s before 1997 (people forget his combined 58) and 1998-2000. So, he might be one player who was reaally helped a lot by steroids. However, aas I say, what he used was legal at the time.

Palmeiro, it's hard to say. Was he using something banned for years before this - we don't know. Unlike Bonds, his first 12 years were very good but not great - remember that Bonds put up 3 MVP seasons in 4 years, and could have won in 1991, maybe should have, *in an era still despressed somewhat offensively*. Like him or not now, Bonds was a superstar witht he Pirates.

Palmeiro, however, plays a less important defensive position, and while he had very good numbers, really needed the career totals to make him a sure thing.

So, yes, I admit I'm a bit biased in favor of outfielders versus frst basemen, and in favor of players with more than one tool. But in a question like this, where steroids increase bat speed and such, I think these things need taken into consideration. I've heard some say Bonds is one of the best defensive leftfielders of all time, and I doubt steroids can help that.

[cubbieinexile]

I voted for Sammy and Barry. I think they all took PEDS but I don't really care. Palmeiro I never really thought of as a HOF'er to me he is like the Slugging Lou Brock. Instead of having 3000 hits and a ton of stolen bases he has 3000 hits and lots of home runs. Granted Home runs are important but the only reason he racked up 3000 hits and almost 600 homers is because he played forever and got to play in a very friendly hitters era.

Mark has had some amazing years and mark has had some really bad years. Plus he couldn't stay healthy. Mark has 5 seasons (4 if you don't count his first season) in which he didn't crack 100 games played, and then in 1995 even with all that time off and a shortened season he still could only manage to play a little over 100 games. When healthy and hitting he was a HOF'er unfortunately he couldn't do that enough for me to consider him a HOF'er.

As for steroids and the hall, one has to remember that the Hall is a seperate institution and not part of MLB. They can induct anybody they want, and technically they don't even have to follow their own guidelines set forth for induction. Having said that I will say that right now they only way to become ineligible for induction despite having met all the requirements is to be place on the MLB Ineligible list. Right that is not the punishment for taking PEDs.

At best a voter could not vote for a player based on the integrity, sportsmanship, and character points that go into voting. Of course to me anyone that decides to go that route I would like to see their voting history and see if they voted for players that were cheaters.

[Windy City Fan]

Bonds: He was HOF material before he ever heard of BALCO.

Sosa: We have no actual proof he ever used steriods or any performance enhancing drug. There is a lot of circumstancial evidence that makes him look guilty, but we don't have any evidence to convict the man on.

McGwire: He took andro when it was both legal and not banned by MLB. I don't see how you can hold this against him. No one downgrades Ed Walsh because he threw a spitball when it was legal. The federal government didn't go back and try to convict Coca Cola for putting cocaine in its drinks after the laws were changed to make cocaine illegal.

Palmerio: He's the hardest one to call right now. First off, I want to know more about exactly what was found in his system. In my book, there is a big difference between illegal steriods, which could not be accidentially consumed, and an over the counter suppliment that could be mistakenly taken thinking it contained no banned substances. There is a certain amount of common sense that says Palmerio's story makes sense. Why now, at the end of his career when he's locking up his place as a HOF caliber player would he risk ruining it all by being caught with banned substances? It seems incredibly stupid. Not saying Palmerio is incapable of a stupid decision, just saying we need to wait and see a bit.

If he was using illegal steriods, my first reaction is to say no, he doesn't belong in the HOF. His candidacy rests solely on being good not great for a long time. Take away steriods, and his impressive counting numbers are sure to tumble. However, if steriod use is/was as rampant as we are told, then you can't say it really gave Raffy an edge vs. his peers, can you? I'm still undecided on this. I lean towards no if he was using hard core stuff, but I'm still on the fence a bit.

For the record, steriods are not as bad as throwing games. Steriods are bad, but throwing games is the ultimate baseball sin.

[E.Banks#14]

How can you go back and check to see if Sammy was using corked bats??

They X-rayed 400 some bats of Sammy's that are in the HOF and other places. None of them had cork in them.

[dgarza]

but throwing games is the ultimate baseball sin.

Silly me, I always thought college football/basketball was the ultimate baseball sin...

[E.Banks#14]

Here are some before and afters:

Sammy Sosa:

[E.Banks#14]

Barry Bonds:

[E.Banks#14]

Rafael Palmeiro: