A look at his stats shows that with the exception of 1994 from ’93 to ’02 he hit 30 or more HR’s. In 2003 with the scandal blown wide open and players being he hit 13 and no more then 24 there after. He was also getting injured more. Both symptoms can be plausibly attributed to advancing age as well as coming off ‘roids. If he went off ‘roids from ’03 on he could definitely say he never tested positive for it. The Pearlmen book uses “vague” sources not much there but actual quotes from named opponents who believed he did it. I did not “prove” he did it during his time here but I made a strong enough circumstantial case that automatic dismissal is far from warranted just because he was the 2nd most popular Met of all time and all around class guy. Maybe as with Andy Pettite another admitted “brief” user being and all around class guy should mean something but that is a judgement call for you but that judgement call should be made with all the information possible. .

What actually constitutes cheating where roids are concerned?

Doctors prescribe them for many ailments (even alergies) does having taken them once in your life really constitute dirty cheat?

What about a player who uses one of those supplements that have pre-cursors during the offseason while he keeps his conditioning and to help speed up repair of injuries incurred during the previous season but stops using them long before Spring Training, Testing and games are played?

What if he never plays a game DIRTY but will use when he is on a season long rehab to get himself back quicker? Does that really constitute cheating?

Does using ONCE mean anything you do clean after is really the product of the use and not your own ability?

There are probably more players (in the past 30 years) who have USED at one point in thier career than have NOT used….

The question that should be asked is ONE use enough to offset an entire career’s achievement because one use is enough to make you better for the rest of your life?

Because the truth of the matter is it isn’t enough…

Those who use DURING the season are cheating (IMO) those who may use it when they are not playing and stop before they are really are not CHEATING….Just taking the easy path medicine has provided to get them at full health.

I don’t really know the answer to that myself but I won’t throw away an entire career over someone who used them just once, Sparingly, and only at times where no baseball was being played while the PEDs were coursing through thier veins where they could affect performance….

and in the end the truth of the matter is if what they did THEN was important to you and you want to hold people accountable then you should have been testing then to stop them, not making a rule AFTER the fact and then prosecuting them for a law that didn’t exist at the time they commit the crime!

They let it happen at the time and if the Reporters KNEW and thought it was bad they should have exposed it then…They chose not to because it wasn’t REALLY against the rules there were none….
And I find it hypocritical to hold a rule that didn’t exist and they didn’t think was worth reporting about THEN against someone NOW!

In the old days, the writers were probably the only ones that really saw a lot of these guys play. So it made sense that they would have the best overall perspective. Today, they probably see less action than a lot of other people, especially the ones that are retired and doing it all on memory, if that.

so yeah, it makes sense for the HOF to appoint a committee. maybe rotate guys off in shifts after a couple of years, so there is always new blood coming in. Some writers, other insiders, some former players (including current members). heck, even some blogger types that are obsessed. make it as big or small as you want, figure out the voting protocol, and let them pick. Can’t possibly be any more biased and illogical than the current set-up.

Just shut the damned place down, since you can not be 100% sure any guy in the last 20 years did not use something.

if you won’t go that far, unless someone admitted it, or was convicted of something (heck, at least failed a drug test), they get the benefit of the doubt. And Piazza, unlike A Rod or Bonds, certainly should get that.