Will Allowing PED Users into Hall Send Wrong Message?

Yesterday, I was watching Clubhouse Confidential on MLB Network and Peter Gammons was talking about the upcoming players who will be put up for a vote for the Hall’s Class of 2013.

One of his responses really caught my attention.  When Gammons talks about Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens and their chances of getting into the Hall of Fame, he stated that even though they allegedly took PED’s, “the Hall of Fame cannot be the Hall of Fame without them”.


In upcoming ballots, the BBWAA is going to have to make some very tough decisions as to who gets in and who doesn’t.  I’m sure Mike Piazza and Craig Biggio will get in the Hall of Fame (regardless if they don’t make it in the first time around).  That part might be the easiest for the BBWAA to figure out.

However, when you get down to guys like Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds and deciding on their eligibility it wom’t be so easy.

Electing players who have been linked to steroids will only send the wrong message to young aspiring ballplayers.

As a baseball fan, you want to see the guys who truly deserve to be in the Hall immortalized.  The players in the Hall of Fame have had remarkable careers and one thing separates them from the rest – they played the game, and played the game the right way.  No drugs, no gimmicks, no BS.

If you were to elect guys like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Sammy Sosa into the Hall of Fame just because of their gaudy statistics and completely ignore their PED use, then the integrity of the Hall would be tarnished. That’s not how the Hall should honor excellence in the game.

I know its a very tough decision for the BBWAA, but by electing guys who have alleged ties to steroid and PED use, it will only send a wrong message.

Do you think writers should elect guys who allegedly took sterioids?  If so, why?  Do you think it will send the wrong message to future players/fans if they were elected?