Originally Posted by
Olympic Fan
My take is very similar to Jason's -- I think the only behavior that should count against a player's induction is something that impacts the game itself. I agree that a great player who falls on hard times then commits vile crimes after his career should not be denied admission. He's not quite a Hall of Famer, but Denny McClain is a great example of a significant player who became a criminal later in life.
When I look over the Hall of Fame exclusion list, I see two major issues -- gambling and performance enhancing drugs.
Baseball is very sensative to gambling because it nearly destroyed the game in the days after WWI. Joe Jackson -- a much greater player than Pete Rose -- is not in the HOF because he took money to throw games in the World Series (whether he did anything to actually throw the games is debatable, but he unquestionably agreed to the deal and took the money).
In the wake of the Black Sox scandal (which was just the tip of the iceberg in that era ... there was a LOT of fixing going on, although most of it was in meaningless late-season games), Landis and the baseball establishment drew a very clear line in the sand and every baseball player since has had it drummed into him -- bet on baseball and you're gone. Should they relax that line and say, 'Well, if you bet on your own team, it'd not so bad ... only a 2-year suspension'? I don't think you can do that without erasing the line and allowing gambling interests to creep back into the game.
What Pete Rose did isn't nearly as bad as what Joe Jackson did, but both have got to remain permanently beyond the pale. IMHO, Jackson and Rose are both out forever.
I feel just as strongly about PEDs -- whether steroids, growth hormones or something else. The problem is that such drugs are dangerous and even life-threatening (as Ken Caminitti found out). Now, you might argue that a player has the right to risk his own life, but when a handful of players do take that risk, they gain a competitive advantage and that pressures others to take the same risk -- just imagine two slugging outfielders at Triple A, both vying for a spot in the Majors. One takes steroids and boosts his power production 5 percent. What's the other guy going to do?
Let me say, that I don't buy the BS argument that "everybody" was juicing in that era. The 2003 test found 106 positives -- out of over 900 players tested. It's a large minority, but it's not "everybody" ... it's not even close to a majority. ALL minor leaguers have been tested for more than six years (the players union doesn't cover them) and only a handful have been caught.
Should we penalize McGuire and Sosa and Palmero, who probably wouldn't be Hall of Fame caliber without the 'roids? Absolutely.
What about Bonds and Clemens and Manny and A-Rod, who would have likely been HOF caliber without PEDs? Well, in my mind, they are in the same category as Rose and Jackson -- who are clearly HOF caliber players who aren't in because they broke the rules.
It's just my opinion, but if I was a voter, I would never vote for a gambler (on the game) or a juicer. And I don't care how good he was -- he was a cheater.