That was essentially illegal during Prohibition, which overlapped most of the Babe’s career. The Babe broke the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and I cannot imagine that Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis told ballplayers to flout it. That’s far more serious than PEDs and baseball’s piddly little rules. And baseball rewarded him for it.

If that arrogant federal-law-breaking tub of goo* deserves HOF enshrinement, so do Bonds, Clemens, and everyone else who dominated the game. You can’t have it both ways.

Either the Babe goes, or Bonds/Clemens/etc need to be in.

*Make sure your sarcasm meter is turned on.

A single 20k game means nothing with a power pitcher who on any one day can turn back the clock. The ability to sustain that dominance over the course of a season is something different.

Oh, by the way, McNamee started working with Clemens in Toronto.

Rose did bet on his team. It is not known, nor can it be, if he bet on every game. I doubt he ever bet against his team, and even the most jaded Rose apologist should be able to see the problem with that if he did. Even setting that aside, there are many problems even with betting for your own team to win. First, unless he bet the same amount on every time and bet it every game, it creates a perception that he might not be trying just as hard in the game on which he either did not bet or bet less. Not betting on a game could also be a message, intentional or not, to the bookie about games his team might be expected to lose. It was illegal and thus could also set him up for extortion to shave runs if not outright lose certain games. If you cannot see how devastating to the interests of MLB even the possibility of these things is, then your “Rose colored glasses” are so thick that you are blind.

For 90+ years everyone in baseball has known that betting on baseball would get you banned for life. He did it anyway and is simply now paying the price.

Further, the fact that he was banned for gambling on baseball as a manager does NOT mean he never Benton baseball as a player. None of us can know whether he did or not. It also does not matter, because as a manager it is,if anything, worse because then he is in a position to manipulate the lineup according to his bets.

1. They weren’t Hall of Famers prior to the time their documented (read: documented) use of PEDs started.

Answer: If you believe this, your Hall of Fame might consist of 15-20 players, tops. And that’s being generous.

2. They cheated, so they should be out.

Answer: MLB didn’t give a rat’s ass about the cheating, until they were dragged kicking and screaming into implementing drug testing. Without an enforcement mechansim, you’re inviting the rule to get broken. Hell, if the authors of Game of Shadows are correct, Bonds didn’t start juicing until after he saw the accolades others received for doing so. If MLB had been testing, Bonds would not have been tempted to use. So who’s fault is it?

3. We don’t know about everybody who used, but we know about them. That should be enough, and they need to be punished for cheating.

Answer: I’ll admit this gives me pause. But I ultimately think this is silly — who appointed the baseball writers (many of whom put their heads in the sand during the 90′s) to dole out punishment in the form of a Hall of Fame denial for these players cheating in baseball? MLB does not see fit to punish them, so why should the BBWAA?

4. The analogy to PED use by amphetamine users isn’t the same thing, and two wrongs don’t make a right.

Answer: Two wrongs don’t make a right, but the analogy is appropriate every time someone references the alleged legitimacy of the stats compiled by players in prior eras. As someone else pointed out, Babe Ruth played in a time of segregation — that’s not his fault, but I don’t believe he was trying to change it. Henry Aaron’s generation (and every generation since until testing was implemented) used PEDs in the form of amphetamines. None of these guys is pristine. Moreover, as Mike Schmidt and others have noted, plenty of Hall of Famers would have used steroids had they been available. And some who are already in may have done so.

5. These guys shouldn’t get in until Pete Rose and/or Joe Jackson are admitted.

Answer: Separate argument. I want both admitted as well, because I think it’s silly to pretend they weren’t Hall of Fame players. I’m also biased in faor of Charlie Hustle because I grew up a Phils fan. But Rose broke a rule with a clear punishment mechanism in place, although I think it’s silly in the extreme to take him off the ballot entirely. But see #6 for a more detailed explanation.

6. This is an honor, and dishonorable people should not receive the honor. Character counts according to the criteria to be applied in voting. Cheating indicates gross deficiencies in character.

Answer: I think Craig’s point about the legislative history (for lack of a better term) behind the character clause on the ballot is important — it’[s designed to be something to consider to enhance player’s candidacy, rather than detract from it. Furthermore, people don’t seem to consider it a tiebreaker that helps guys. Foir example, Dale Murphy is universally acclaimed as a good guy, but the holier-than-thou writers excluding suspected PED users don’t, for the most part, spend time extolling his virtues and stumping for his inclusion on the grounds that his sterling character helps make up for his staistical shortfalls.

More importantly, how do we judge the character of these men? Is it solely based on their conduct between the lines, or should also look at their track record off the field? It’s a little tough to do without some historical context — Ty Cobb was a virulent racist, but plenty of his contemporaries were probably less outspoken while sharing views that would today be deemed beyond the pale. Similarly, I’m guessing plenty of the players of the 80′s and earlier decades may well have exhibited homophobic attitudes that would be looked upon with disgust today. Should we dock them for it? Should we dock Jack Morris if he really uttered a Bobby Knight-type quote about women being raped?

If your response is that we should judge their character based solely on their actions on the field, and that on-field cheating matters in this context, then you still have the problem of how to handle pitchers who cheated in ways we find entertaining, or hitters who corked their bats, or the PED use in the form of amphetamines. We romantacize the 1951 Giants, but they cheated as part of their amazing comeback — should we dock Willie Mays character points for being on the team?

Baseball is played by men. It’s a beautiful game, but far from perfect. And the men who play it are far from perfect. The Hall of Fame is allegely reserved for those players who played the best and accomplished the most. You can certainly note how they accomplished those goals, but trying to argue that Bonds and Clemens are not among the best players who ever played it a fool’s errand.

He clearly would have gotten worse without the silly sauce….this is not a hall of famer by any stretch of the imagination….

Number of home runs hit by Barry Bonds after age 40: 58.
Number of home runs hit by Hank Aaron after age 40: 42

You don’t like Aaron? Number of homers by Stan Musial after age 40: 46.

And I think era probably had a lot more to do with that difference than anything else. In 2007 (Bonds’ final season), there were 1.04 home runs per game in the NL. In 1976 (Aaron’s last year), there were 0.58 home runs hit per game in the AL. In 1963 (Musial’s final season) there were 0.75 homers per game in the NL.

Ok, so that’s Bonds. What about Clemens?

Number of games pitched by Roger Clemens at age 45: 0.

Number of innings pitched by Clemens after age 40: 848. Which is certainly a lot.
Number of innings pitched by Randy Johnson after age 40: 1011. Which is a good bit more.

Or maybe you figure Johnson was “juiced” as well? Ok, fine.

Number of innings pitched by Nolan Ryan after age 40: 1270.

Please don’t exaggerate when the facts are readily available. Maybe you think the only reason these particular men had long careers is that they were using products that enabled it. Clearly, that’s not something anyone can prove or disprove, and it’s a fair stance to take. But it’s hardly the case that they had uniquely long careers in the annals of baseball, or that they were uniquely successful late in their careers. Great players tend to have longer careers, and play well for longer. It’s just what they do.

Please don’t exaggerate facts to make it sound like nobody could possibly do this without being “juiced” or I guess if that’s your standpoint, then recognize the other players you’re throwing into that category.

Thank you, Dexter