Should players that have used performance enhancing substances be admitted to the Hall of Fame?

Question

When it has been shown by their own admission or irrefutable proof.

Answer 1

no roiders and no lying gamblers please

Answer 2

Obviously if you get elected into the Hall of Fame - you've had an oustanding career. Great numbers, most likely hold a record or two - whether it's a team record or MLB record. If it's proven that a player used any type of performance enhancers, it's all tainted as far as I'm concerned. Who knows if a player would achieve the same things without the drugs or not?

Answer 3

The precedent set by baseball is that players should be voted in based on their stats, not on their methods of getting those stats. The only time players have been banished from the hall, it has been for compromising the potential outcomes of games (Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson).

The Steroid Era, for better or worse, is just another era in a long history. The Spitball Era resulted in pitchers who cheated going into the Hall of Fame. Corked bats have been discovered throughout the last thirty years and other methods have been used by homerun hitters to "cheat" or gain an unfair advantage.

Most importantly, a fact that is overlooked often is that the potential for pitchers to use steroids in this era is just as great as the potential for hitters, somewhat leveling the "dirty" playing field.

Answer 4

It depends on the player. McGwire didn't cheat even if he did use steroids because they weren't banned from baseball. If they were banned, I'd consider it although baseball rules are written so that nothing is really illegal. If you get caught, its illegal and the rules say what should happen.

There's a lot of cheaters and morally corrupt people in the baseball hall of fame. There are steroid and speed users.

I do not condone steroid use because its too harmful to the body. Look at Caminiti. I loved watching him play but it tears me up to think about the deal that he dealt himself and how he finished his life. I loved watching Big Mac and Barry's dingers have been fun, but I don't want to see that at the expense of becoming more Caminitis.

As far as I'm concerned, McGwire should be in the HoF because the Hall is about the importance of a player, not just their stats or whether they were liked. For a decade, Mark was a focal point of the game. His HRs may have only traveled 470 feet instead of 510 feet if he weren't on steroids (going on the assumption that he used steroids), but he hit 49 in his rookie year and one look at his rookie card shows a man that did this out of skill, not steroids.

One thing is for sure, stats have not set the precedent for what gets you in the Hall like the guy below me said. An easy example of this is Tinkers to Evers to Chance. They're in because of the poem that bares their names.

Answer 5

Yes they should. The hall of fame is for players that have made the game proud. If a player uses an "enhancing" drug, it is his own fault. It shouldnt make the game of baseball (not about the MLB), look bad. So my answer is yes.

Answer 6

There is no way they should be allowed in. The Hall is the last thing left that is oure and good in baseball. If they are to mess that up too then what is left? A bunch of jacked idiots who knew how to use a needle so they make a ton of money? I really don't want to see the day that comes.

Answer 7

Well, the writers won't allow them in if they HAVEN'T admitted to it (Mark McGuire) and they won't allow them in if they HAVE admitted to it (Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, several others), so by this logic, if you are a large man in Major League Baseball from 1986 to present day, you are not allowed in the Hall Of Fame under any circumstances.

Sounds a bit like the Salem Witch Trials to me, where a person would be killed if they admitted to witchcraft, and tortured if they denied it to prove their innocence.

Pretty ridiculous way to run the baseball hall of fame if you ask me, but then again, most of the things in Selig's reign of terror have been pretty ridiculous.

Answer 8

They shouldn't but unfortunately it's too difficult to know who did and who didn't for sure. Speculation is everywhere so what can we do? If someone is specifically caught, then probably not but I say we have to let some of the current MLB players in the Hall

Answer 9

No there needs to be a Hall of Shame for them. Even the ones who are believed to have been on steroids, but not proved or admitted. Mark MacGwire for one.

Answer 10

If the substance was not illegal (either within the league or outside of it) then it is irrelevant. For example, Mark McGwire's use of "andro" may have been cheap and "cheating" but it wasn't illegal while he was a player.

Look at a different sport...do we take back half of Steve Largent's receiving records because Stick-Um was allowed for the 1st half of his career...even if you think it's cheap and cheating?

Answer 11

I hate to asnwer a question with another question, but... Where do you draw the line between the users and non users? just the ones that have been caught?? or all that we assume?

Mcguire? Sosa? Palmero?? Roger Clemons?? I would assume they all used. there is such a grey area here, My belief is you have to vote them all in if the have the numbers to be considered.