why irving but not mcgwire??

Question

How is it ok for michael irvin who was caught with cocaine to be in the football hall of fame but not mcgwire who its belived used steriods of wich there is no proof and no rules againt it at the time of his career?

Answer 1

Two different sports, two different sets of standards. It's much harder to get into the Baseball HOF in any case, and right now the baseball community is pissed about steroids. In fact a mere Michael Irvin would not make into baseball's HOF, nor would a morally upright but only above-average player like Phil Simms.

Answer 2

That's a touchy subject. But, I think the difference here is that if anything Irvin's use of cocaine etc... did absolutely nothing to help his on the field play. It actually would have made it worse. And probably is what kept him out of the HOF in his first 2 years of eligibility.
McGuire, on the other hand, supposedly used drugs specifically meant to enhance his on the field play. Yes, he never tested positive. But his testimony before Congress was devastating. He's NEVER said he didnt use them. So, with his testimony, he sealed his own fate.
What I think it comes down to is people's unwillingness to forgive the fact that the entire country was caught up in the "homerun race" with McGuire and Sosa, the year McGuire broke the record. Fans, and more importantly, the voters feel like it was all a big lie!

Answer 3

Cocaine is not steroids or growth hormone. Cocaine does not improve athletic ability. McGwire has the "cheating" shadow on his record. Plus, football does not have the same stigma from Canseco's book that MLB does.

Answer 4

One thing cocain is not a performance inhancement drug and allthough it's illegal it's not banned by the NFL!DA BEARS BY 17!