News Post

Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?

06:48 PM - January 8, 2014 by RaychelSnr

In case you were hiding under a rock this morning (and some of you might've been like me) another year has passed with known steroid users from the height of the steroid era being denied entry into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

The 2014 Inductees included Gregg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas. Craig Biggio missed the cut by just two votes, and will likely have a real shot at making it in next season.

In what will be the biggest living HOF class since 1941, the three players above will be joined by managers Tony LaRussa, Joe Torre and Bobby Cox.

However, missing from the HOF at this stage are still Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons, each receiving approximately 35% of the votes. Both players should be shoe-ins for the Hall, but thanks to their ties to PEDs both have been shut out by the Baseball Writers Association of America thus far.

Another PED-linked player, Rafael Palmero, will be dropped off of the ballot after receiving less than 5% of the vote needed to keep a player on.

Should PED players get to be in the Hall of Fame? Let us know your thoughts!

Member Comments

# 21 Perfect Zero @ 01/08/14 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speels


	I agree, the baseball Hall of Fame is a joke. I mean there is no way that non-playing people should be voting on who is the best and deserves to be in the hall. These people are writers and in no way are they experts at the game. I think for the Hall to gain any sort of momentum they need to go to a selection committee made up of former players, Hall of Famers, owners, umpires, etc to come up with people that deserve to be honoured as HoF. It is the biggest joke in sports........................next to my Leafs!!

Wait a second here, I never said it was a joke. All I said was its time has gone past. Think back even to the nineties: the only way to really remember a player was old game tape and stat books. Now you can find the ratio of fly ball outs to nose hair if you really want to. The Hall was never a repository of stats, it has always been about protecting the purity of the game. Joe Jackson (wrongly IMO, but a discussion for another day) was not pure and has been left out. Pete Rose was not pure and has been left out. Barry Bonds was not pure, and will be left out.

I can go on Baseball Reference right now and tell you the hundred greatest players of all time. I can't go on there and tell you the character of the player or the effort they put in. That's what the Hall has always been about and will continue to be about, even if it ignores womanizing, backdoor cheating or bigotry. So many people are mad that the Hall is not purely about the stats when it was never meant to be in the first place.

# 22 DrJones @ 01/08/14 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juicer420


	The writers wrote the stories that turned these players into immortals. The owners, tv networks, Bud Selig and MLB as a whole cashed in on the use of PEDs. They created the culture that promoted massive home runs numbers and in essence promoted the use of PEDs. There was no testing in baseball and although federally illegal, PEDs were not officially illegal in the MLB. It took 15-20 years before they cracked down on it and only after the federal government got involved. Much of the blame must fall on the players. They broke the moral code at there own risk of reputation. But the incentives to take that risk were created by the writers, the owners, MLB and the fans.

That part's not true. Although there was no testing until 2004, steroids were banned by MLB in 1991.

# 23 juicer420 @ 01/08/14 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJones


	That part's not true. Although there was no testing until 2004, steroids were banned by MLB in 1991.

Yea, I shouldn't have made it such an end all statement there, but what I meant was that there was no official system governing it and no associated penalties for taking PEDs. MLB's policy has always seemed more about appeasing the government then cleaning up the game.

Having it banned and not testing for it or punishing anyone for use is the equivalent to making drunk driving illegal, but cops don't pull over, test, or arrest anyone suspected of drinking and driving.

# 24 TheMatrix31 @ 01/08/14 11:36 PM

Yes.

# 25 Bryzine21 @ 01/09/14 12:08 AM

They should definitely NOT get in the Hall of Fame.

# 26 DrJones @ 01/09/14 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juicer420


	Having it banned and not testing for it or punishing anyone for use is the equivalent to making drunk driving illegal, but cops don't pull over, test, or arrest anyone suspected of drinking and driving.

Mmmm, I tend to think of it more like banning cocaine at your place of work. Just because they're not testing you for snow means it's okay to snort it at your desk when nobody's looking.

EDIT: DOESN'T MEAN, of course

# 27 icemanfrost @ 01/09/14 12:14 PM

No but
Barry Bonds should for two reasons
1. He won multiple MVPs and was a sure ballot HOF before steroids
According to the very person that accused him of using and his supplier gave the time frame when he was using
2. He never was caught or found guilty of using anything

But I could make a case for yes cause Baseball pimped the players meaning they knew they where using but they had just came back off an lockout and needed fans and rating so keep cranking homeruns got our fans back now we have to get rid of you all lol
Also drugs in baseball isn't anything new back in the day they were using then
Baseball is so full of it for example classic greats like babe Ruth could come to the game drunk and other things and get praised but now they want to turn around and talk about role models and steroids
When it comes to the interest of kids and what they see i would rather have steroids than alcoholics
And dont tell me its not that simple cause do what they see look up how many people got cancer or anything else cause they wanted to chew tobacco like the pros do

# 28 Yeats @ 01/09/14 01:03 PM

There's no media or public outcry over all the NFL PED users who are inducted into the NFL HOF each year, so my answer to the question is yes. Bunch of hypocritical baloney.

# 29 BleacherBum2310 @ 01/09/14 01:09 PM

Absolute yes for me.

# 30 LingeringRegime @ 01/09/14 02:44 PM

Of course they shouldn't.

Sent From My Personal Electronic Device

# 31 Jakeness23 @ 01/09/14 03:19 PM

No. And any of the guys with records that have an asterisk should have those revoked as well. Roger Maris is still the home run king in my mind.

# 32 areobee401 @ 01/09/14 03:37 PM

Yes. Baseball players used drugs to gain an advantage long before steroids hit the scene in the early 70's. MLB, its teams and most writers allowed this to go on for years while looking the other way.

A-Rod, Bonds and The Rocket all belong in the HOF. For MLB and its writers to judge now because of PED use is hysterical. What a joke.

# 33 DrJones @ 01/09/14 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakeness23


	No. And any of the guys with records that have an asterisk should have those revoked as well. Roger Maris is still the home run king in my mind.

Maris' record once had an asterisk itself.

# 34 LowerWolf @ 01/09/14 05:52 PM

As long as their numbers still count in the record books, they should be considered as anyone else would.

# 35 supermanemblem @ 01/09/14 09:00 PM

Yes. MLB did not outlaw PEDs until a few years ago, and the writers, fans, and MLB admin all turned a blind eye to what was happening. We cannot go back and punish them now.

# 36 gsize19 @ 01/11/14 03:33 AM

I will get blasted, yelled at, and just outright called everything but a white man, but as someone who played minor league baseball in the "steroid era", I want to sound off about something I have a lot of knowledge about.

I used steroids in that era, granted it was only three shots, but I used, I saw users, and I was out of baseball after the 94 season due to injury issues.

The strike killed the sport of baseball, then after the new CBA was passed, ball players were playing, but nobody was showing up. Steroid use became more rampant, and it is due to this, people started coming back to the ballparks. There were more HR's, higher run totals in a whole, this is what fans wanted to see. Sure you still had you great pitchers that could overcome this (just two examples are two now HoFers, Glavine and Maddux), but steroids put baseball back on the map win nothing else could.

I look at it this way, baseball is entertainment, people pay money and now big money for a family of four to see players entertain. No different than the dopehead actors that no one says anything about when they are stoned on a movie or TV set, steroids was a PED.

Having had injuries, I used the PED's to come back from injuries. It was the only thing that put bread on my table, to be on the ball field when hurt. I had a base salary but had a incentive heavy contract.

I give kuddo's to Griffey and a few others that never used them or needed to. Having played baseball with Griffey at Midland (summer leagues) I can say that kid was a natural talent, and was a modern medical marvel, at least until he landed in Cincinnati, but he played it straight. Players like that are shoo-ins, first balloters, but steroid era players who used PED's should NOT be exempt.

Not exempt for the reason they still were superior athletes, broke records, and gave the fans their money's worth. The Sosa, McGwire HR chase was awesome. I was actually on a plane to Ft. Lauderdale win McGwire broke Ruths record, and the pilot came on and said he broke it. I was sorry I missed it as not only one who played, but as a fan of the game.

To me, the MLBPA should allow Andro and a few other PED's. It will increase the value of the players, ensure your high dollar guys are on the field and we the fans are paying for the best product on the field. Steroids brought fans back, and made fans out of people that never were, who are now diehard baseball fans. When you star player goes down, it is detrimental, but they do not change ticket prices because that player is no longer on the field, they call up a minor leaguer, throw in a back-up player for the time he is on the DL, and we the fans are not getting are money's worth, in a matter of speaking.

Be that as it may, people can say all they want about HoFers from the past. Do you know how many were drunks in the hall? Do you know how many gambled and were lucky not to get caught? Do you know how many used the spit ball? Corked their bat? There has always been a bit of cheating, steroids doesn't hurt the fans, it hurts the players, it takes years off of their lives, but they do it for a paycheck. If in todays world I was asked do you want a $1 million dollar contract to play, or do you want to take steroids and make $10 million, looking back, at what I did, and how I think now, I would take the $10 million, because it would ensure my family a future, and it would give the fans that entertainment.

There is much worse out there than steroids and PED's, and if players were allowed to take these, maybe we would see players play 150-162 games a year, instead of the mandatory days off to rest them because owners do not want to jeopardize their investment.

Looking back at the 70's and 80's when I grew up, players played hurt, but played everyday, and yes, there was illegal activity going on, and some of that illegal activity just happened to be from some in the HoF now.

People need to get over it. You can say all you want about players being role models, most of them will say they do not want to be, there is too much pressure with that, they just want to play ball and get the most out of their careers. I have told my daughters what I did, right, wrong or indifferent, I am not ashamed of it, and it did help me buy my car, buy my house, and in a time in which I am now unemployed, I had some fall back money, all because I met some incentives some 20 years ago.

I think many in the hall forget to look in the mirror when it comes to voting, stats should get you in, no asterisk because it was a steroid era, it is a travesty that Bonds, Clemens, and Rose to name a few are not in. The voting committee gets most right, but leaving out some in the steroid era, who in theory brought back baseball as a sport fans want to see, it just isn't right. Rose falls into a different category, but he paid his debts, it is time to reinstate him and put him in.

It is funny, as a former player I have never been to Coopertown, and refuse to go until Rose is in the Hall even though I hate him personally and have my reasons off the field why I do not get along with him, but the fact remains, he was truly one of the greatest ballplayers of all time. I have been to the hockey HoF 7 times, the NFL HoF twice, the College Football HoF twice, but never to my own sport. That should tell you something as a former player that I do not agree with what it stands for any longer. Steroids should not be the reason to keep people out (BTW there are murderers and convicted felons in the Halls now, just sayin)

# 37 mlbfanjunkie @ 01/11/14 08:32 AM

As much as my heart tells me Gary players using steroids should not be in the HOF my gut tells me there are several players already in the HOF. I can not think of one person on the Hall Of Fame ballet who has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty of taking steroids.....Just like we can not guarantee beyond a reasonable doubt that there are not already steroid users in the HOF. So hate me for saying it especially my first post here lol but I have to say unless they have been proven beyond any doubt then you can not and should not go just on pure speculation. Had this debate on my site with other members and it's a tough subject to say the least. Some of these players, The Rocket,Bonds,Bagwell,Sosa,and others I absolutely loved watching thinking man they love the game................or was it man they love those roids?

# 38 Vladrek @ 01/11/14 03:14 PM

They already are in the Hall of Fame. If you look up pitcher Jimmy Galvin, he was taking testosterone boosting treatments in the 1880's and 90's. The point that bothers me the most is everyone seems to believe there is no way anyone was using steroids or other testosterone boosters before the 90's. I understand everyone has been using amphetamines for a long time, that is not what I am referencing. Pitcher Tom House who pitched in the 60's and 70's admitted to trying out steroids but didn't continue using them feeling as though they didn't help him much. However, more importantly House said he truly believes 6-8 pitchers on each team were at least experimenting with Steroids and HGH. So let's not pretend that this was an issue isolated to the 1990's and of course the people who ignore this evidence the most are baseball writers who's career's were probably helped out a great deal due to the steroid era. The players were not the only ones benefiting from the popularity of the sport, the writers had to enjoyed the increasing amount of attention to their reporting as well, and they arguably turned the biggest blind eye to the issue. Just let the fans pick the inductees.

# 39 gsize19 @ 01/11/14 08:45 PM

@mlbfanjunkie, they loved the game, they were at the pinnacle of when fans were coming back, roids just made it that much more enjoyable because no matter where they went, they were like rockstars, playing to sold out houses... Then again, the hefty paychecks didn't hurt that either.

There are many egos that play the sport, and a lot of players that are unapproachable because of their holier than thou attitude, but when they were on the field, in the batters box, they gave the fans their money's worth... Honestly, it didn't hurt the sport, it helped bring it back to what it is today... The strike was something that made a lot of people bitter, and @vladrek, I agree, this is an issue that goes way beyond the 90's, just in the 90's, the sport needed a boost to overcome that strike of 94, and the players knew this. If you only sell 12-18K tickets a game, you aren't going to get huge contracts, they did what they had to do to ensure their financial security and it brought an entirely new fan to the sport and many that said they were done with it because of the constant CBA's from athletes some think were already overpaid. To be clear, I do feel ball players are overpaid now, not so much in the early 90's, and I also feel the ballplayers are babied way to much by owners. There is no reason your star players can't play 155-160 games a year. They did it all the time prior to 94... The multi-million dollar investments changed that, just take for example the 5-man rotation. I still feel there is no reason (and I was a pitcher) that you can't go out there as a starter every fourth day. I think the 5-man rotations is what is killing arms, they are getting TOO much rest throughout the season. All you need to do is look at stats prior to 94 at starting pitchers starting 37-42 games, having 5-10 complete games, etc. It wasn't uncommon for pitchers to throw 130-150 pitches back then, now after 100, owners are gritting their teeth like their arms will fall off. Let the stars play the game!!!

# 40 ftball11 @ 01/12/14 06:48 AM

No...the ends do not justify the means.

« Previous 123 Next »

More Links

Sound Off: Should Steroid Users Get in the HOF?