I heard some of the talking heads on ESPN discussing whether Bonds or Clemmons should be voted into the Hall of Fame considering their use of steroids/HGH helped to prolong and enhance their careers. Both of these guys said yes because they felt their volume of work prior to the steroid age was sufficient to get them in.
I ask then how about Pete Rose. Since the volume of his work prior to his gambling issue was sufficent to gain admission, why is he any differnt?
I believe this is a slippery slope and you can't have one set of parameters for some and another set for others. In my opinion, none of them deserve to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Original Post