Originally Posted by jojo
If Bonds and Clemens are kept out of the HOF because of a PEDs rationale then the HOF can nolonger be considered an honest representation of the game's history because that argument implies player performance was not affected by PED use in other eras and it distorts the history of PEDs use in baseball in such a way as to whitewash the issues rather than move in a direction that more accurately reflects reality. The reality is that PEDs use and endemic cheating has been a significant part of the fabric of the game.
How the HOF choses to honor individual players speaks directly to it's ability to be a credible source concerning the history of the game-the institution calls itself the Hall of Fame so it is virtually impossible to separate who it honors on a plaque from it's historical vision-at least one certainly can't expect the average baseball fan to split those hairs.
If the Hall chooses to allow history to be whitewashed in it's most visible function, then it needs to change it's name to minimize the relevance of who it places on plaques. Perhaps it's best titled the "Professional Baseball Museum featuring the romantic musings of individuals who wrote about baseball at some point in their careers no matter how little they might have actually covered professional baseball"?
Only if one takes an ethical stance that "cheating" is "cheating" is "cheating," which is not a typical or healthy moral position.
I'm guessing that folks taking that stance also have a similar view on all drug use. Pot use is really no different than alcohol consumption than cocaine sniffing than crack smoking than crystal meth production, sale and use. Its all just under the category "altered state of consciousness and helping folks get there."