Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
The guidelines would address the following factors:

1. Whether PED use is a pertinent factor.

2. Whether speculation about PED use (as opposed to clear information) should be considered.

3. Possibly a statement by the Hall as to the standard to be used in considering PED use. For example, a statement that PED use is only relevant if the voter has good reason to think that PEDs had a significant impact on performance.

These are not exhaustive. There are many approaches the Hall can take to bring more clarity to this subject. I think voters would welcome these guidelines.

As to the comment by a poster that all this requires is "logic and reason" I completely and entirely disagree. This is an issue of science and, in some cases, an issue of evidence.

If I were a player, I wouldn't want a major league beat writer deciding if I used PEDs and what impact PEDs might have had on my career. The least the Hall can do is address the issue for its voters in some manner.
The most meaningful thing the HOF could do to protect the sanctity of it's mission would be to significantly reform how it chooses who gets to vote in the first place.