Yes, and your position puts arbitrary, moving goalposts on the your individual assessment of each case - which in my observation, are most notably tied to team affiliation.
Printable View
This entire statement is pretty arbitrary. Especially given that Tony LaRussa and Mark McGwire fit the bill, but they are two players who you've been vocally unforgiving of, and not in favor of letting them into the HoF.
That is the moving goalpost - based solely on their team affiliation.
I've been on record that if McGwire had put up HOF numbers while clean, like Bond and Clemens, I would forgive him for using later in his career. But most of his numbers came while using, so he doesn't get in. That's the forgiveness that I give players from that era.
Had McGwire played in the Reds at any point in his career, I would have been less upset with that (still upset, but less upset) than I would if the Reds signed him immediately after he had been convicted of PED use.
I actually was a LaRussa fan for quite awhile. I was very upset when the Cards got him because I wanted the Reds to get him. But that changed when he started denying any involvement or awareness of PED use under his management, and started making excuses for McGwire after his congressional testimony. I lost all respect for him after that. Also, when it comes to managers and GM's, I'm much less forgiving than to players. Managers and GM's should know better. They are in charge, they have no excuses.
I think you are confused in thinking that I would completely forgive certain PED users, and never forgive others. I condemn all PED users, including those who used only greenies in the 1970's. However, the type of PED used, the situation in which they were used, and how and when the team acquired them, all affects how I would feel about them being on a team I root for. Some, I wouldn't want on my team at all, some I would be upset over, but would tolerate, and some I wouldn't care much about at all.