The PED Conundrum, Pt II

Would I vote the PED users into the Hall of Fame?

To be honest, this is a blog post that I have really been looking forward to writing ever since I started this baseball-themed series. But, it is also becoming the most difficult to write. Not because I am afraid of what my 37 readers will think of me, but because the deeper I dig into the issue the more complex I find it.

I wish there was an easy answer to the PED Conundrum.

I wish that back in the 90s, the rules had been hard and fast and clear so that it would be easy to say, “These guys cheated—they knowingly broke the rules—therefore their stats are discredited and they are banned from the Hall of Fame.”

I wish that the commissioner and the owners weren’t so blinded by the dollars pouring in that they turned a blind eye to the players' use of steroids.

And I wish that the drugs didn’t become so prevalent that even the mediocre players felt the pressure to start juicing just to stay competitive.

But that’s not how things went down, and I don’t have a DeLorean and some stolen plutonium so that I can make a quick trip back to 1995 and change these things. Like so many other things, we cannot paint this issue with a broad brush and come to sweeping conclusions. We are stuck in the quagmire of ethical nuance and mixed metaphors.

So, where do I land on the issue? Have those players who boosted their stats through the use of performance enhancing drugs earned the privilege of being inducted into the Hall of Fame? Should their stats and records be dotted with asterisks, or erased from the record books completely? Should the awards and accolades they received during their careers be taken away from them?

Several years ago—when players like Bonds and McGwire first appeared on the HOF ballots—I was at a pretty solid “no” when it came to whether these guys should be inducted. Deep down I was happy to see each year go by with their percentage of “yes” votes never reaching the 75% threshold. In my mind, they cheated and should not be honored for doing so.

But I pride myself on being an open-minded individual. I try to see the validity in an argument, and I try to understand why it would be appealing to others, even if I don’t agree with it. And that is what I have tried to do over the past few months, culminating in my previous post. I have tried to understand the perspectives of those who are just as solid in their “yes” as I was in my “no.”

And there were some compelling arguments in favor of inducting these players into the HOF and not putting asterisks next to their records. In particular, the argument that the HOF is meant to document and preserve the history of the game. And the steroid era was a significant period, no matter your feelings on this debate.

Additionally, many of these players were probably on a trajectory into the Hall before they started juicing. These guys were already elite players. And steroids don’t make anyone a better ball player; they just help players hit the ball harder and farther, or pitch the ball harder and faster. The trouble is, once they started using PEDs, how do you draw a distinction? How many of Barry Bonds’s home runs would have simply been long flyouts or—at best—extra-base hits? There is no way to know.

And lastly, there were no rules against the use of steroids at the time. Yes, they were illegal in the US and they gave players an unfair advantage, but technically they were not cheating.

So, where do I land in all this?

I think, after reading and listening and engaging in conversations, that I land somewhere in the “soft no” category. Like, if this were being tried in a court of law, these guys are definitely not innocent (and therefore worthy of being inducted into the Hall of Fame), but I don’t see a strong enough argument to outright deny them induction either. In legal terms, it’s not a “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” kind of situation.

Now, I recognize that much of this discussion is moot because most of these guys have already timed out on the ballots; their ten years of eligibility have come and gone. But maybe in another five or ten (or more) years, the Eras Committee will reconsider. Maybe the passage of time will change opinions and soften attitudes—mine included—toward these guys.

The bottom line is that in the hypothetical scenario where I am casting the deciding vote on whether to induct this cohort of players into the Hall of Fame, right now I would vote no. However, I am willing to keep an open mind and I am willing to listen to arguments in their favor. And, if presented with a compelling enough argument, I might be willing to change my mind.