Steroids and the Baseball Hall of Fame voting

If I ever see or hear a member of the baseball writers/commentators say "I will never vote for a player who used steroids to get into the Hall of Fame" my head may explode.

First of all, it greatly bothers me that when the sports media talks about steroids and baseball they rarely talk about how steroids are a huge health concern. In my opinion, that should be the real main focus when talking about the effect that steroids had on the game. But the reality is that the sports media is obsessed with how steroids affect a players statistics and whether is should prevent players from being voted into the HOF.

Throughout the history of baseball drugs and alcohol have been problems in baseball as it has been in the USA in general. In fact is is said that in the 70's and 80's most players were using amphetamines.  It has always seemed to me a bit odd that the media doesn't even begin to consider those who may have used and  may not belong in the HOF.

I know many will say that doing amphetamines and cocaine are not the same thing as using steroids. But until someone proves to me that steroids help to improve a player's hand-eye coordination I will always question how much steroids actually help a player hit home runs.  Until that is done I see no difference between illegal recreational drugs and steroids.


My understanding is that the main reason players use steroids is to help speed up their recovery time and help with their endurance. If that is the case then I don't get the argument that steroid use should affect how a player's career is judged.


However, if I am wrong (that's always a great possibility) then I believe  the "experts" seem to forget a couple of things.

1.)   To the best of my knowledge only four players have been openly revealed as having used steroids/HGH/illegal substances:  Rafeal  Palmeiro,  J J Putz, Manny Ramirez (female hormones still cracks me up) and a minor leaguer whose name I can't recall.  If someone knows of someone else please let me know. If you don't for sure know a player used how can you use that against them when judging their career?

2.) During most of  the so-called "steroid era" steroid use was legal in Major League Baseball.  The writer's want to punish players for doing what essentially within the rules at the time?  Sorry but that just doesn't make sense to me at all.

3.)  I have heard estimates that between 50-80% of the players used at the time before steroids and HGH were banned. Doesn't that mean the competition level was fairly even?  So if a player is later found to have used steroids during that time that he played how can you hold that against him?

Honestly, I think some in the sports media want to keep some players out of the HOF because the press didn't learn of the steroids sooner and want to punish the players the only way they can.

The next post I write (hopefully tomorrow) I will be doing something I  never thought I would do: defend Barry Bonds.