Should Mark McGwire be elected to Baseball's Hall of Fame?

Post Reply New Topic

Should Mark McGwire (statistics) be elected to baseball's Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York? It is clear he will not be elected this year to due strong allegations that it is very likely he took steroids during his career. However some argue that since the hall has cheaters in it, and there was no (baseball) rule barring steroid use McGwire should be let in.

What say you?

EDIT: I should classify what I mean by cheaters: Many 19th century hall of famers, especially on the Baltimore Orioles, had a variety of methods of fooling the umpires. Indeed some have become legendary, just as the "hidden" or "second" ball trick. Fast runners, for example John McGraw, due to the dearth of umpires would skip from second to home on rare occasion. The great slugger Babe Ruth was, like Sammy Sosa, caught once with a corked bat. Numerous Hall of Fame pitchers were either caught manipulating the ball, or suspected of it. Gaylord Perry made a whole career out of spitballs and illegal stuff. He is in the hall. Then again, they did not manipulate there own bodies, so it is a different question still.

Of course, Joe Jackson and Pete Rose are banished from the hall. But they were not accused of cheating and you could not be banned forever (until the post McGwire era with steroids as a penalty for a third time failure of a test) for cheating.

we also should be asking about Bonds as well.

I guess it's a slightly different question. Bonds have overall, and some better individual seasons then McGwire. The evidence (based on leaked grand jury testimony not from Bonds himself) would appear to be stronger with Bonds as well. With McGwire, it's based on coincidentally information: his ballooning in size, the technically legal agent that he acknowledged using at the time, and his embarrassing performance under when under oath before congress.

Neither player ever tested positive for steroids, and and this question is based on "everybody" (included myself) believing they were on steroids for some unknown period of time during their career.

Polls indicate more support for Bonds then for McGwire. The best way I think that voters could rational that is saying that McGwire literally could not make it into the Hall of Fame without steroids and Bonds could.

I would say that if McGwire got in (acknowledged that he likely used steroids), then you would have to say Bonds gets in to.

If by some standard you say, "maybe he didn't use steroids" (which I don't buy), then I think he gets in absolutely. Of course the Hall of Fame is not a court of law so you can weigh these things either way.

I know nothing about baseball. But I do know that a hockey player can take painkillers and skate on a broken foot. Off the top of my head, that's not cheating. But your question about steroids makes me think. They're both drugs. They both change the ability to play. And yet, a guy on painkillers is a hero and a guy on steroids isn't.

There, now, doesn't that clear up everything? sorry, it's just a thought i had.

I have strong feelings on this sorta.. but I think a few ESPN articles hit the nail on the head when referring to what's happening as 'the beginning of the blackball potential steroid-users era'. It's an ugly thing to start getting into, cause of so many variables. I figure that having the mindset of AS probably contributes to me saying Yes to McGwire and Bonds, etc. because of my need for concrete evidence and facts, and not just rumors, even strong ones. I just think it's unethical to make concrete decisions on blackballing someone like McGwire out and letting anyone else in like guys like Ty Cobb and others who were a black eye for baseball are in the HOF. Making it a moral crusade is even worse on reporters' part. McGwire should be in yes, Bonds should be in by miles, and to me this hurts the HOF's credibility.