This morning on “Morning Reaction” here at WNST, Luke and Drew were debating on the issue of steroid users and if they should be allowed in the Baseball Hall of Fame. This is a very good question, but one that does not have a sheer cut answer.
I say yes, because it was the era that they played in and the true definition of a Hall of Famer is a player who dominated during his era. Was Barry Bonds a dominant player during his era? YES! Roger Clemens? YES. Also, many of the players in this era, including the two aforementioned players, never tested positive for steroids although many people feel they used them. I am with Drew though, as he stated they should be allowed in but there has to be something on on their plaque that states that they tested positive or were found guilty of using. I say this because if you look back in the History of baseball, you could make an arguement for every era that there should be an asterisk.
When you look at baseball history, you could make an arguement during the era that guys who played before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier should have an asterisk or something on their plaque that states African American players were not permitted in baseball, thus “x-player” was not purely competing against the best baseball players. Also, beer used to be allowed in the dugouts! Why not mention something on plaques about that?
It is just too dificult to keep these guys in the steroid era out of the Hall of Fame when it was the era that they played in. During the “Raised Mound era” pitchers were dominant, but how many of those pitchers would have been as dominant with the lower mound? Shouldn’t pitchers from that era in the Hall of Fame have something listed on their plaque? Again, it is too tough to justify keeping the steroid era players out of the Hall of Fame.
What do you think?