It's almost too easy to recall Rafael Palmeiro's wagging finger at the Congressional trials in March 2005 over steroid use as he memorably said: "I have never used steroids. Period."
That July it was announced he tested positive for steroids and was suspended 10 games.
Palmeiro insisted this was true in a phone interview with SI.com posted Wednesday, saying "I was telling the truth then, and I am telling the truth now."
Next, in an interview with ESPN, Jeff Bagwell insisted he, too, was clean.
"I'm so sick and tired of all the steroids crap, it's messed up my whole thinking on the subject. I hate to even use this word, but it's become almost like a 'buzz kill' for me.
Now, I bring all this up in an effort to try and put the entire thing to rest, once and for all, as I, too, am sick and tired of the "steroids crap". But the only way to effectively deal with it is to deal with it, instead of pretending it only existed in a vacuum.
Look, do I think that PED usage helped the performance of some players? You bet I do. But until MLB steps up and adopts some sort of directive...say, a policy that can be used as a guideline for Hall of Fame voters...this issue will never be settled properly and thus, will never, ever go away.
Furthermore, it will help to alleviate the questions surrounding career spikes that seem suspicious. For example, ESPN's Keith Law recently tweeted: "Hank Aaron had the best AB/HR rates of his career at ages: 39, 37, 35, 38, 28 and 36. Where's the steroid suspicion and outrage?"
Now, the purpose of this article isn't an attempt to assign blame to Bud Selig or anyone else associated the the aptly-named "Steroid Era." Rather, it's a desperate plea for MLB to do something to ensure that all voters are looking at this thing from the same perspective.
Recognizing that, I have determined that there are four main positions that MLB can take with regard to the question of what to do with the Hall of Fame candidacy of players suspected of taking steroids.
This admittedly won't stop voters from having their own personal biases on the subject, but then again, that's why unworthy candidates such as Jim Rice are sitting in the HOF today.
So, no, this will not make the voting "perfect" as no one will ever eliminate the subjectivity of the voting process. But it will at least finally address the issue once and for all.
1. Adopt a "Steroids Era" wing of the Hall of Fame
First of all, this will never happen. We know that. It would cause too much embarrassment for MLB and would not be fair to players who legitimately played clean during the era. Plus, what exactly is the time-frame of the so-called "Steroid Era"?
Can we assume for certain that it ended when MLB adopted its steroid testing? That no designer drugs were developed to get pas the testing?
And when did the era actually begin? In 1988, when Jose Canseco used steroids to become baseball's first 40-40 man?
Yet it is an option that would remove all doubt and allow voters to judge players solely on their performance without having to consider the role that PEDs may have played in a player's results.
But there is no "Dead Ball Era" in the Hall.
2. Eliminate all players from this Era from Hall eligibility
Never mind that we cannot even define the era, lumping all players into the category of not being Hall-worthy simply because they happened to play during a time when many players used PEDs would be unfair.
Then again, is it really unfair to assume guilt before innocence? While this country was founded on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", so many guys used during this time, and lied about it, that no one deserves our .
Of course, this would mean that even the cleanest-of-the-clean, Greg Maddux, would then be ineligible from Hall consideration. But face it, while we would be shocked to find out that Maddux used, it is not impossible, is it?
Look, cherry-picking Hall of Fame candidacy based on assumptions and innuendo, as today's system is currently defined, is just as unfair.
3. Allow all players from this Era entry to the Hall of Fame regardless of steroid use
The opposite extreme to restricting all players from the Steroid Era. this rule would allow voters to judge a players' worthiness based solely on his stats and contributions to the game, and removes the subjectivity of whether or not steroids may have played a role in that players' success.
Of course, it would also mean that obvious cheaters like Barry Bonds get in without any scrutiny.
4. Only allow players who haven't been "proven" guilty entry to the Hall
Now, this one may be the best option. But even so, legitimate questions will abound.
For example, was Barry Bonds a Hall-of-Famer even before he bulked up and hit 70+ homers? I say "yes", but in this case he would not be eligible since he admitted to using "The Cream" and "The Clear" in congressional testimony, though he claimed he thought they were flaxseed oil and arthritic balm (pause for laughter).
Players who tested positive would not be eligible for consideration, which would leave Sammy Sosa eligible even though any sensible person knows he took steroids.
________________________________________________________________________________
It's fairly obvious to note that none of these options are perfect. Meanwhile, having MLB sit on its hands and do nothing is even worse.
The arguments about whether or not players like Palmeiro, Bonds and Clemens belong in the Hall obviously go way beyond numbers. Based on pure stats alone, each of these guys fly through the process without even a thought.
The other issue is the fear that some players will make the Hall just because their numbers are considered "pure". In fact, I heard that argument made about Andre Dawson.
The truth is that there may already be players in the Hall who were dirty. That's just a fact of life.
The process is already too subjective as it is. It's time for MLB to do something about the cloud of steroid suspicion.
Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com
- Login to post comments