A poll was presented in the side bar of this site on whether you folks thought Barry Bonds should be elected to the Hall of Fame. After 105 votes (thank you), 74 of you decided that Bonds should be left out of the Hall of Fame. That's 67 percent. No doubt your views will be shared by the baseball writers when Bonds is eligible for election next season. This Fan of the game is struggling with that viewpoint.
Percentages of users or "cheaters" if you will, vary whenever you read up on the subject of Performance Enhancing Drugs. You'll read a range anywhere from fifty to eighty percent of ball players that used the stuff. There is still a debate in some circles on how much of an effect the PEDs were on performance. But even if you concede that performance was enhanced, for every Barry Bonds, there was a Jeremy Giambi. Using was no guarantee that you would succeed. Obviously, Bonds succeeded big time.
As others have mentioned, if Bonds is kept out of the HOF, then the all time hit leader will not be there nor the all time home run leader. What kind of Hall of Fame does that make if the best players aren't there? Your opinions (and those of the sportswriters) will also mean that Roger Clemens doesn't make it in either, right? Certainly, the writers have spoken on Mark McGwire.
This Fan isn't saying you're wrong. It's just troubling. For this writer, the Hall of Fame is about players that dominated their eras. And if an era was full of cheaters, should that mean that nobody from that era gets in? That's what you are saying. If that isn't true, then we have to make some kind of value judgement on who used and who didn't. If we do that, will we always be right? Again, the Fan isn't arguing with you. It simply doesn't sit well here.