I think breaking a rule is breaking a rule....you are trying to determine which rules are convenient for you in this case.....and as for the guys that cheated in the past like Ty Cobb and the spit ball hurlers.....most have plaques there that say what kind of guys they really were.....in the modern era the Hall has been pretty strict on who they let in.
Yeah, I get your point. But you've made mine for me.
At the time of the suspected steroid use, steroids weren't specifically against the rules of baseball. They weren't prohibited against nor tested for. Technically, none of the big name suspects did anything against the rules as written at the time.
Now, if you want to say that steroid use is against the spirit of the game, fair play and all that, I can dig it. But, again, so is sign stealing, spitters and bat corking. And all of those things are specifically prohibited by rule. My point re: Pete Rose was simple...there are players in the Hall that have broken lesser rules. Pete did the one thing that you absolutely cannot do...he bet on the game. Seems to me that if all rules were equal, then none of the admitted rule breakers would be in.
How can you ban guys from being in the hall if their numbers merit inclusion because of something that they did that WASN'T AGAINST THE RULES AT THE TIME THEY DID IT?
I really don't care one way or another...baseball isn't my favorite sport so I don't feel betrayed or anything...but my attitude is that The Steroid Era is what it is. You just can't accurately say who did what and when they did it. Either pick a year...let's say from 1990 to 2002...and prohibit any player who played during the time from consideration for the Hall or just let the numbers dictate inclusion, as it always has been.
