Forgive me for generalizing here, but when it comes to PEDs and the Hall of Fame, we can pretty much break everyone into two camps: those who will consider confirmed PED users for the Hall, and those who won’t. Of course, there are many sub-categories of each of these groups, but this distinction serves the intent of this post.
If you’re in the latter category–i.e. you’re against any confirmed PED user ever being inducted into the Hall of Fame–that’s OK. I’m not going to challenge that stance, but this post is not for you. Of course, I’m not trying to discourage you from reading it, but I’m going to ask some questions that can only be answered by those in the other group, the folks I like to call PED agnostics.
I suppose those of you who are willing to consider for the Hall of Fame players with the PED black mark hanging over their careers are not necessarily agnostics–you range from those who try to factor in PED transgressions when assessing a player’s career to those who simply don’t care at all–but you all have one thing in common. You’re at least somewhat open-minded to the concept of PED users in the Hall of Fame.
So, here’s where I’m going with this. The basis of many an argument from the agnostic side of the equation is that PEDs weren’t outlawed by Major League Baseball and there was no testing when most of the use occurred. In fact, of the seven players on the current ballot whose lack of support can be attributed at least in part to PED use or suspicion, only one–Rafael Palmeiro–was legitimately nabbed by MLB’s drug testing program.
But, of course, we’re entering even more uncharted territory. Manny Ramirez won’t be on the ballot until 2017, but how does the fact he’s been suspended twice under the current rules affect your thinking about his Hall of Fame credentials, which would make him a shoe-in otherwise? And what about Alex Rodriguez? We won’t know for a while whether to consider the Biogenesis scandal simply his first strike, or if his transgressions are, in fact, worthy of the additional punishment handed down by the league.
But, the bottom line is both of these players have clear-cut Hall of Fame resumes if not for PED use, and in both cases, one of the factors frequently used for dismissing the arguments against no longer apply. That is, assuming the sanctions against Rodriguez aren’t thrown out on appeal, which seems unlikely.
I know none of us has an actual Hall of Fame vote. So, of course, this is all hypothetical. But, we wouldn’t spend as much time as we do discussing this sort of thing on the internet if it wasn’t a subject we feel strongly about. In that sense, there are many of us who, for lack of a better way of describing it, like to pretend we’re Hall of Fame voters.
So, with regard to your hypothetical Hall of Fame ballot, where do you stand on the Manny Ramirezes and Alex Rodriguezes (again, assuming we’re considering him worse than a one-time offender) of the world? The way I see it, here are your possible stances (although I’d like to know if you have an alternate opinion):
- You still don’t care about PED use at all, even with regard to players who receive lifetime bans.
- You don’t factor PED use into your opinions on Hall-worthiness, but you’re willing to accept that a lifetime ban based on the current MLB drug policy means a ban from the Hall of Fame.
- Violations of the MLB drug policy due to PED use should result in the player’s Hall of Fame case being discounted.
- Violations of the MLB drug policy are reason enough to turn you full-circle, from PED agnostic to someone who believes confirmed PED users have no place in the Hall, since we can now say that they knowingly violated the league’s policy with intent to cheat.
I usually steer clear of these discussions, but I’m really curious where people stand on this issue now that the rules of the game are changing. Please weigh in if you’re so inclined.
