With the most recent inductees to the Baseball Hall of Fame announced, the issue of steroids once again is brought to the forefront of MLB news on ESPN. Now I don't need to name names such as Mark McGuire, Rafael Palmeiro, Sammy Sosa that are on the ballot but haven't been voted in; and with guys in the Roger Clemens Barry Bonds era going to be on the ballot soon, the issue will continue to be brought up and debated.
So the question is this (and you can apply this to any sport):
Should players that have violated the drug policy be voted in to the Hall of Fame?
my answer (which I believe would end all discussion):
No. Now I actually have thought about this for awhile and have moved on from my solution that if he was a Dodger that makes him ok. While I was sitting on the throne earlier it came to me, if a player doesn't believe he is good enough himself to be successful without banned substances, why should anybody else? Yes, obviously there has to be some God given talent that contributed to their numbers but there use of these drugs is proof that they didn't think they could reach success on their own. Take into consideration that getting into the HOF is probably not the reason for taking their enhancer of choice, but rather to win games, better numbers which coincidentally equals more dinero for the player. Whatever the motive, the answer is no (even after injury). If he doesn't think he can be successful with hard work and all those old school qualities, then why in the world should anyone else be forced to think differently.
I don't mean to sound arrogant, but I think that with my response it doesn't even lead into the morality and role model aspects of the issue. And while their may be accomplices to each man, it is an individual decision and the responsibility lies on their very buff, fake shoulders.
