Attachment 2931
With the upcoming Hall or Fame Vote and the presence of a number of steroid-linked players on the ballot, would the issue be as off-putting for voters if Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens had been pleasant human beings? Are some baseball writers actually glad to have the steroids issue to hold over Bonds' and Clemens' heads as a payback for their being jerks most of their careers - even if it means setting a standard that too severely judges the other players from that era?
FWIW, ESPN learned quickly the secret to Barry. He loves guys that he gets to know, and he had a good rep with his own beat writers that had been around a while. That's why Pedro Gomez basically covered Barry for about 4 years for ESPN. So Bonds wasn't a despicable human to all those in the media, just those who came on too strong, too soon.
What I don't like about the 'roids argument is that there's no way to know for certain, and on top of that, there's no way to know how much help someone got from taking steroids. Would Barry have topped out at his 1993 levels if he hadn't touched 'roids, because that guy was a world-beater already? Would Clemens have been the guy who left Boston in the early 90s, because that guy was already one of the better pitchers of his generation? How do you measure their achievements versus those who you let in from the same era? Nevermind that there are numerous guys in the hall of fame now who took banned substances in the 1950s and 1960s, but no one said a word when their name came up on the ballot.
I suspect most writers don't really have a problem with dealing with jerks - even big ones like Clemens or Bonds. Most players are dicks, even the bad players. And I would also expect that most writers wish they didn't have to deal with the PED issue at all.
