I appreciate the different view points people have on the HOF elections. Some think it should be cut & dry - your either a HOFer or not - on the 1st ballot, some like to vote in the cinches and ruminate a couple of years before they vote in the second tire of definite HOFers, and some will stonewall the players they think cheated. I like the way it works now and I believe it to be effective. The modern voting process leaves a vast area open to personal interpretation and I strongly feel that is important and effective on voting in the worthwhile players. Some players may be wrongly excluded, but no system is perfect, but to me, that is the price that is paid. Bonds and Clemens are two examples of players who I believe would have made it to the HOF without PED's, but after the fact, they always came off as arrogant ***holes, and individuals who were so desperate to have their legacy protected, that they isolated a countrywide fan base with their deception and self-obsession. They both faced legal ramifications, but both came out of it fairly decently. Maybe the OJ Simpson trial is a poor comparison, but Simpson was found innocent of murder in his state trail for murder, but he was found guilty in his civil suit trial. The HOF voting is Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens civil suit trial, and if they eventually lose it, that is justice served.