The Cooperstown Juice Bar

(Photo by Jim McIsaac/Getty Images)

Do alleged steroid users belong in Cooperstown?

The question continues to be debated ad nauseam across radio airwaves, television signals, and all manner of Internet connections, and will continue to be, even after any resolution is found.

But how much does this concept bother baseball fans?

In one of my first posts at Starr* Rated, one of the links took us to a rather thoughtful essay by Sportales' Peter Cimino, asking us why Gaylord Perry lubricating and mutilating the balls he threw (which is, was, and long has been illegal) is written off as lovable eccentricity, while guys getting needles stuck in their rears (which was not specifically illegal when Hans McGwire and Franz Sosa were bringing baseball back from the brink) heralds the apocalypse.

It's a fair question.

Those who would have never voted Perry into the Hall and now cry foul over Barry, Mark, and Sammy...well, at least they're CONSISTENTLY moral.

If you chuckle at and glorify Perry but rage against and vilify Clemens, then quite honestly, that's hypocrisy writ large.

Baseball's long been built on guys trying to get an edge.

Stealing signs, spitballs, and pine tar; it's all been done.

It's for this reason that I don't care whether or not a guy shot up, popped pills, bent over and welcomed suppositories, whatever.

My criteria are simple: do I think a player would have played at a Hall of Fame level without using anything? As there's no way to know when a player would have started taking anything if he did, we have to look for dramatic production spikes. (See 1998.)

If a guy wasn't Hall of Fame material before his stats went through the roof, then he shouldn't be held up as Hall of Fame material now.

These men have been held up as the faces of the Steroid Era:

Roger Clemens

Jason Giambi

Alex Rodriguez

Manny Ramirez

Rafael Palmeiro

Sammy Sosa

Barry Bonds

Mark McGwire

...which ones would you put into the Hall of Fame? Why or why not?

Which clause on the ballot ("Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.") is more important to you than any of the others?

For me, and I'll be honest here, "character" is lagging pretty far behind the rest. Even though some of his more notorious actions can be defended today, many of them would have gotten Ty Cobb arrested and jailed for hate crimes in today's PC climate. And yet, no one's clamored for his removal.

Nor the aforementioned Perry, nor Mike Schmidt, who has all but admitted to the use of amphetamines.

Nor Willie Mays, who was linked to them in his final days as a Met.

Nor Willie Stargell, who was said to be the hookup for the "We Are Fam-a-lee" Pirates.

So what exactly would send up that kind of a red flag? Let's discuss:

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?