The question that I came up with has more recently started to pop up more and more in the sport world. Should baseball players who used steroids be allowed in the Hall of Fame? There is no complete right answer to a lot of people, and you can argue both sides of the argument. What it really comes down to is your values and what you believe is right. This is becoming a hotter topic to debate because the players who were around during the "steroid era" are finally becoming eligible for the Hall of Fame. 

My first source that I found was an article run by U.S. news about how "Steroid users have no place in the Hall of Fame" (Bunning). The author of this article is former baseball pitcher, and U.S. senator Jim Bunning. In the article he says that steroids are cheating and that cheaters must be punished. He feels that it would set a terrible example for children of younger generations if we let people who cheated into the Hall of Fame. He feels that if we did this it would show that it really isn't bad to do something like that. I think the main values in this is honesty and playing fair. This man has played through it all and wants the kids who look up to ballplayers to see that cheating will not get you into the Hall of Fame. He goes back to the values of baseball and how the game should be played fairly. I think that this author is very credible, he played 17 years against some of the greatest players of all time and in 2009 was a sitting U.S. senator. He could have a bias however because he did play before the steroid era, and did not know what the players were dealing with in terms of keeping up with the competition. However, he is an expert on what players do on and off the diamond and said that he never cheated but he saw players cheat and they always ended up being punished for it. 

My next source is actually from the other side of the argument. The author, Ted Berg provides 4 reasons why the BBWA should vote in players who used steroids. First he says that it will end the "witch hunt" (Berg 1) that clouded over the MLB for years after the steroid era ended. Random players were being accused of using steroids even though they had never tested positive. When the writers who elect the players see that a player has been accused it casts a certain doubt in their mind. The next reason he states is that baseball needs to "save the Hall of Fame" (Berg 1). If the writers do not elect the deserving players in because of the accusations, he feels the Hall of Fame will start to lose its luster and people wont want to go. The third reason is what he calls "Realizing Humanity" this argument is probably the simplest of his main points. Berg states that we are all humans and make mistakes and he says that there are already people in the hall that have done things that people aren't proud of. But we still regard them as some of the greatest players and owners of all time. His final reason is that we should "celebrate the great players" (Berg). By this he means that most players who took steroids never really amounted to much, and the great ones only succeeded because they were great before they took steroids. He feels that we should not just frown upon them for that time they messed up and rather look at their career as a whole. I think the major values and interests of this article are that to realize that people make mistakes, but we should look at them as a whole they might have not been the best people but they were the best ballplayers. He thinks it will help baseball move on from the steroid era if we let these guys in the Hall of Fame. From the way he writes this article he seems like a credible source. Berg does make some good points, but overall I still don't really agree with him.

My final source is an article how steroid users should not be allowed in the hall. He stays with the usual argument of how by using steroids the players compromised the integrity of the game and by violating that they aren't worthy of the hall. He says that he prefers guys who were honest all their careers over guys who put up the best numbers but either were liars or cheaters etc. He says that he couldn't really bring himself to drop a clean guy of the ballot list for a guy who didn't embody someone who should be in the hall of fame. Out of all my sources that were against players who "Juiced" in the Hall of Fame he is the first to say that he would consider those guys, but only after players more deserving got their chance to get in. From reading this source and about the author I feel that he is credible, he is one of the writers that votes for the Hall of Fame and he has been around a long time. I think that he is trying to stress that integrity and respecting the game are the two most important parts of a potential Hall of Fame candidate, after that it comes down to the smaller details. 

I think that my research question is very arguable, and regardless of which side you are on there are plenty of points that you can use that will help persuade others. I have seen throughout my research that people have switched their beliefs on how they feel about players who used steroids based on reading arguments from each side. The most common agreement I found through my research is that players should play with a respect for the game of Baseball. After all, it is considered "America's Pastime" and deserves to be treated with the upmost respect. I also found that players who are honest tend to be liked better and if they used PED's, forgiven easier. I think that the more senior writers are more against allowing PED users in the Hall of Fame because they grew up in the era before it and felt that this era was terrible. On the other hand, more of the younger writers are more willing to give them a pass, they grew up and idolized these players and can't bear to see people bashing on them. I might need to look into a more specific side rather than give a general statement, for example "why should PED users not be allowed in the Hall of Fame"? Something like that would be more one sided and be able to go more in depth.
