August 7, 2007. This date should go down as one of the most famous dates in baseball history. I remember sitting in my living room with my dad watching history unfold that night. Barry Bonds making contact with the ball and immediately, everyone watching that game knew they had just witnessed history. Bonds had hit his 756th homerun, passing Hank Aaron for most in MLB history. And for a few months it stood as the greatest accomplishment in recent memory, until in December of that year when the Mitchell Report came out. The bombshell report that Congress had spent months reviewing, interviewing, and investigating. Its main purpose was to reveal and show the prominence of steroids in baseball and to show what players were involved. One of the most important name on that list, Barry Bonds. Before the 1990's steroids did not play a big part in baseball, but starting in the 90's, players seemed to be inflating with muscle, guy who had never hit more than 20 home runs in a season, started belting out over 45 of them. But the people were not concerned about this, baseball was back to being exciting again. People were glued to their televisions watching the likes of Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Jose Canseco and Barry Bonds battling it out year after year for home run king. It was not just hitters doing this though through the 90's and 2000's. Pitchers like Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte seemed to be getting more dominant, even as they kept on aging. Players who started their careers off as skinny kids soon started to look more like body builders than baseball players. By the numbers, all of these players should make it into the Hall of Fame, but these were achieved through cheating, spawning the question, should these guys be allowed in the Hall of Fame? There are many arguments to be made for both sides of the dilemma, and the reason that this has come into play is because within the last 5 years, all of these figures through the 90's and 2000's are now becoming eligible for the Hall. And with that eligibility has come much speculation, many of the writers and experts have taken the same stance that I have. Players who have taken steroids or have reasonable evidence against them should not be allowed in the Hall of Fame.

It is known to most people how good the players listed above are and had they put up these numbers without the help of steroids, they would be Hall of Famers without any doubt. However, as sports writer Wallace Matthews puts it, one of the most important parts of looking at potential candidates is how they conducted themselves on and off the diamond, and how by taking steroids and cheating are a "clear violation of the integrity, sportsmanship and character portion" (Matthews 1). Players have to hold themselves to a certain standard and play the game the "right way", meaning playing clean and conducting themselves in a respectful manor off the diamond. Using illegal substances to improve your abilities does not do any justice to the game. While it may draw massive crowds and get people excited, it is not what baseball is about, this is why baseball now has much stricter punishments, and more importantly people lose their sense of trust and respect for you. Kids grew up idolizing these players only to find out that they were cheating the entire time. In the beginning of the Mitchell report, there is a letter written by parents that describes how their son committed suicide due to the side effects of abusing steroids. He was an up and coming player and saw that his favorite players using these drugs and becoming much better because of it. When he was asked why he was using steroids he replied with "Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire did it!" (Mitchell Report). The parents of this child later in the letter ask if the players are found to have used steroids that they be stripped of all records or awards that they might have and in addition to that be banned from the Hall of Fame to show players who used steroids to serve as "clear examples to young athletes that cheaters are not worthy of recognition respect and admiration" (Mitchell Report). I agree with what these parents want to do, they want to show kids that cheating may get you short success but in the end you will get caught and end up tarnishing your record. 

On top of that there are many harmful side effects to steroids that people may not know of when it comes to steroids. According to the National Institute for Drug abuse the main side affect of anabolic steroids is "increased irritability and aggression" (drugabuse.gov). This can lead to violence against others, yourself and even cause people to make rash decisions that they normally wouldn't make. In addition to that it is found that abuse of steroids and make you much more susceptible to strokes, heart attacks, testicular shrinkage (in men), and make you more likely to contract various infections. (drugabuse.gov). This is not the influence that we want on the younger generation who looked up to these guys. According to a study done by 4 people at Cal-Berkley, there was a 31% percent increase on players on the disabled list from 1989 to 1998. (has.berkley.edu) This shows how steroids can break down your body by over-straining yourself in working out.  When most people think of steroids, they just think that it helps you get bigger muscles and makes you faster. People do not look enough into how they can change your life for the worse. One famous example of aggression came on the games biggest stage, the World Series. Roger Clemens threw a broken bat back at Mike Piazza after he hit a meaningless foul ball, and was jogging down the first base line and then tried to play it off as nothing happened. The bat came out of Clemens' hand fast enough that it could have hurt Piazza, or even worse a fan. (youtube.com) An act like this has gotten coined as "roid rage" there have been videos of suspected users over the years randomly lashing out at anything, players, water cooler, dugout phones, etc. Like any other drug abuse you have to be treated properly and effectively otherwise a relapse can be eminent. According to the National Institute for Drug Abuse, there still hasn't been much research into how addictive steroids are to people. It had been known for a while that Olympians had used steroids in the past but it wasn't until recently with the Mitchell report and ensuing chaos did people really start to look into what was going on. Now they are starting to teach young kids the terrible effects of steroids if not taken properly as directed by a physician. There are now programs that target high school athletes to show them alternatives to still build muscle and improve without taking the same dangerous path as some of the biggest names in baseball did. 

Even with all that has come out regarding steroids and who has admitted to using them, people still doubt how much steroids actually did to impact the game. Most people think that only a few guys were using them, but in reality, the numbers of the whole era jumped up. There was a domino effect in the MLB at this time. Player started to see others using this and decide they needed to catch up. That is why these guys do not belong in the Hall of Fame. Along with inspiring kids to try this method, these players inspired a good portion of the league to get involved. In the same study from before it is shown that in 1996 4 teams broke their record for home runs in a season and the single season home run record that had stood for 37 years was broken 3 times in 3 years (haas.berkley.edu). While it can be exciting to watch that many homeruns, people who truly enjoy watching baseball know that it is not good to turn the game into a homerun derby. It is about being honest and playing the game the right way. If you are getting old and can't keep up, it might be time to retire. In the Berkley study it was found that OPS (on base percentage plus slugging) skyrocketed starting with the 1992 season, around the same time the steroid era was presumed to start (haas.berkley.edu). This study indicates that the MLB seemed to turn the other way due to the economic boom in baseball because of this. During this era, team revenue and the value of MLB teams skyrocketed due to the influx of people who flocked to see players smash home runs (haas.berkley.edu). Now as we see with writers such as Wallace Matthews are taking a stand against allowing the players to cheat for a whole generation. The writers are coming to realize it was nice what they were doing then, but now it is time to face the punishment, not making it into the Hall of Fame. 

People still have a soft spot for some of those players who were listed in the steroid era, and you can listen to the older generation talk about how Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds based off the numbers earlier in their career could have been in the Hall of Fame. But based off of their choices we never got to see what could have been, and we are stuck asking ourselves "what if"? Renowned baseball writer and television reporter Ken Rosenthal took an interesting stance on the topic. In his article he talks about how in the future he might cut the steroid candidates some slack but for now he is sticking with a no. Through all my research it was the first article I saw where the author was up for change, it is usually either a hard no or a hard yes. In the article he says "I'm closer to saying yes than ever before" (Rosenthal 1). But he then follows that up with "Doesn't mean I will next year. Doesn't mean I will in 5 years" (Rosenthal 1). Rosenthal is affirming that he is softening up to the idea, but it is still not nearly close enough to change his mind. What I do like that he did was take the counter-arguments that people use and rebuttal them in his own way. He talks about the Hall of Fame is "a privilege, not a right" (Rosenthal 1) and how voters decide the fates of players, not the MLB. Rosenthal also goes on to talk about how you cannot just pick out players based on suspicion only. He said that they should get a fair shot if they weren't accused while playing, have not failed any PED tests, and have not been named in any investigations. You have to be careful who you accuse because there have been many instances in this so called "witch hunt" that happened in the aftermath of the Mitchell Report. Players who have been falsely accused have had to build up their reputations again, but always left that little bit of lingering doubt in the back of peoples minds. But in the end, some people who ended up being accused turned to have been actual users.

In every argument there are two sides, and with this debate there is no difference. Many people that feel these guys who were accused and even admitted to use still could be in the Hall of Fame. There are arguments that can be made for the other side of this, letting players who used steroids become enshrined in the Hall of Fame. Writer Ted Berg talks about why players who took steroids should be allowed in. He gives 4 main points and challenges the main arguments of why players should be kept out. He goes after the character clause stating that "the walls of the hall are lined with bigots and drunks and wife beaters and all types of lowlifes who should be celebrated for their remarkable baseball talents" (Berg 1). He also talks about how many of the people who took steroids still didn't improve at all. He argues that the guys we remember were already in a class of their own before they started and simply pulled further away after use of PED's. He talks about how baseball needs to save the Hall of Fame by putting these guys in. He says "how many people will rush to the hall that excluded all of their childhood heroes" (Berg 1). He also gives a common scenario where someone has to explain to their kid why Barry Bonds in the Hall even though he took steroids. His response is "The Hall of Fame honors great players, son, not great men. Barry Bonds might have been a jerk, and he was willing to break the law to be better at baseball. But man, could that guy hit" (Berg 1).  The author means that there were not certain rules in place that said players couldn't use PED's so he wants to leave it in the past and instead celebrate the good these guys brought to the game. Another argument was made by Rob Parker of ESPN who went on a show and talked about how it was "hypocritical of the MLB to keep counting the records that these guys have, but then exclude them from the Hall of Fame" (Parker). He goes on to say that if the MLB had stripped them of their records he wouldn't have a problem with them being excluded from the Hall. 

Overall, both sides make arguments that have information backed up with it, but I still believe that players who used or have enough reasonable evidence against them that they di use steroids should not be allowed in the Hall of Fame. There is a certain standard that needs to be held for them, after all they were the role models for an entire generation and we have to show them that cheating will not get you anywhere long term. Steroids also can be a hazard to your health and can easily be abused by athletes and regular people everywhere if they are not used as prescribed by a doctor. Too many young kids think that this is the easy way to improve, and in the short term it might be, but in the long run anabolic steroids and other performance enhancing drugs can land you in a world of trouble. There are plenty of people in the Hall of Fame that have never used steroids, proving that hard work can go a long way. Only time can tell if people will ever come around, but like with any dark era in time, you need to set an example to prevent other generations from going down that road. 
