This debate is one that has definitely caught my attention ever since I became old enough to realize that some of the men I once considered to be my childhood cheated the game of baseball and some of those men still lie about it to this day. Every family has a favorite sport whether it is baseball, basketball, or football, every family has a favorite sport and mine was baseball. My first sporting event I ever went to was an Atlanta Braves game against the Pittsburgh Pirates and every year since we've tried to go to at least one Major League Baseball game every summer and that's been a huge part of my life. It should be pretty evident after reading this to see why I feel as if I can discuss this topic pretty well in my paper because baseball is something I'm very passionate about. This research topic isn't really something that I would say "affect's me and my values" because it doesn't affect me personally but if I had to take a side it would be on the one with writers and fans who believe they should not be in because they not only cheated the game but also took an unfair advantage in using the steroids and some still didn't even top the production of many clean players. Cheating is something I believe is a non-forgivable offense. If the all-time hits leader (Pete Rose) is banned from the Hall of Fame for an offense that is "banned" from the sport, then why should the users of steroids be treated any differently? If the league set an example for punishing betting/points shaving involving baseball with the 1919 Black Sox, which is a banned offense, and followed through with it nearly seventy years later while banning Rose, then they should treat this banned offense with the same punishment and set an example for future players busted using steroids so they will know that using performance-enhancing drugs is a serious matter. I've never had a personal experience regarding this subject. I just feel strongly towards the side that I spoke about earlier in this essay about how people who cheat the game shouldn't be allowed into Cooperstown. People have different opinions on how to be qualified to write about something but in reality, why does someone have to be qualified to write about something? If a person wants to write about something they have a passion for then they should be able to do it.

The first of my three new sources is "The Mitchell Report" (Mitchell). It is the one of multiple documents that link hundreds of athletes to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. It is hundreds of pages long and releases names of players and the steroids that they have been linked to (Washington Post). The credibility of this is very high as it was the evidence from a former U.S. Senator hired to investigate this problem and is the main source of the accusations that has brought multiple Hall of Fame caliber players to trial to be interrogated and have their sides of the story heard as there was a lawsuit filed which took this matter to the Supreme Court. My second new source will be the about the prior mentioned 1919 Black Sox (Andrews). It will be used to help show the prior punishments given by the MLB for people violating a rule of something that is banned from the league and why the punishment should or shouldn't be different for this situation. There really are no values of this article as this is more fact based about the team and the events that led to eight of the Chicago based team's players receiving a permanent ban from the game. The last of my new articles is one talking about the slight jump for several alleged steroid users on the ballots after voting this year along with the election of two beloved players who were prominent in the steroid era and are believed to be clean (Botte). I will use this to show that maybe as more players associated with steroids begin to fill up the ballots that possibly the voters are having a change of heart while slowly turning their heads to the steroid use and voting just on the pure talent that all of them had. Putting the steroid use aside, hitting a baseball is one of the toughest things to do in sports. So, for Barry Bonds to hit 762 home runs, win 7 MVP awards, and be a 14 time All-Star in a twenty plus year career, is simply mind-boggling to say the least. Without the steroids, he probably would've been a lock to be a Hall of Famer after he hung up his cleats, but we can't judge off of something that "could've" or "would've" been, the man juiced and many voters feel as if the steroids padded those statistics I mentioned earlier but the recent rise in percentage of votes he received could signal a change of heart for some of the baseball junkies that have the final say on if he reaches Cooperstown. The article is also fact based and has no major bias as it talked exclusively about percentage of votes received and multiple players that were on the ballot for this year's election committee to choose from. 

My research question is arguable on many different standpoints. Someone could argue that steroid users should be let in because of whatever reasons that person feels and vice versa. The list could go on all day as it could vary from a wide range of things such as someone vouching for a whole group of players or someone wanting a certain player to be elected into baseball immortality, but nevertheless, the arguments about this subject could go on for a long time from many different angles. There weren't many things for my sources to disagree or agree on since mostly they were fact based but as I progress with my research, there will be a time where a few sources will end up opposing each other in beliefs. I personally am torn on this subject. As much as I think the players who used the steroids should be banned from the Hall of Fame, I can understand the argument from the other side as to why they should be inducted. Hitting a baseball is not easy, especially when you don't know the pitch that's coming. There's many different aspects that factor into a players talent. Steroids may make a player stronger and have a quicker recovery time, but the steroids don't hit the ball or throw the ball with precise accuracy or with an absurd amount of power, that's the player doing the work. Seeing their side of the argument is something I really do understand but still for me is one I can't be in favor of but having to do a project on the argument may help change my mind. The final thing is how can my research question be improved. There really is no other way to change my question because if I did, it would change the whole argument in general and we don't want that. Maybe with some help from my peers they can give me some new ideas to help improve it but as of now, I'm stumped on ways to imrpve it.

