In any level of sport, from pee-wee leagues consisting of five-year-olds to professional leagues and all others in between, cheating and finding ways to bend the rules is frowned upon and penalized. At some point during what seems to be every baseball season, allegations surface regarding yet another prime-time player being accused of and/or admitting to using some form of performance-enhancing drug (PED). While steroids have not always been illegal in Major League Baseball (MLB), players continue to use them regardless of its legality in order to improve their performance on the field. Not all steroid users reached stardom or proved to be an asset for their team, but some achieved at incredibly high levels and essentially became human highlight reels, and they were rewarded by being nominated for possible election into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York. Their exceptional on-field productivity sparked a controversy regarding whether they should be recognized for their career accomplishments and elected into Hall of Fame. Those in support of their eligibility believe that if a player’s statistics and presence on the field prove their worth, then voters should look past the steroid use and focus on numbers alone. The opposing argument believes that while these players may have had impressive careers, the fact that they cheated by using steroids is a deal-breaker and they should not be chosen. Professional baseball players who used steroids during their playing careers should not be awarded Hall of Fame eligibility regardless of their accomplishments because they willingly broke the rules and gave themselves an advantage rather than earning their elite status with pure talent alone. 

Even though steroids were not added to the list of banned substances until 1991 and the implementation of drug-testing players across the league was not until 2003, players have used them for decades (ESPN). The drugs are intended to build muscle and increase testosterone levels in the players, thus giving them more power and a boost in performance. Punishment for being caught using performance-enhancing drugs was originally far from extreme to say the least, beginning with a ten-day suspension for the first offense and the fifth offense resulting in a lifetime ban from baseball. Because of how many breaking news stories regarding a player being caught every season, it seems to never end, and some people look at the sport as a game for cheaters and the league as one that allowed it to go seemingly untouched with the lack of proper discipline. After the Senate started to take notice of the leniency, an agreement in 2005 between the league and the Major League Baseball Players’ Association, referred to as the MLBPA, called for a 50-game suspension for the first offense, a 100-game suspension for the second, and a lifetime ban for the third (Bloom, Molony). 

The Hall of Fame is a sacred place in the minds of athletes in all sports that have one, and most, if not all, dream of being enshrined inside its walls. Baseball players aspire to have a plaque with their name on it among those of the sport’s pioneers and all-time greats in Cooperstown. To be eligible for election, a player must have played for at least ten years and has been retired for at least five years, unless he passed away during or less than five years after his career, according to the official site for the National Baseball Hall of Fame. The site also states that players nominated to be on the voting ballot will be eligible for election for a maximum of ten years and must receive at least 75 percent of the votes to be granted membership. Some of the more recognizable names of players who tested positive for PEDs since the dawn of the “Steroid Era” include Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Jose Canseco, and Jeff Bagwell. Of those four, only one is in the Hall of Fame, as Bagwell was elected this past year. Rodriguez will not be eligible until 2021 since he retired following the 2016 season. While each of the players mentioned had outstanding careers and had statistics that set them apart, the one thing they all have in common is that they used performance-enhancing drugs to build a perceived reputation as a standout player and athlete.

If any season were to be considered the “year of steroids,” it would be the 1998 season. This particular year was full of home run hitters, but it was highlighted by the battle between Chicago Cubs outfielder Sammy Sosa and St. Louis Cardinals first baseman Mark McGwire. The race was to see who would surpass Yankee great Roger Maris’ record for most home runs in a season of sixty-one. It was a season-long bout between Sosa and McGwire, and while they both hit sixty-six and seventy home runs, respectively, McGwire came out on top and got to sixty-two home runs first and Sosa was named the National League Most Valuable Player. The two prime-time hitters would later finish their careers with a combined 1,192 home runs. The chase brought more attention to baseball than the sport had seen in years, and the two sluggers became stars. It was the inspiration for a book entitled “The Perfect Season: Why 1998 was Baseball’s Greatest Year” and Sports Illustrated named them “Sportsmen of the Year” (Bishop). While the battle rejuvenated Major League Baseball’s popularity, its monumental impact became an afterthought just a few years later. Not long after 1998, both McGwire and Sosa became linked to performance-enhancing drugs, as well as several other players who shined during that season. According to Greg Bishop, eight of the thirteen players who hit forty or more home runs during the 1998 season now have their names linked to PED use, including Sosa, McGwire, Alex Rodriguez, Rafael Palmeiro, and Manny Ramirez. Neither Sosa nor McGwire have been elected into the Hall of Fame, but Sosa is still eligible. His eligibility will last for a few more years to come, but whether or not voters will choose to have him enshrined in the Hall of Fame has yet to be determined, so only time will tell for his case as well as other players in similar situations.

While not every professional baseball player uses steroids to increase their production, many players do despite the fact that they will be reprimanded extensively when caught. In a recent video from the Associated Press, former U.S. Senator George Mitchell announced the results of a study conducted on a sample of Major League Baseball players. Of all the players that were drug-tested for the study, 5 to 7 percent tested positive for steroids, but some negative tests may have been misleading (AP Archive). The results prove that performance-enhancing drugs are still prevalent in baseball and are a major issue in the MLB. According to an ESPN article, there were ten players between 1998 and 2009 that surpassed the 500-career home run milestone, one that is one of the most renowned marks in professional baseball. Of those ten players, six now have their names linked to steroid use. One of the six players is Barry Bonds, who passed all-time great Hank Aaron for sole possession of the record for most career home runs in August of 2007. Bonds finished with 762 home runs, seven more than Aaron’s career total of 755, which no one ever thought could be matched. Because he became known for using performance-enhancing drugs as much as he did, many people began to question whether or not he should be considered the greatest home run hitter of all time and even have some of his home runs revoked for cheating his way to the top of the list. His use of performance-enhancing drugs has been the primary reason why he has yet to be elected into the Hall of Fame. He has been on the voting ballot since 2013 and will be until 2023.

Those who support the election of steroid users centralize their beliefs around the idea that the players’ numbers should speak for themselves and should be seen as they are printed on the spreadsheet. They stand behind the claim that these players should be acknowledged for how well they performed on the field and that the voting committee for the Hall of Fame should look past the fact that they took steroids and focus solely on the statistics. USA Today writer Bob Nightengale supports this idea, saying that with his vote, he will “vote for players who had Hall of Fame careers, regardless of their connections to steroids and performance-enhancing drugs.” If a voter was given a list of statistics without the names of the players they belong to or any information that could influence the voter’s decision, they would pick those with the best career performance. For example, if a voter was handed a spreadsheet for Sammy Sosa’s career and did not see his name, he or she would most likely vote for Sosa. But, do the same and put Sosa’s name and/or mention his connection to PEDs on the sheet, and that potential vote is gone because they would see that he took illegal substances. USA Today journalist Ted Berg said about the topic, “[…] the Hall of Fame should be about only one thing… celebrating great players.” If voters focused their decision solely on numbers and on-field presence, some players who have been denied entry for years could very well be in Cooperstown. This should not happen because a player could be given credit for who they were as an athlete, but who they chose to be as a person would be essentially considered irrelevant. 

Another claim made by those in favor of electing these players is that previous voting committees have voted in players who did other wrongful things, so they should consider steroid users. There is truth behind this claim, as players who have done things such as using amphetamines and abusing alcohol have been elected into the Hall of Fame. In an article that focused on this subject, Bob Nightengale stated, “We’ve let murderers, racists, and abusers into the Hall of Fame. […] Check out the number of writers who adamantly won’t vote for Bonds or Clemens, but will vote for Tim Raines, the same guy who admitted to cocaine use during his career, even snorting it during games.” While steroid use is frowned upon and acts essentially as a repellant to voters who base their voting choices more on morals and ethics than numbers alone, the fact that they would not be the only wrongdoers to be enshrined in Cooperstown does help their case and sometimes eases the tension. Either way, someone who willingly partakes in any kind of illegal activity should not be recognized for any good they did during their careers.

While players in the past have done things much worse than taking steroids, that does not let those who took them off the hook because any sort of wrongdoing should be penalized, regardless of the severity or whether it affected their play. The main reasoning behind the argument that steroid users should not be in the professional baseball Hall of Fame is that their accomplishments were the result of their cheating. Someone who broke the rules intentionally does not deserve to be recognized alongside players who achieved similar things without using drugs. When someone visits the Hall of Fame, they see plaques commemorating some of the greatest ever to play the game, such as Mickey Mantle, Cy Young, Jackie Robinson, and Stan Musial. The reason for which they have been enshrined in Cooperstown is because they earned their way to fame. When looking at the careers of Barry Bonds, Jose Canseco, and other players who excelled thanks to the help of performance-enhancing drugs, the numbers to make their case as elite players are there without question. But, when the factor of steroid use comes into play, those numbers are suddenly of less worth compared to when initially analyzed because these eye-opening statistics were side effects of using drugs that build muscular strength. “Babe” Ruth did not use steroids and still hit 714 home runs, Nolan Ryan did not use steroids to strike out 5,714 batters, and Ty Cobb did not use them to accumulate a career .366 batting average. Each of these players are in the top three or better in their respective categories, and none of them tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs; they all earned their way to the top and into Cooperstown. In a video interview from ESPN from this year, Hall of Fame voter Murray Chass explained why he decided to turn in a blank ballot. He said, “I decided some time ago that I would not vote for those players [PED users], whether they were known to have used or were strongly suspected [of using steroids]. […] each writer has to decide for himself what the standards are.” The fact that some star players who are on the ballot used PEDs is a factor that prevents voters like Chass from siding with them and giving them their vote.

One of today’s standout young players in Major League Baseball is Los Angeles Angels outfielder Mike Trout, who has been in contention for the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award in every full season of his young career. His exceptional career began towards the end of the 2011 season, and since then, he has essentially become the face of the game as well as one of the most dominant outfielders and a pitcher’s worst nightmare. His career accolades include the 2012 Rookie of the Year, the 2014 Hank Aaron Award, two consecutive All-Star Game MVP awards in 2014 and 2015, five straight Silver Sluggers from 2012 to 2016, and two American League MVP awards in 2014 and 2016 (ESPN). He is seen as a star on the field, but he is also one of the most likeable players off the field as well, as he is a fan favorite among all age groups. He is not a PED user, which adds to his popularity in the baseball world as well as his credibility. He most likely will be a first-ballot Cooperstown inductee if he plays like he has, but that may not exactly be the case for someone with similar numbers who is connected to PEDs. If someone came into the league and burst onto the scene like Trout did and later tested positive for steroids, Trout would be favored over him because a player who is more trustworthy and likeable should have more recognition and popularity over someone who cheated.

Playing the game of baseball fairly and the way it should be, meaning without any unfair advantages, is what can secure a spot in Cooperstown if a player has the numbers to state their case as a legend. When a player is caught with steroids, their credibility diminishes and they are no longer idolized because no one knows whether they had enough raw talent to accomplish what they did without the drugs. Many voters and fans alike would rather see someone who is in the top forty in a couple statistical categories and avoided trouble make it into the Hall of Fame than a player like Barry Bonds, who broke a record or two and decided to overlook the rules of fair play. For example, New York Times journalist Tyler Kepner stated, “Those three words – integrity, sportsmanship, character – are critical to some voters.” To the voters and fans, their use of performance-enhancing drugs broke not only the rules set by Major League Baseball that banned the substance, but also the basic moral code of sports because cheating is frowned upon on all levels of all sports. They see the situation as nothing short of simple negligence and a detriment to the image of the game in its entirety. To see a player who intentionally ignored the rules and prioritized their personal gain of advantage over fair play be chosen to have their face on a plaque in Cooperstown considered unfair to the players who stood out because of their raw talent and without the help of PEDs. When one sees that a player decided to give themselves an unfair advantage of any kind over both the opposing teams and their own teammates, they can see that the player had a tunnel-like vision that only focused on their individual success. When this happens, they prioritize their own personal gain and achievement over their team’s success as a whole and they become selfish and believe that the only thing that matters in the end is whether or not they get into the Hall of Fame, not whether his team excels.

The debate surrounding PED users and their Hall of Fame eligibility has continued to grow for several years, but the presence of their name on the ballots has only made it thicken. The balance that voters take into account between fairness and on-field productivity tends to lean one way or the other, depending on the voter. In the event that a player who used steroids but had career statistics to prove they had a career that was nothing short of phenomenal on paper were to become eligible for induction and have their name on the ballot, the decision regarding whether to emphasize morals over productivity or vice versa becomes the heaviest influence on their decision. While numbers alone would be sufficient if they were the only thing that impacted a player’s induction into Cooperstown, their worth diminishes exponentially once the player’s name becomes associated with drug use. In life, people generally tend to side with the “good guys” because they normally build a good reputation for themselves by choosing to do what is right, and they get commended for doing so. This idea applies to professional baseball and all other sports in that people admire and become fans of players who are great at what they do and become perceived as role models by playing fairly and displaying a superior level of sportsmanship. A player who uses steroids should not be in Cooperstown and be among all-time greats who played the game as it should be, which is without unfair advantages caused by drug use.  
