Originally Posted by Bob Roarman
Yeah that's kinda my point. It's a phony image. So go for it, if you feel the need to defend it. I'd rather see it as what it is. That's why I don't give a frog's fat ass over what people think about when a player "deserves" to get in the Hall of if he does at all. Because they are, at least partially, basing that judgement off something that is false. Like I said, is it disillusioning, yes it is. Maybe that's what baseball "deserves" at this point.
Any Hall of Fame presents the image the sport wants to present. By that definition, any Hall of Fame exists to present a phony image if you want to use a pejorative term. Enshrining players because of accomplishments despite the fact that fans don't respect them because of the circumstances of those accomplishments is more phony recognizing that players notorious in the context of their times for their use of performance-enhancing drugs don't belong in the Hall of Fame.
Baseball is not now looking the other way when it comes to performance-enhancing drugs, even if baseball did at one time. Some would like to see stricter enforcement, and with good reason. You shouldn't have to destroy your health to make a living as a skilled athlete. You should not put your competition in a position to risk their health to compete with you. Henry Aaron is exponentially more respected than Barry Bonds.
Putting Rafael Palmeiro into the Hall of Fame because he met a statistical threshold while suspending players for attempting to gain the same edge he had, in violation of federal law, would be more phony than leaving him out.