There it is again. The consequences of using a corked bat are you sit a few games and pay a fine. The consequences of using PEDs is you don't get into the HOF. I can't think of a more simplistic way of saying it. Your own argument is basically explaining why there's a difference, and why most voters clearly think one offense deserves a stiffer penalty than the other.

It's a poor analogy. An appropriate analogy would be petty theft vs. armed robbery.

Wow, really?. :rolleyes:

I know the difference in the consequences, but I'm saying the consequences should not be different. You have guys, HOF pitchers like Perry and Ford, that pretty much admit to cheating their entire career. Do you really think it's fair that they get in the HOF and someone that used PEDs doesn't?

Well, again, Perry and Ford are in, so this would be rehashing the point of past mistakes allowing future mistakes. But with the understanding that the magnitude of their offenses is different, yes, I'm fine with their consequences being different. Would you think it was fair if someone received the same slap on the wrist for armed robbery that someone would receive for stealing a pack of gum? Of course not. So I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe PEDs is a more egregious offense than throwing a spitball. Personally, I do. Did Perry throw a spitter EVERY time he threw a pitch? PEDs affected every pitch Clemens threw during the duration of his usage. Did Brett or whomever have a doctored bat every time they stepped to the plate? Every at bat during Bonds' usage was impacted by PEDs. I absolutely feel that the benefits of steroids use are far greater than spitballs and corked bats. Apparently a large portion of voters feel that way too.

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. The BBWAA will ultimately decide.

both should get. both were the best (among the best) of their era.