Quote:
Originally Posted by Robextend
Without a doubt you are right...you would be in the extreme vast minority becasue of the overhwleming circumstantial evidence, but you are right.
|
Where do you draw the line as it relates to circumstantial evidence? I'm sure there's a measure of circumstantial evidence against just about anyone who played in the era. Pujols at one point was linked, I believe to a Dr or trainer? (can't remember) that was a PED dealer. I think the Mitchell report only scratched the surface of the problem, so are all the guys who were implicated in that excluded from the hall, while other guys who simply got away with it allowed in?
Are all guys who tested or will test positive one time be forever excluded- A Rod? Had Ryan Braun's pee not been mishandled, would he forever be excluded? If someone rats out a player that's already been inducted, does he get thrown out? I don't know the answers, but do think this is going to damage the hall's (and its voting methods/criteria) image, because this will all be very polarizing for years to come.