By an arbitrary scale of impact, I guess. Did anyone follow the Clemens trial by the way? Where was this incontrovertible evidence that he used, I may have missed it?

Bolded and underlined...bingo. We're talking about consequences here, right? So yes, Bonds and Clemens being kept out while Perry is in is completely fair in my opinion. What they did was of a much greater magnitude than throwing a spitball.

I don't think it's arbitrary at all to understand that the effects of metabolic steroids are far greater than throwing a spitball. Particularly when everyone in the world knows the player throws spitballs. That's just common sense to me.

Did you follow the Clemens case? He was on trial specifically for perjury. That's the hardest thing in the justice world to prove, since it's pretty hard to prove what someone knew when they said or did something. Being found "not guilty" of perjury is nowhere close to the same thing as being found "innocent" of using steroids. You really think all that evidence was just circumstancial? Just a big misunderstanding, right? OK...I choose to believe that where there's smoke there's fire, and Clemens and Bonds were layered in smoke.

Actually, I wasn't even talking about a spitball. I was referring to him trying to cover up Brett's pine tar bat incident by hiding the bat.

I don't see how that changes anything but ok.

So let's say for a minute that all cheating is equal. Is your basis for enshrining Clemens and Bonds that mistakes have already been made, so we need to keep making them? You asked me what cheaters are in and which are out. I say the ones who are in are in, unless they drastically change the line of thinking and start removing plaques. And I'd be ok with that btw. But the ones who are not in, should stay out. I don't see the sense in continually permitting cheaters to reap the rewards of receiving the highest honor the game can give. They chose To cheat and should have to now live with the repurcussions of that choice. So my question to you would be, where does it end? Does 3x cheater Manny Ramirez need a plaque before people start to think the whole thing is ridiculous?

You are putting more words in my mouth than I can count at this point. But the bottom line from the trial was that the government's case was based almost exclusively on a single witness, the trainer, and jurors obviously did not believe him with regard to Clemens' use as they almost immediately found Clemens not guilty. Does it mean he was innocent? No, it doesn't. But why do we so readily assume Clemens used and Piazza (HOF) did not, for example?

It doesn't really change anything, but my personal opinion is that the cover up (Perry hiding Brett's pine tar bat) was far worse than the cheating itself.

No, my basis is that Bonds was a HOFer before he started using steroids. From what I know, Bonds didn't start using steroids until after the '98 season. You don't think he already put up HOF numbers by then? What if MLB could somehow discredit all Bonds stats after the '98 season? Would you think he deserves to be in then?

As far as Clemens goes, I'm not even going down that road. It's ridiculous to assume he did them when he never failed a test and he was acquitted of perjury charges.

Ifs and buts. I don't think you can look at half the body of work. For that matter, what if he never cheated and had just outright sucked for the next 8 years? Is he still a HOFer or just a Hall of Very Good guy that gets no love from voters? We don't have a theoretical career to judge, we have the one he played. To be honest, that uncertainty is as much a detriment to his HOF chances as the fact that he cheated. By the way, Bonds never failed a test either. (Rollseyes)

And not that when he started makes much difference to me, how does anyone claim to know when he started using? He might've started in A-ball for anyone knows.

As for Clemens, I don't assume he took them, I'm confident he did. It's ridiculous to me that anyone could be naive enough to think he didn't. Some things are pretty apparent even if a jury of "peers" can't prove you lied about it. He got better as he got older, there was enough incriminating evidence for an indictment, Pettitte even said Clemens admitted using HGH (even if he halfass backpedalled on that)...he was in the Mitchell Report for crying out loud. But yeah, I'm sure he was totally clean. Please.

Maybe Piazza did use, I definitely wouldn't bet he was clean. But I wouldn't bet he used either. I guess we'll never know unless he admits to it. But there's nowhere near the amount of evidence against him (or others, I know you used him only as an example) as there is against Rocket. The guys getting held out had multiple smoking guns. Right or wrong, that's the difference.

And that's where you just lost your argument. You're just like Packs. You made some valid points, then say something ridiculous. Nolan Ryan got better with age too. Do you think he took steroids?

Edited to add: Contrary to what's been written in this thread, there are a lot of players that have gotten better with age. And not only baseball, other sports too. Sports like basketball and football where the game takes more of a toll on your body.

One more edit: So what if his name was in the Mitchell report. Half the names in the report I've never heard of. I guess it didn't help them much, huh? And if you want to use the Mitchell report as your standard, do we assume that anyone not named in the report is innocent? Come on!

Niekro, Spahn, and Randy Johnson all put up most of their numbers after 30, if I recall, and into their 40s were still very productive.

Just checked on Randy's 4 straight Cy Youngs -- 35-38.