First a guy says cheating is cheating then he says when a person cheated matters. Okay. I'm not following the logic of the pine tar game either. You say that you think Bonds cheated after 1998. That means he cheated for 9 seasons and won 4 MVP awards during that time, but you're relating that to a single game and hiding a baseball bat?

If you're referring to me, I didn't say that, nor did I imply that.

When I say cheating is cheating, I mean if you'll cheat at the little things, you'll cheat at the big things to. If you'll steal a little item, you'll steal a big item too. If you tell a little lie, you'll tell a big lie too. You get the point.

I just don't understand how someone can say Bonds doesn't deserve to be in the HOF for cheating, when others have cheated too. What is your measuring stick? When does the cheating become a bannable offense? So, it's OK to cheat and throw a spitball, used a corked bat or whatever and get into the HOF, but it's not ok to cheat and use performance enhancing drugs and get into the Hall? What kind of stupid crap is that? Both are cheating, both have the same intent which is to get an advantage. So a spitball is OK, but steroids are a bannable offense? Gotcha. Where's the middle ground? Where's the gray area? In Packs world, where is the baseball cheating line drawn between a bannable offense and a slap on the wrist?

Baseball has already decided when too much cheating is enough. There is a sliding scale of penalties and it ends with banishment.

So what does it say about steroids and the HOF?

It wouldn't say anything about it because the two are separate entities.

My point exactly. So, I repeat the question. Why are some players kept out of thr HOF for cheating and others are not?

What point? The Hall of Fame is a matter of opinion. It's always been and it always will be. No one needs proof to keep Bonds and Clemens or anyone else out of the Hall of Fame. Public opinion has kept them out. Voting them in would mean that public opinion is that using steroids and HGH to enhance your career is acceptable. As evidenced by their wait, public opinion hasn't decided it is. As evidenced by the inclusion of Gaylord Perry and anyone else you accuse of cheating, public opinion says their offenses aren't as severe.

I am not sure the writers are a proxy for public opinion.

They are the ones who vote, so they'll have to do.

But your starting point was that it was public opinion making the decisions. Your reasoning seems odd.