What's the difference?

Fergie jenkins too- Mickey Mantle was a boozer (so were many turn of the century stars) If they weren't performance enhancers, why would you want to ban them.

How about bad husbands and fathers? Tax cheats? Where do you draw the line?

I think we should promote sport enhancing drugs, in fact make them better. I would love to someday see someone hit a 1500 foot home run, or steal two bases at a time. Or someone finish stage 8 of the tour de France in an hour. And just think how fun bowling would be to watch when the pins explode cause the ball is going so fast.

I think that is up to the HoF committee. Whatever they decide should be equal for everybody. When you start digging in someones life chances are you can always find a reason to exclude them though. Maybe those who didn't use drugs should be excluded because obviously they didn't try hard enough to promote the sport <sarcasm>.

The hall of fame is about what you do on the field and for the game more than anything else.

If you took something that artificially enhanced your ability to produce, then it will affect your HoF status.

If you take something that does nothing towards what happens on the field, its not baseballs decision to do anything.

They are grading players on their stats and what they produced, not morality. Thats not up to them.

In terms of sports and the effect on performance, there's a difference between recreational drugs and steroids. One helps performance, the other doesn't.