From the New York Times:
In perhaps the most resounding referendum on the legacy of steroids in baseball, voters for the Hall of Fame rejected the candidacy of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens in voting announced Wednesday. For the first time since 1996, and the eighth time over all, no players received the necessary 75 percent of the votes from baseball writers.
You all know what I think of the decision. I think it's crap. Taking the high moral ground in 2012 negates the baseball experience of the 90's, and I am always against re-writing history. It is what it is, and those players were far too good to go unnoticed, steroids be damned.
For all I want to say on the subject, just read this article from Rob Neyer.
The character clause has never been used until now, with the arguable exception of Shoeless Joe Jackson. Nobody cared about Gaylord Perry throwing greaseballs between the lines, and nobody cared about hundreds and hundreds of players taking the field, between the lines, all hopped up on greenies. Competitive integrity, as defined right there by Verducci, has never been a factor in Hall of Fame voting. Until now.
Again, what Verducci and like-minded souls seem to be arguing is that cheating on the field and taking performance-enhancing drugs -- or drugs intended to enhance performance, anyway -- are perfectly acceptable, and should have no bearing on a player's Hall of Fame credentials or his standing in the community ... unless those things actually work well enough to blow up the statistics. In which case, you were a bad person and don't get a plaque in Cooperstown.
So, what do you think?