Lately, former Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire has been in the news following his recent admission to steroid use and the thought provoking discussion as to whether he should be allowed into the baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown is now up for debate.
The reasons that Big Mac should be allowed into the Hall of Fame greatly outweigh the detractions against him.  McGwire’s situation is only part of the problem that eventually equates to why players from the steroid era should universally be considered for the Hall of Fame, whether steroid use was proven or not.
The detractors against McGwire say that he cheated the game.  The Hall of Fame voters say his numbers were so bloated due to his use of steroids that he shouldn’t be allowed into the Hall of Fame.
Clearly the majority of Hall of Fame voters are against Big Mac right now, with the last vote only raking in about 25 percent of support for him.  Hall of Fame voting is conducted by the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA), and any player that gets 75 percent or more of the vote in that year is inducted to the baseball Hall of Fame.
With that in mind, McGwire is currently very far away from being inducted.  That was before his admission to using steroids on and off during his career, and now it will be interesting to see what the voters say next year.  In a sense, the voters’ decision on McGwire could possibly be how they will vote on the entire era’s players.
But should the voters be the judge and the jury for the whole scenario?  In my mind, they shouldn’t.  The other Hall of Fame players need to be incorporated into the situation because they are the ones that the Hall of Fame means most to, and they know the situation better than the writers.
Some Hall of Fame players point out that if former Cincinnati Reds second baseman Pete Rose and former White Sox outfielder “Shoeless” Joe Jackson can’t be considered for the Hall of Fame, then neither should players from the steroid era.   However, the problem with that logic is that while yes, those players aren’t eligible to be voted into the Hall of Fame, it is because they have been banned from the game of baseball for life.  McGwire was never banned.  He didn’t even break any MLB rules in taking steroids (MLB banned anabolic steroid use in 2002, and McGwire retired after the 2001 season).
Rose and Jackson, however, did break MLB rules by gambling on the game of baseball.  Jackson went as far to throw the World Series, which is, in my mind, the most sacred part of baseball in America and maybe even the world.  He threw away what most kids dream about achieving, yet never get a chance.
Before 1998, the season that McGwire smacked 70 home runs and became the all time single season home run leader, baseball was dead.  Following the 1995 players strike, fans did not want to come to the games and attendance was at an all time low.
But then two guys came along that made people care again.  The Cardinals first baseman combined with Cubs slugger Sammy Sosa to bring the fans back to the stadiums in droves, now excited to watch these two swing for the fences.  TV ratings not only for Cubs and Cardinals games, but all of baseball, climbed through the roof as fans were amazed by the surge of power across the league.
It is now known that some of these all star sluggers were using steroids during the height of their careers, but at the same time, it is now known that the pitchers they faced were “on the juice” as well.  From Roger Clemens to Andy Pettitte to Kevin Brown to Eric Gagne, pitchers have also admitted to their use of banned substances.
What the voters should realize about McGwire is that he put up his numbers while other players of the era were also juicing.  And at the same time that this was occurring, McGwire put up Hall of Fame numbers while many of his peers using steroids did not.
So should the man responsible for bringing baseball back have to take the fall for an entire era’s mistake?
Every era in baseball has had its controversies.  From the Black Sox and gambling scandal in the 1920’s to players’ use of cocaine and other drugs in the 70’s to the abuse of amphetamines by players in the 1980’s, and then the strike in 1995 and the following steroid use.  The other eras that were considered to be “tainted” have never had to endure such discussion as to whether their stars should be allowed into the Hall of Fame.
This in part has to do with a recent change in the sports media to report anything they see by players.  The sports media of the past was close to the players, often going out to eat after games.  The media then had a personal, yet professional relationship with the athletes.  The sports media of previous eras knew that their job was to report what happened on the field and that anything outside of the game was off limits in terms of reporting.
Now, the sports media feels it is their duty to treat athletes as if they are Hollywood actors or actresses by reporting every aspect of their lives, not just their performance on the field.  The sad part is that this reflects today’s culture.  A culture that would rather hear the off the field gossip about a big name player than read about the same player’s two home run night that they capped off with a diving catch to save the game.
The sports media is possibly the biggest culprit of what has become a travesty in terms determining who deserves to go into the Hall of Fame.
Even though many reporters knew or suspected Big Mac of some sort of steroid use in 1998, they looked away; they, in a sense, encouraged steroid usage by not speaking out against it then.  Now, those same writers are the ones that are not voting for McGwire to get into the Hall of Fame.  This is quite a show of hypocrisy in terms of their morals.  Their condoning of McGwire’s steroid use during his playing days should be exactly how they treat him now.
In conclusion, has there ever been discussion or really even much thought as to whether players of other tainted eras should be allowed into the Hall of Fame?  No, so why should there be now?