Cheating & the Hall...

The recent Mitchell report has stirred the debate about cheating & who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame and who doesn't.

First, what is considered cheating? Obviously anything that breaks a rule. For pitchers, spitballs, sandpaper or other ways of changing the flight of the ball. For batters, corked bats & too much pine tar come to mind. Most recently, the use of performance enhancing supplements & drugs are in the forefront. Just because MLB & the players association didn't have an agreed upon policy regarding specific enhancements, players knew full well what they were doing was wrong. Not to mention that steroids aren't legal, and obtaining HGH from a dentist isn't exactly above board.

Whether it was curiousity, feeling inadequate, or just wanting to keep your job, it's cheating to take enhancements that aren't allowed. Some old timers like Gaylord Perry insist that players must have ability for these enhancements to work in the first place. He admittedly used corked bats but proclaimed it didn't help because he was a lousy hitter anyway. His point was that enhancements only help if you have enough talent. "It won't help you throw strikes".

He doesn't get it. The point is they had a premeditated thought about using a substance to give them an edge. To what degree it helped or not doesn't matter. The point is they did something wrong intentionally to improve their performance. If you rob a bank and only take $10,000 vs. $500,000 you still go to jail. The amount doesn't matter, it's the act.

Are there different levels of cheating? Can you consider a spitball or corked bat as serious as taking HGH? Cheating is cheating. If you are changing the game at any point, what is the difference? From a pure baseball standpoint, why is one worse than the other? All are against the rules. Is it any different from a moral standpoint? No - because they did it with forethought and intent.

People tend to think steroids & HGH are worse because they are illegal and ultimately harmful to the individual. Hard to disagree. But "greenies" or amphetamines have been around forever, and apparently their use was widespread. They provided an advantage but no one is up in arms about that. Why? No difference.

Recently, a couple of local columnists with Hall of Fame votes were disscussing how things have changed. It was an honor to have a vote in the past, but now that has switched to being a burden. They have now become more than a gatekeeper deciding whose numbers warrant entry. Now they have to determine if someone in fact cheated, and if that cheating should keep them out of the Hall.

It sounds like that type of decision should be made by a committee. Maybe MLB should form one with specific criteria to determine who is eligible & who is not and keep certain players off the ballott. Right now, they rely on the personal viewpoints of sportswriters who have their own agendas and criteria. This should be in place throughout the steroid era.

Respected journalists like Tim Kurkjian want more proof that Bonds willingly took steroids. Others think that certain players had Hall of Fame numbers before they were linked by the Mitchell report and should get in. It's hard to accept those points of view. There was intent and proof of cheating. One of the reasons the Mitchell report has so much weight is that the sources will go to jail if their statements are proven false. There is also corroboration of the facts by at least one other witness. Pettitte pretty much sunk Clemens's ship with his admission. Do you really need a picture of a needle in someone's behind for proof? Look at the size of Bonds head...

Keep your asterisk's in the record books, but out of the Hall. Whatever the reason was for cheating, it should keep you out of the Hall. It shouldn't matter when, especially because we will never truly know the where & when. Just because the Mitchell report shows one timeline doesn't mean there aren't more instances beforehand. Those players should be considered tainted & ineligible.

With only 200+ members of the Hall, it is MLB's responsibility to ensure that only the best of the best get into the Hall. Today's voters have too much power and use their own criteria and prejudice to decide who gets in. There is no accountability for their actions. The process is broken, plain and simple. MLB needs to step up & fix it.

Pete Rose is out for gambling, not altering his performance
Gaylord Perry is in despite cheating, alterting his perfomance
Mark McGuire is out for steroids, altering his performance

Cheating is cheating regardless of the "degree". Perry shouldn't be in, bottom line. He admitted it became part of his craft.

But gambling is worse? At least you can defend it as a disease. Not saying that Rose should get in, but doesn't this seem backwards?