[Giants]

I find it offensive to players like Jeff Kent, who was from the same era, and I think is well known not to have been on steroids.  How much better would his numbers have been had he not been going up against juiced pitchers?  He was a five-time all-star and four-time silver slugger.  Would he have won a little more hardware had he not been compared to other players who were on steroids? 

Clemens and Bonds may have been on pace to make the HoF before starting to use steroids, but they did use steroids and we have no idea what their careers would have done without them.  Plenty of players start out on pace to make the HoF and then decline quickly mid-career.  Lance Armstrong would have been an outstanding cyclist even without doping, and everyone around him was doping; having his Tour wins vacated was still the right thing to do.

Selig of course should not be in the Hall.

I feel strongly about this because I stopped being a baseball fan because of the scandal.  What an awful message to send to society and to kids.  Despite the Mitchell report, I don't think we've ever had a real reckoning from MLB about the steroid era, with an acknowledgement that an entire era has been tainted by steroids, that many of the records from that time were reached with the benefit of PEDs, and that many of the best players' from that era regularly used steroids.  Selig merely acknowledged the report and then put it in the circular filing cabinet.  Shame on MLB.

BC

The game endures.  

Baseball has been through a number of scandals in its long history ranging from gambling, racial discrimination, drugs, etc.  Add to these, the labor disputes in recent years and it is a wonder that the game still has such appeal.  However, it does.  In my mind, it is the most compelling sport played at the professional level in this country.  Despite everything, from a paid entertainment perspective, there is no better way to spend an afternoon than watching a game at the ballpark.

[Giants]

I find it offensive to players like Jeff Kent, who was from the same era, and I think is well known not to have been on steroids.  How much better would his numbers have been had he not been going up against juiced pitchers?  He was a five-time all-star and four-time silver slugger.  Would he have won a little more hardware had he not been compared to other players who were on steroids? 

Clemens and Bonds may have been on pace to make the HoF before starting to use steroids, but they did use steroids and we have no idea what their careers would have done without them.  Plenty of players start out on pace to make the HoF and then decline quickly mid-career.  Lance Armstrong would have been an outstanding cyclist even without doping, and everyone around him was doping; having his Tour wins vacated was still the right thing to do.

Selig of course should not be in the Hall.

I feel strongly about this because I stopped being a baseball fan because of the scandal.  What an awful message to send to society and to kids.  Despite the Mitchell report, I don't think we've ever had a real reckoning from MLB about the steroid era, with an acknowledgement that an entire era has been tainted by steroids, that many of the records from that time were reached with the benefit of PEDs, and that many of the best players' from that era regularly used steroids.  Selig merely acknowledged the report and then put it in the circular filing cabinet.  Shame on MLB.

BC

The game endures.  

Baseball has been through a number of scandals in its long history ranging from gambling, racial discrimination, drugs, etc.  Add to these, the labor disputes in recent years and it is a wonder that the game still has such appeal.  However, it does.  In my mind, it is the most compelling sport played at the professional level in this country.  Despite everything, from a paid entertainment perspective, there is no better way to spend an afternoon than watching a game at the ballpark.