HOF voting

[johnsontravis@ymail.com]

So there are lots of people who murdered others, but simply walk around and we don't know about it. So let's just let the ones we know just walk free so everyone can be in the same boat. Just release everyone from jail because it isn't fair they are locked up when others did the same thing and are free.

Sorry McCarthy that is some broken logic you hold. I'd be more accepting of someone saying PEDs are ok than what you suggested.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

So there are lots of people who murdered others, but simply walk around and we don't know about it. So let's just let the ones we know just walk free so everyone can be in the same boat. Just release everyone from jail because it isn't fair they are locked up when others did the same thing and are free.

Sorry McCarthy that is some broken logic you hold. I'd be more accepting of someone saying PEDs are ok than what you suggested.

There's a huge logical fallacy at work here...

I think it's called "False Analogy" or something. After all, the difference between PED users and murderers is the degree to which they are punished. In the case of PED users, they're punished according to the MLB rules and uniform player agreement between MLB & MLBPA. The fact that HOF voters choose to exclude PED users and suspected users out of the HOF has nothing to do with the law.

If you wanted to parallel this to murderers, you could argue that murderers who have served their time and been released into society should not be discriminated against when it comes to hiring practices. Many employers do discriminate specifically on this basis, but the EEOC is finally taking the most blatant violators to court.

To this point, MLB has taken a "hands off" approach to directing the HOF voters, with the exception of individuals on the permanently ineligible list. If Selig really wanted to take a stand against PEDs, he could have pushed for all players (including those whose names were found on "anonymous" reports) who were found to have been users of any type of PED to be banned from the HOF. If he wanted a HOF that showcased the greatest statistical players of the era, he could have mandated that voters not hold PED use against players. It's possible, if not likely, that some voters would not adhere to the rule, for personal reasons, but I think journalists, as a whole, feel they have a high level of integrity, and they'd be honest in applying the mandate.

Now, if there is a total ban on known PED users from the HOF, MLBPA would insist on having a committee to determine what the defining line is for "PED user" (known to have used; admitted to use; failed test; Mitchell report; BALCO client; Biogenesis client). I have know idea where that line would be drawn.