I came across this article in the USA Today recently. I really made me angry. It made me angry for two reasons. First reason was that Mark McGwire was a Cardinal and he broke Roger Maris' single season record for homeruns. I'm not mad that he did that. I'm upset because he "possibly" cheated. The second reason I'm upset is the baseball writer in this instance says they can make up for this by not voting him in to the Hall of Fame. That people who are good at formulating their thoughts into sentences, that are good at using words to create a picture, have a say in the induction of a person into the Hall of Fame. I personally think they should have no say in the matter but that is how it is right now.
My thoughts in this whole thing are muddied with "what-if's." Peter Gammons on ESPN said the "Steriod Era" in his mind lasted for 20 years.
How can you "make an example" out of a player that first of all you know he did andro only?
The problem with this is that for every argument, there is an equal argument against. (Ex. Mark McGwire did Andro which is a banned substance. Argument: It wasn't illegal in baseball then.) I have no idea if he should be a Hall of Famer. It would be hard to throw out 20 yrs of baseball and pretend like it never happend. But if they induct anybody in that era, then I think they would have to induct Mark McGwire.