As Topper keeps saying, when these guys were so productive, steroids weren't a violation of baseball's rules. That's NOT cheating, then. Of all the arguments supporting the steroid users, I think this is the weakest--it's certainly the weaseliest. It suggests that baseball was played in a vacuum, outside of the laws of he United States. If the distributors of these drugs were being convicted of felonies, and if drugs were being taken in secret--and taken with other things known as masking agents, don't you think the users feared getting caught? Guys were untruthful before Congress. They knew they were doing wrong. And now, some HOF voters are reacting. The rules of baseball--certainly the rules related to PEDs--were and are negotiated between MLB and the MLBPA. Baseball couldn't just declare something as being against the rules without the players' approval. And the Players Association under Don Fehr did nothing to help that cause--ask Rick Helling. More homers meant higher player salaries, which was first and foremost on their agenda. Not to suggest that the owners weren't also happy to cash in, too. Interest, attendance, tv ratings and gate receipts soared, pushing the steroid fight to the back burner. Perry's spitter & ball-doctoring was. Perry was inducted 20 years ago by a different group of writers. His "crimes" were also done with a wink and a smile, and don't think that doesn't compare favorably to Rafael Palmeiro defiantly pointing his finger at Congress and Sammy Sosa forgetting his understanding of English. My point, again, is that if everyone's going to look the other way on Perry AND anyone who used greenies, amphetamines, or any other stimulant-category substance (legal or illegal -- they were the steroid-equivalent PEDs of their day!!!), then this anti-steroid sentiment is PIOUS HYPOCRISY -- dis-credible foolishness! Standards of conduct change over time, and now some voters are declaring that players who engaged in unlawful conduct shouldn't be given the game's highest honor. And I agree with them. On a related note, Pete Rose, while arguably still highly arrogant and perhaps questionably repentant at best, did serve time in the government's license plate factory for his crimes. Doesn't that put him on legally if not somewhat morally higher "redemptive" ground (speaking in very relative terms) than others who never paid a price for their "crimes" against the game? Rose has paid his debt to society. But his crimes against the game were much more egregious than someone using steroids. Insider gambling brings into question the whole validity of a sport. It makes one wonder if both sides are playing to win. And the Museum has plenty of his stuff on display, to accurately and fully tell the story of his greatness. They can do this without honoring him with induction.