Sadly it's become an irrelevant forum for egotistical writers to grandstand, considering the arguable greatest player of all time is very likely to fall off the ballot this year. Might there be a number who can get a bit sanctimonious, sure. But can you say with certainty Bonds or Clemens would get 75% from any group, be it former players or even fans? To some degree, it kind of feels like there is some notion that they are taking a “we didn’t create this mess; you decide how to handle it,” in just passing off the lot of them to the era committee. I can’t completely blame them. They have murky instructions and a plethora of options (take the numbers at face value, put none in, try to divine who would be in the Hall without steroids and who wouldn’t). With no set standards of course you aren’t going to get consensus. It's tough to say, fans might hate Bonds at this point just as much as the writers, but in the end that is also the writers' fault for deliberately torpedoing his legacy with tabloid journalism. Few people have an accurate understanding of the Bonds allegations, even though everyone thinks they do. I won't get into it here, but the popular notion that Bonds is the arch-villain of taking massive doses of steroids is far from certain. Even if you want to keep steroid-users out of the HOF, the simplest bright line is to simply keep out anyone who actually tested positive and was suspended by MLB. And they don't have to divine anything with regard to Bonds. Even taking the anti-Bonds position at face value, it is undisputed that he did not start taking illegal substances until 1999-2000. He had already had one of the greatest careers of all time if he had retired then and there. The sole reason to not include him in the HOF is that they don't like him on a personal level.