If Bonds does not return to baseball, it is very likely that he and Clemens will be on the same first ballot for the HOF. An early poll by ESPN had voters split relatively equally among 3 groups: Clemens in, Clemens out, and undecided, with the 'undecided' group being slightly larger than the other two. This Mitchell report clearly affects how all HOF voters view steroids. It seems as though it is going to be impossible to exclude steroid users from the HOF, because then there will be considerably fewer members from this era.

HOF voters can't simply disqualify the few people whose names have been mentioned (Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, maybe A-Rod with Canseco's new book.) If the HOF doesn't allow those whose names have been linked to steroids, but with no proof, the entire HOF process will became a sham based purely on speculation, a few eyewitness reports, and cashed checks. I think you could make the argument that Sosa and Big Mac were not HOF players before roids, and that Bonds and Clemens were, but should the HOF process really look like this?

In my mind, which is far from made up, you have to accept all of these players. I can understand not allowing someone whose entire career revolved around juice, like a Sosa or McGwire, but even that is pushing it. I hate to bring this up, but people in the US are innocent until proven guilty, and I don't think the HOF should be put in the position of speculating guilt. Something needs to be done across the board regarding steroids and the HOF. I have no concrete ideas, but understand that their process has to change. Anyone have any better ideas?