what the criteria should be for voting. For something as important as a HOF vote, circumstantial evidence should not be a deciding factor. The problem with considering this type of evidence is that you must make value judgements on players based on evidence you don’t have.Players like Griffey and Frank Thomas, who most feel were not users, get swept up in the mess. Absent a drug test, you really don’t if Sammy or either of them used PEDs. If you are using the fact that you think a player used something as a reason for eliminating a player from consideration, you overstepping your charge as a voter.

Though I suppose we might still have an argument over “proven”.

I really do think that Rose should be in the hall with the plaque indicating he was banned for life for betting on the game.

Never claimed otherwise. That doesn’t make evidence that is circumstantial something other than evidence. You don’t find the evidence that exists on Sosa’s use conclusive and that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Also, it’s fairly convenient that one of the things you demand before you’ll believe it is a positive test when you know no testing was done, in part, because the union that Sosa belonged to wouldn’t allow it.

Anyway, my point is that regardless of whether you think it’s fair, or slander, it’s what most people believe, and I think it’s going to keep Sosa out of the hall for some time.

The original point, lost a while ago now, was that fair or not Sosa and Bonds and Mac are regarded as PED users and that this perception was likely to keep Sosa out of the hall, at least for a while.

And yeah, I do think that, when a guy add .200 to his career average OPS at the age of 30 in an era where steroid use was rampant (though probably not universal), maintains that level of production for the next five years, only to have his production fall back to his previous levels the year MLB starts to test, that those numbers (and others) combined with his physical development and growth at an age well past where such things are typical, that it’s fair to conclude that said player is using PEDs. I’m perfectly fine with the fact that not everyone’s willing to draw that conclusion. I’m not fine with people saying that there’s no evidence, because that’s nonsense. And no, I’m not willing to concede that the absence of “hard proof” or direct evidence means it’s unfair to rely on the circumstantial evidence, particularly when those that benefitted most from the use of PEDs (the players, union and the owners) were complicit in an attempt to cover up, destroy and not collect exactly that kind of evidence.

Just so we’re clear, I’m not suggesting that anyone can pop PED’s, lay around and go from a slim, mediocre player to a fit, muscular, great player because of the PED’s alone. I’m sure Sosa worked his tail off and he had the tools to be a quality hitter regardless of any substance. I’m also in agreement with those that suggest that the use of PED’s could shorten recovery time in workouts and increase strength to the point that warning track flies would turn into HRs. I think that’s the explanation for the sudden increase in Sosa’s power, slugging percentage and OPS at an age where such an increase is unexpected. I certainly don’t expect everyone to agree. Just don’t tell me there’s no evidence or that those that conclude he used are relying on their feelings or innuendo.