Hall of Fame brouhaha

The baseball Hall of Fame made headlines last month when the selection committee declined to elect any new members (the veterans committee did choose a few inductees, but no one the general public has ever heard of). This was widely seen as a referendum on the so-called "Steroids Era" of the past two decades. Many people were quick to praise the committee's actions while others were predictably quick to criticize. One of the more interesting reactions came from The New York Times's Bill Pennington, who wrote an article on January 8 about the unsavory personal lives of many of the past inductees.

Pennington's point seemed to be that there are so many hooligans in the Hall of Fame--alcoholics, gamblers, racists, and the like--that what's the harm in adding to their number drug users whose on-field performance has been equally impressive? The fundamental difference, though, lies precisely in the arena in which the transgressions occurred. Misconduct off the field, however deplorable, has much less bearing on an individual's suitability for enshrinement than does malfeasance that directly impacts the game.

Steroid use undercuts the integrity of baseball. Players who use(d) illegitimate performance-enhancing substances are cheaters. And whether it's fair or not, their accomplishments will be tainted by their steroid use. It should come as no surprise, then, that the Hall of Fame takes a dim view on admitting them to their company.