When you really stop and break it down, it’s easy to determine that the "steroid era" isn’t a big deal at all, and the wool has been pulled over the public’s eyes by the likes of Mr. Bryant.

For the sake of this screed, let’s assume that PEDs definitely do aid baseball player performance. This is a significant point of contention but that’s a different topic than I’d like to write about here.

I was once a hater of the PED users. When Roger Clemens was "outed" as a user I was thrilled. My ultimate baseball villain was a fraud. This stopped around 2005 or so, when I started to think more about principles and what I believe in. 2006 was the first year testing and punishments for using were put into place, so I’ll split up my talking points before and after that year.

Pre-2006

Before 2006, there was no punishment for using PEDs in MLB; therefore there was no rule against it. The usual response I hear to this is something like: "Steroids were illegal in the United States. MLB doesn’t specifically have rules against murder but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a crime." My response is that U.S. laws banning steroids were, and continue to be, unjust laws. Laws against murder and the like are totally just. One might not like others using steroids but that’s no reason to deny the rights of others to partake in a victimless activity which has no direct effect on anyone else. I think cigarette smoking is disgusting but laws banning smoking outright would be egregious violations of personal freedom. We are humans first, citizens of the state second. Morality isn’t determined by legislation. Using PEDs might skeeve people out but it is not "wrong".

Back to MLB – given my stance that PED usage in general is not immoral, and MLB didn’t punish users, I fail to see why MLB players using PEDs prior to 2006 was wrong. Yes, it’s not ideal that players might have felt compelled to use PEDs when they didn’t want to, but that’s a private workplace issue, not a public morality issue. Competitive athletes will do anything for an edge and I can’t condemn them for it.

Post-2006 and Hall of Fame thoughts

Testing and punishments were put into place effective spring 2006, and the current penalties are 50 game suspension for first positive test, 100 games for the second positive test and a lifetime ban for a third positive test. I disagree with how harsh the rules are but that’s erroneous here. What’s important is that MLB established just how it feels about steroid use. Gambling on baseball is a lifetime ban — a positive PED test means a 50 game suspension. I respect the right of MLB to enforce those punishments.

This last paragraph is important for Hall of Fame discussions. The majority of voters have decided to ignore MLB’s stance on PED users and institute their own rules. The punishments for steroid use are established and once the suspension has been served, that’s the end of it (unless a player tests positive 3 times — then a HOF ban makes sense). If a player is caught with a corked bat, the punishment is like 8 games (or whatever). Again, that’s time served. The voters have decided to play by their own rules, like a judge sending someone to jail for 50 years for underage drinking. And neglecting to vote for pre-testing players because of PED use is even more ridiculous — no punishment were instituted, no hard evidence is available, just finger-wagging speculation.

The stances of Bill James, Rob Neyer and Joe Posnanski on steroids and MLB make a lot more sense than those of Jeff Pearlman, Mike Lupica and the rest of the "Holy Writers". The thinkers have it right. The populist hate-the-rich-athletes journalists have it wrong.

I wish people would take a break from screaming "JUICER!" and "CHEATER!" at players to really think about the situation for themselves. Eventually this will dissipate and people will realize how absurd it all was.