This writer says you must confess your sins before admission into the hall:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6351322
This writer submitted a blank ballot because he doesn't know who took steriods and who didn't.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6351216
Caple off of ESPN:
Mark McGwire Be honest. You figured he was on the juice back in 1998 when you were genuflecting at his feet. So why act so hot and bothered about it now just because everyone else is so bent out of shape? ETA: He'll get in the same year sportswriters decide to stop being pompous, self-righteous and sanctimonious.
Stark on ESPN:
There are a million reasons not to vote for McGwire. But of all the reasons people have dredged up lately, the one I find most amazing is the revisionist history that he wasn't that good -- except for those four years (1996-99) when he morphed into Babe Ruth.
Well, hold on. Ask any scout who saw him at USC, and they'll all tell you the same thing: This guy was a big-time masher from the day he was drafted until the day he quit. If it took Jose Canseco's magic potion to make him any good, how come he had a .618 slugging percentage in his rookie season? Andruw Jones, Adam Dunn and Jeff Kent have never slugged .618 in any season, if that tells you anything. And if McGwire wasn't any good until 1996, how did he manage to put up six seasons with at least 32 homers and 90 RBI in his seven healthy seasons before that? That's as many seasons of 32-90 as Chipper Jones and Moises Alou have, combined. If he wasn't any good, how did this man make 12 All-Star teams -- as many as Mike Schmidt? If he wasn't any good, why did he collect MVP votes in every healthy season of his career except one?
The other shaky argument here is that McGwire just had one song on his jukebox, that all he could do was hit home runs, kind of like Dave Kingman. But if he was so one-dimensional, how did he win a Gold Glove? How did he compile that .394 career on-base percentage? And even if he had just one superior dimension, he had the best home run ratio of any player who ever lived (one every 10.6 at-bats). So if people want to vote against him to make a steroid statement, I understand that. But arguing that he didn't have a Hall of Fame career? That one doesn't compute.