[KurtBevacqua]

Sometimes these "should they or shouldn't they be inducted arguments" come down to a cut and dried did they do the alleged deed or not. But in the case of Rose we see people who agree he is guilty yet still would vote for him because of when he did the deed and exactly what deed did he do. There is a logical argument to be made in support of his induction despite his guilt. In the case of Jackson it seems to come down to what degree was he involved in the plot. With McGwire it seems to be a did he or didn't he argument. What I find fascinating with Bonds is an awful lot of people don't care whether he did or didn't take the juice, they'd still vote him in with some very shaky rationale. I'd be curious as to how people argue that out here. If McGwire can't be inducted because he took roids than why does Barry belong even if you think he did take them? I've argued about this with sportswriters and am fascinated by how far their rationality bar slides on this issue from one player to another.