In the Pete Rose case, MLB banned him from baseball for life, and that's the reason he's not in the HOF.
As they say
HERE :
As stated in the National Baseball Hall of Fame's Rules for Election, "any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate" for consideration by the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA) or the Baseball Hall of Fame Committee on Baseball Veterans.If he's ever reinstated, then it would be up to the voters (the writers) as to whether or not he was voted in.
In Palmiero's case, MLB had penalties in place for steroid use, Raffy was penalized accordingly, and I don't see him being "declared ineligible" any time in the future.
If he is, MLB will be opening quite a can of worms, what with all of the other big stars who apparently used steroids, not to mention a possible lawsuit by Palmiero.
So in his case, it will ultimately be up to the voters.
And how the writers choose to deal with the steroid issue will be interesting, I think.
If they don't vote the steroid users in, if MLB really pursues this thing, they may wind up with a serious shortage of candidates from this era.
And what happens if they vote someone in who they thought was clean, and years later it turns out that he was a user?
IMO, the guy's performance on the field should be what determines his election.
Palmiero looks like he's gonna be a big exception in that he may wind up being one of the precious few for whom there is concrete evidence of steroid use.
Keeping him out while letting in others because of a lack of proof against the others doesn't make sense to me.
And there have been cases of players being kept out sinply because the writers disliked them, while the Veteran's Committee elected a dugout-full of unworthy candidates simply because they were "old pals."
Ultimately, it will be the voters decision.
Prior to the steroid scandal, I think Palmiero had a good chance of being elected on the first ballot.
Now, I think the writers are gonna wait (a retired player has to wait 5 years before appearing on the ballot in the first place, and stays there, I think, for another 10 if he's not elected but gets some kind of minimum number of votes) to see exactly how the steroid thing plays out, exactly how many HOF-caliber players wind up being tainted, and what public sentiment is.
Then I think that they will treat the whole lot of them more or less the same.
They'll either all get in, or they all won't.
IMO, he should get in.
He has the credentials, and even though his stats are tainted, he nearly had an entire HOF career before his steroid use.
Besides, we don't know for how long he took steroids, or exactly how much his performance was affected.
