Debate: Do Bonds, Clemens deserve to be in the HOF?

The National Baseball Hall of Fame is set to announce its Class of 2017 on Wednesday, Jan. 18, and among the eligible candidates are arguably two of the greatest players in the history of baseball, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

Because the pair have been linked to performance-enhancing drugs, they both sit outside the doors of Cooperstown, waiting for the possibility of being elected, with voters edging closer and closer to making it a possibility.

Today, theScore's Simon Sharkey-Gotlieb and Bryan Mcwilliam debate over whether or not the two candidates belong in baseball's most exclusive club.

Do Bonds and Clemens deserve to be in the HOF?

Yes.

The numbers can't be disputed: Bonds and Clemens are arguably the greatest position player and pitcher, respectively, that any of us will ever get to see. Bonds is the home run king - both single-season and all-time - owns seven MVP awards, eight Gold Gloves, two batting titles, and is the only 500-500 and 400-400 player in history. Clemens won seven Cy Youngs, an MVP, two championships, sits third all-time in strikeouts, and led his league in ERA seven times.

And we haven't even mentioned the advanced statistics for either player.

It's now worth noting that neither player ever failed a drug test after MLB began testing in 2005. Of course, they couldn't have been tested earlier because there was no drug testing until 2005. With no rules to break, Bonds and Clemens - not to mention the host of others who juiced whether we know it or not, some of whom are already in Cooperstown - were free to juice as they pleased. Put those remarkable final "steroid" years together with what already were two all-time great resumes, and you have two no-doubt Hall of Famers who should have sailed in on their first try. - Sharkey-Gotlieb

No.

Two words. Illegal drugs.

As written above, the numbers - on paper - of Bonds and Clemens can't be disputed except both players may not have been able to put up the Herculean stats they produced without the aid of performance-enhancing drugs.

Clemens was named as having used illegal PEDs in the Mitchell Report released in 2007, while personal trainer Brian McNamee told the Mitchell Commission he began injecting Clemens with steroids in 1998 and continued to provide him with steroids until 2001. Clemens won two Cy Young awards between '98 and '01.

Bonds, arguably the greatest hitter of all-time, was also named in the Mitchell Report, thanks to the 2003 BALCO scandal which involved Bonds' former trainer Greg Anderson who allegedly supplied PEDS to baseball players. Bonds was later charged with four counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice (and was later convicted on the one count of obstruction of justice) for giving an incomplete answer to a question in a grand jury testimony about his alleged steroid use after Anderson claimed Bonds was using drugs that could not be detected. Anderson began training Bonds in 2000. From 2000-04, Bonds hit 258 home runs and won four MVP awards in his mid-to-late 30s. - Mcwilliam

Should Bonds, Clemens and others linked to PEDs be on the ballot?

Yes.

In the eyes of baseball, Bonds and Clemens are in good standing. In fact, so are almost every other Hall of Fame-eligible player who's either been associated with steroids or has been caught in the testing era. Only Jenrry Mejia has been banned for life because of repeated positive tests, and his five-year career doesn't even meet the ballot's minimum qualification anyway.

Bonds and Clemens are not Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe Jackson. Those two players have the numbers, and Rose in particular is indisputably one of the greatest players ever - but both clearly broke the cardinal rule of baseball and gambled on the sport. That's a no, and as a result they've been banned from baseball for life - a ban that includes consideration for Cooperstown. Even the most ardent defenders of Rose and Jackson must concede that a rule was clearly broken; not so in the cases of Bonds and Clemens. Neither failed a test, neither broke rules because there were no rules to break - and therefore baseball's stance on the issue allows them to be considered.

If you want to consider each accused player on a case-by-case basis, I'm all for that. I will even go so far as to accept not voting for those who were caught in the testing era, like Manny Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez. Ramirez is on the ballot, A-Rod will be there in five years, and both of them - like Bonds, Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and the others - deserve to at least have their cases studied, because they were never thrown out of the game. Maybe they won't get every vote, and in a free society that's allowed, but if they're in good standing they've earned the right to consideration at the very least. Bonds and Clemens have that right now, and should the writers keep them out, they'll get a look from the veterans committee. - Sharkey-Gotlieb

No.

The dictionary defines cheating as to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examination.

The Mitchell Report and BALCO scandal claim that both Clemens and Bonds did this by taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs when they shouldn't have to gain an unfair advantage. If this is the case, they shouldn't appear on the ballots.

For baseball to have a double standard in regards to cheating where illegal drug users may be considered, while gamblers such as Rose and Jackson are not, makes no sense. Should Rose and Jackson be considered after what they did? No. But, neither should Bonds or Clemens.

Sure, both Bonds and Clemens were incredible players before they allegedly took PEDs, and some voters are considering how they performed before the apparent drug use, rather than their careers as a whole, but cheating is cheating, and if you knowingly did so, you should not be allowed into the Hall of Fame.

The Hall's mission statement of "preserving the history of America’s pastime and celebrating the legendary players, managers, umpires and executives who have made the game a fan favorite for more than a century," is tainted by even having Bonds or Clemens on the ballot, which is sending the wrong message to the fans telling them and their future kin that cheating is okay, as long as you don't get caught. - Mcwilliam