02-05-2025, 10:41 PM
(02-05-2025, 10:31 PM)Giants Wrote: I do not understand how some voters can claim the moral high ground when there is no way anyone can absolutely say all players elected in the modern era disdained the use of PED’s. That is what makes no sense to me.Some (very few) players have actually been "convicted" (or confessed to) using PEDs. They are not in the HOF, usually for other reasons. For the rest of the players who may be HOF candidates, the voters have every right to follow the "preponderance of evidence" standard. Each juror (voter) has a right to decide their take on any candidate. It is not a requirement that the candidate prove their innocence, but rather that the preponderance of evidence doesn't indicate they are guilty.
