A couple of points that may or may not shape the discussion.
- The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a museum operated by private interests, not Major League Baseball. So MLB does not control eligibility criteria. MLB banned Pete Rose for life, and the HOF then made a rule that nobody on the MLB Ban list is eligible.
- None of the juicers have been banned by MLB.
- Since the HOF controls induction (MLB can only directly influence via the ban list), whether or not MLB changed its official record books is not determinative of whether writers (or players) should vote for a player. The HOF instructs writers as follows:
Quote:
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
So regardless of what MLB does, writers are required to consider the integrity, sportsmanship, and character of the players. Personally, I think its hard to argue that someone who injected themselves with illegal drugs to enhance their performance demonstrated integrity, sportsmanship, or character.
Keeping juicers out is not vigilantism by the voters. It would be vigilantism to vote them in. I think if you are for letting the juicers in, your point should be that the HOF needs to change the eligibility criteria, not that MLB or the writers need to act differently.