Baseball HOF blanked

Any player suspected of using PEDs from the 1990's should be allowed in the HOF because:

Baseball never instituted anabolic steroid testing until the start of the 2003 season

Thus the only evidence of the player's usage of steroids is from circumstantial evidence and wavering eyewitness testimony. Hearsay.

Without clinical, reproducible evidence, clean players become target to accusations and have their HOF considerations sunk.

A short history: steroids in baseball began with Jose Canseco in 1988 when he won the MVP.

If Baseball was truly concerned about anabolic steroids in the game then they would have instituted player drug testing earlier than 2003.

The most opportune time was in the new CBA after the '94-'95 strike. Baseball did not choose to follow Olympic style doping measures because resistance from the players union , and it had long tolerated drug abuse in the past, i.e., amphetamines in the 60's, 70's and cocaine in the 80's.

The ‘94 strike was the worst of all, in an age of rising steroid use. Owners wanted to get rid of free agency, arbitration; install a salary cap. In reality they should made more reasonable demands, to win more favor from the public, allowing the players to be demonized, then forced the player’s association to drug testing.

Once vindicated, namely players relieved of the steroids witch-hunt, the players who used abused steroids can come clean, so the audience will truly know the history. There’s no hesitation among players in the past to have opened up to using amphetamines and cocaine. Then the public can finally judge the merit of the player. Because once pressured, then the person with the best source of evidence, will forever hold on to his secret to protect his integrity.

The public must realize it's baseball's reluctance that lead to this disaster. The blame goes around as well, the the owners who turned a blind eye to the problem, and the players who used the PED's.