An argument in favor of letting PED users into the Hall of Fame.
Only in 2005 did the sport formally and specifically prohibit the use of a long list of substances, begin to test for them, and suspend players with positive results. Before then, using steroids in baseball was roughly analogous to, say, using Adderall for high-stress office work: you had to break the law to get it without a prescription, and it might harm your health in the long run, but no one would test you for it, or punish you if you got caught.
Given that system, staying clean would seem to be a greater offence for baseball players, who are paid to do everything within the rules to help their teams win, than taking steroids is. Bobby Abreu got raked over the coals for being reluctant to chase after deep fly balls for fear of crashing into the outfield wall. So why does, say, Lance Berkman, whom the press has lionised for his criticisms of steroid users, get a free pass for putting his team at a competitive disadvantage (assuming he in fact did not use PEDs)? At least Mr Abreu can claim he was trying to avoid an injury that would have harmed his club even more than failing to catch the ball would. In contrast, the likes of Mr Berkman prioritised their own well-being long after retirement over their teams’ imperative to win now. Like all of us, professional athletes respond to incentives, and baseball players who doped did no more and no less than what they were paid to do.
The only way to prevent behaviour we disapprove of is to adjust the risk-return tradeoff so that it is no longer in people’s interest to try.