Baseball f***ed up but they can't keep glorifying cheaters. God knows how many kids and young ball players who were influenced into trying roids during that era.
Maybe one day you have wing in the hall of fame for cheaters but I wouldn't dignify on these guys with a jacket or ceremony.
Personally, I don't think the biggest issue is whether or not baseball should or shouldn't elect guys with PED links to the hall of fame. It's the hypocrisy/double standard of how guys get in. To which David Ortiz is the intersection of two very different versions of this argument. (disclosure: the following is not a takedown of anyone's posts here, I'm just using this as a springboard post to go in-depth about something that has already been touched on even in these very specific terms earlier in the thread)
on the PEDs side of things you have Ortiz getting in with an alleged positive test on his record while the likes of Bonds and Clemens, who in spite of their long-held suspicion/belief/accusation of being on the juice, never actually tested positive in a publicly known way. So on PED grounds you have "don't let the cheating juicers in, but oh yeah it's fine for you, David. Rob Manfred said you're OK possibly and you're not a douchenozzle like Bonds or Clemens were so we'll just skip in over that whole test issue."
And then on the other hand you have non-PED hypocrisy of unequal standards. to wit:
Player A:
2408 GP (10,091 PA)
541 HR
1768 RBI
.286/.380/.552/.931 slash (avg/obp/slg/ops)
13.1% BB, 17.3% K
140 wRC+
51.0 fWAR
10x all-star,
7x silver sluger,
3x WS,
1x WS MVP,
fielded 2166 career innings in the field, all as a 1B (this is important for a reason)
Player B:
2055 GP (8,672 PA)
309 HR
1261 RBI
.312/.418/.515/.933 slash line
14.8% BB, 13.9% K
147 wRC+
65.5 fWAR,
7x all-star,
5x silver slugger,
2x batting champion,
fielded 4605.1 career innings at 3B, plus 224 as a 1B.
only made 34 career post-season games, which can't be hung around his neck.
Post-season accomplishments aside they are very similar players with differences that depend on whether your favorite flavor is all-around offensive ability or big-power mashing. If you pro-rate B to A's # of plate appearances you end up with 460 HR and just a shade under 1470 RBI. not a dead heat, but closer. Plus that sort of career extension would probably push his fWAR lead higher as well. And the defensive innings are relevant because both players are primarily regarded as career DHs with all the stigma that entails when it comes to HOF voters claiming "but he didn't play in the field so he barely counts as a baseball player!" as a defence for shunning them in the voting process.
Point is that this is not some Tyson-esque mauler vs a skinny flyweight of a boxing match. Yet as you've probably guessed by now Player A is David Ortiz, who skated into the HOF on his first try while player B is Edgar Martinez, who started his HOF march in 2010 in the mid 30% vote range, bottomed out at about 25% in 2014 before it took a 5-year march to him clearing the election threshold in 2019
which was his final year on the ballot.
Not even "but golly gosh David Ortiz is such a super nice guy!" and fetishizing his playoff achievements should make for
that disparate of a HOF path. Which likely leads to a defence of "but if you look at David Ortiz he's a hall of famer so his numbers are less important than his aura!" that I think is also BS. Because if numbers don't count then HOF voters should stop using them as roadblocks. So-and-so didn't get X RBIs or Y HRs or pitch Z many 20-win seasons. Or nobody has ever had a career average of A or less with B or fewer HRs and made it or whatever.
the HOF vote is kinda really stupid and full of hypocrisy, double standards, dumb, wrong-headed thinking and baffling non-logic.
But at the same time I almost want to see it applied to other sports. Because lord knows that talking about the baseball HOF voting and induction process is a lot more fun than the somewhat blase way that hockey, basketball, or football HOFs are handled. And I almost think that the HOF exists chiefly to satisfy two distinct audiences
1) the casual fans who see the hall as a museum to the greatness of the sport over the years
and
2) as debate-fodder for the hardcore fans who look at the mechanics of its inductions as referendums on how the game is observed, quantified, and qualified.