How do you vote for Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire but not Barry Bonds?


Jerry Green of the Detroit News has one of the strangest Hall of Fame ballots I’ve seen in a good while. It’s not the worst ever — not by a longshot — but it is really strange:

My ballot consisted of 10 ballplayers I deemed worthy: Craig Biggio, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Edgar Martinez, Pedro Martinez, Mark McGwire, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Gary Sheffield and Alan Trammell.

And he defends his inclusion of Clemens and McGwire:

Roger Clemens, with 354 victories and some unproven steroid allegations, has a miniscule shot because a multitude of voting writers consider themselves moralists with perfect lifestyles. Mark McGwire is destined to miss out for the same reason.

How does one look past PEDs for Clemens and McGwire, but not for Barry Bonds? It can’t be a matter of imperfect proof or the fact that Bonds literally had a book written about his drug use, because McGwire admitted his PED use at length and still makes it. It can’t be about baseball merits, as Bonds and Clemens are more or less mirror images of each other in terms of dominance in their era and, needless to say, Bonds outclasses McGwire on every single statistical measure with the exception of GAOMAY (Guest Appearances on “Mad About You”).

I get voting for Clemens and Bonds. Though I disagree with the approach, I get NOT voting for either Clemens or Bonds on the basis of PED use. But what possible explanation could there be for voting for one but not the other?