not nearly as much as there is for gwynn and ripken...

Not answering your question, but responding to your post...I think your reason for not voting for McGwire on the first ballot is acceptable. I think the other reason--not tarnishing the rest of the class--is not. If you think a player is HOF quality, you should vote for him, first time, because of the ballot mechanics issue you discuss. In your case, you are holding out for specific information that would affect your view of his candidacy. I think that is fine, and if enough other votes share your view, it will be unfortunate for McGwire if that's the reason he doesn't get in. But if someone thinks he should get in, but just not in the same year as Ripken and Gwynn, I don't think that person would be voting properly.

If I had a vote, I'd put him in. We will never know how much steroids help a player and who was taking what when. McGwire was one of the best HR hitters of all time. Maybe he took things that helped, maybe not. If he did, we don't know how much. All I do know is that he stuck out among his peers with his production, and that he did not violate MLB's rules in doing so, as his career was pre-steroid ban.

Kenny,

You make a mistake in your argument that many make. You're confusing testing for steroids with a ban. Illegal drugs were banned in baseball a long time ago. It was just that teams needed probable cause to take action. If McGwire was using controled substances in the 1990s, he was breaking the rules.

If he gets shut out, due to these concerns...might the BBWAA make a new rule that if there are any concerns about eligibility that one can be put back on the ballot after any real concerns are removed? I think that would be a fair rule to the voting.

Well, how do we determine when "real concerns about eligibility" exist, or when they're cleared up? I would be really surprised if McGwire didn't reach the 5% threshold. I think it's best in this sort of case to just leave it up to the individual voters. Let them base their judgement on what they know and what they suspect; if the suspicions are too high for election, there's always the Veterans' Committee.

If it really looks like McGwire is in danger of never making it to the Hall, that'll give him all the more incentive to clear his name.

(Incidentally, "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. O.J. still did it regardless of what the jury said.)

Rob Neyer wrote a column where he anonymously polled voting sportswriters and found that there wasn't nearly enough support for him to get in.

Right, but I've got to assume he's way over the 5% threshold to stay on the ballot. The way things are right now, I'd be pretty surprised if he gets 75% of the vote. My best guess is that he gets somewhere in the 30% range.

A while ago, I raised this question about the 5% threshhold thing plus the tendency of some writers to give a courtesy vote to good players who were really good guys. I could see Bonds getting dropped by the 5% thing if too many writers play the "not on the first ballot" game and conversely I could see Sean Casey accidentally being elected by more than 75% of the voters thinking he is a great guy. We will see some odd vote totals in the coming years.

David, thanks for the correction. I was under the impression that steroids/performance enhancing drugs were not banned, but drugs like cocaine were. In any case, that does not affect my view that it is abusing the voting privilege to not vote for someone because it takes away from the rest of the class.

Also, despite my mistake, I would probably still vote for McGwire for the other reasons I mentioned (we don't know the full effects and who else was taking), though I would respect anyone who decided not to vote for him (ever) because he likely took steroids. I do not however agree with the position that one will not vote for him on the first ballot, as some sort of punishment for McGwire/respect for Ripken and Gwynn, with the full intention of voting for him during some later year. I know that the author of the article you linked to didn't clearly say he'd vote for him in the future, but he implied that there was a reason not to vote for him in the first year that might not apply in future years, and that did not involve gaining extra information (as was your position).