The only reason those earlier eras were "more open" about their drug use in the clubhouse was because they were exremely confident it would stay in the clubhouse and they would suffer no repercussions. The concept of "one of their own" ratting them out to the public was not considered, and the media would never consider touching those stories. Drug testing became a huge issue in sports in the 80's, probably starting with Olympic competition but continuing into high school and college sports and then pro football. Tell-alls were very common and guys could no longer be confident that their bending of the rules would remain quiet from the public. They were forced to be more secretive, but a hell of a lot more people were aware of what was going on than want to admit it now. If you twist something enough you can make anything acceptable. Your argument sounds like one of those childhood arguments that you get into, when your brother/sister did something and then you end up getting caught doing the same thing and get punished for it. You immediately point your finger at your sibling and cry about them having done the same thing. In the end, it still doesn't make what you did right, and generally the one who gets caught still gets punished. Did other people cheat playing baseball? Sure they did, but it still doesn't sanitize the people that have apparently gotten caught cheating now. People voting for the HOF don't have any strict criteria that they must follow to allow in new members. It will be interesting to see how the players and media handle the HOF ballots in the future. If you are a player that used illegal substances or doctored balls or whatever, and you don't vote for a player for doing the same thing you are a hypocrite.