@Region Philbis,
The character clause is applied so inconsistently that's it's worse than useless. Sportswriters tend to equate a player's "character" with their accessibility and ability to provide good story-lines.
With steroids, a number of voting sportswriters have set themselves with the role of the defender of MLB's integrity. More times than not, it seems to me that they are merely satisfying their own egos.
Having said this, I don't think that players that have used steroids and other performance enhancing drugs over an extended period of time deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.
Ty Codd was a horrible person, but it didn't directly translate to his performance on the field and the records he held.
Micky Mantle was an alcoholic and it certainly didn't help him on the field.
Without extended use of drugs, Barry Bonds would not have had the same achievements he managed in his career.
Some players have taken steroids to help them recover more quickly from injuries. If it could be proven that this was the limit of their usage, I wouldn't have a problem with them making the Hall. The problem, of course, is that it's virtually impossible to know how long they used the stuff, and so a default position that holds if they are ever caught, they are barred seems to be the way to go.
However it works isn't a great concern of mine. I love baseball, but not, in any way, because of the Hall of Fame.
