Baseball players who were discovered to use steroids shouldnt be in the HOF and their records erased

I'm going to start off by stating, Clemens' lawyer may have well denied the allegations for him, but had in fact Clemens NOT used steroids, he should have been screaming at the top of his lungs the DAY OF the mitchell report instead of going through his lawyer. He should have filed lawsuits that day (or the day after since the report was issued mid-afternoon), not a couple weeks later. Now, I personally enjoyed how you responded to my analogy. Oh wait, you didn't. I'm now curious as to how you can have someone 'accidentily' inject you with steroids. I know that I would notice if a needle was inserted into me, but that's just me. And if you are going to refer to pills, you can't just accidentily swallow a pill. Sure there may not be a case in US history that changed a law after the crime had been committed, I shall concede that point. However, you CANNOT reward anyone who has used steroids for an advantage. My opponent here has repeatedly stated that punishing someone after they cheated but before the rule was put into place is wrong. I don't believe it would be because it tells the people you can bend the rules until someone finds out what is going on and stops it. Conclusion: Those named in the Mitchell report, used steroids and here's why. Andy Pettite, a star pitcher for the New York Yankees, was named in the report and is probably the second biggest name besides Clemens in the report. He admitted to using steroids. Chuck Knoblauch, a star player for the Minnesota Twins in the 1990's, admitted to using steroids after being in the report. Those are just 2 examples of the names in the report, but nobody besides Clemens and Barry Bonds, have denied using steroids. Anyone know why? It's because they are the two players with the most to lose if they don't try to clear their names. Bonds is in a huge trial for perjury and obstruction of justice (prosecutors believe he lied about using steroids). That leaves ONE name left over who is 'vehemently' denying steroid allegations, Roger Clemens. I'll let you decide if he is guilty or not. By allowing professional athletes to set records even while steroids were legal in baseball, you are making these records esentially 'untouchable' by the future players because they wont have the same advantages. Therefore to make it 'fair', their records should be disallowed. If their records are disallowed, they can't be allowed into the HOF. Plain and simple. I would have asolutely no problem with Bonds' HR record if it was real, but it isn't. Players should have been able to see these consequences if they actually took a step back at what they were doing. My opponent here says, "Removing HOF awards to help "teach kids" is absurd." I don't know how that is absurd, because kids look up to these players who are expected to set good examples. These kids would say, "hey, he used steroids and got better, he didn't get penalized for it, so I'm going to try them." I have two questions for you to respond to directly in your final response. 1. Do you ACTUALLY believe players who used steroids should not be allowed into the HOF, or are you just debating? 2. Do you believe Clemens used steroids or not? (yes or no answer) Thanks for the debate.