If a player is only suspected of doping, (and at this point, a lot of good players are whether they were or not) people should still treat their careers as if they haven't, because nothing has been proven yet. Players such as Roger Clemens and Jeff Bagwell have not been proven to have taken any PEDs, so I think they should still be eligible. Mark McGwire and David Ortiz among others, who have ADMITTED to have taken drugs, should not, because it attacks the integrity of the game. But when you condemn a player on a suspicion and not proof, you attack your integrity, and the player's reputation.
If one is only "suspected" of doping then it is only reasonable to allow them to still be eligible for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Let's just say that some person decided to suspect that ever single baseball player was doping. If it is not proven then it is not an offence.
Why not? If they're suspected, and eligible, neither one is a for sure, "they ARE doping" or "they ARE going to be inducted into the hall of fame" so yes. However, once they are proven that they are doping, then they should not be eligible for obvious reasons. Until that time, I think they should be allowed to be a candidate. Everyone's innocent until proven guilty
Why should they be awarded for achievements that they wouldn't of got had it not been for doping. In my opinion, they shouldn't be able to receive any awards. This is just like the Lance Armstrong debate, should we or should we not take away his Olympic gold medals and give them to someone who deserved to win by not doping.