I have explained this many times. I never had a chance to vote for Palmeiro. I had one chance to vote for McGwire. That was in 2016, his final year on the ballot. I did not vote for him. I did not have room on my 10-spot ballot for all of the players tied to steroids, and if I was going to vote for one, I was going to vote for them all, all of them that I felt was deserving. I use the tools at my disposal to meet the requirement of a max-10 ballot. If I feel there are eight players deserving of the Hall, then I'll vote for all eight. If there are 14 on the ballot that I think are deserving, I, by rule, must trim that ballot to 10, and that means using the tools at my disposal to do so, and one of those tools is to consider their transgressions. So, I have not voted for Bonds or Clemens until this past year, and I did so with lots of thought about the message the vote would send, about the precedent it continued for myself. And the importance of being transparent and consistent with my vote, as I hope to be always for you and other fans.
So, yeah, I don't know where we disagree. I have voted for all or none, and I have only voted for all one year -- when I had room.
Sammy Sosa does not crack my ballot. Others are more deserving ahead of him.
If you heard the interview I gave on the radio, I clearly spelled out that their transgressions can be put in print, under my byline, so I don't know how you'd read that as somehow presuming their innocence. There is a preponderance of evidence. Again, I have a hard time seeing what your issue is with my ballot and my discussion when what you outline harmonizes with what I've said, and how I've voted.