This is something I've been thinking about for a while now. After this past offseason, just barely 20 home runs away from suprassing Hank Aaron, there was much speculation that Barry Bonds might hang it up. Amid all this there was the ongoing steriod scandal with the ominus prospect of serious Federal intervention hanging over it. Bonds, who could've become the face of baseball, became instead the face of the so-called "Steroid Era." Barry Bonds, to date, has never been convicted of actually using illegal performance enhancing drugs. And had he retired after last season he would never have been convicted during his playing career. However, there was much speculation about whether or not Bonds, the man who hit the second most home runs in the MLB, should be inducted into Baseball's Hall of Fame. Many sports analysts and fans chimed in, with the most vocal being opponents of Bonds' induction and the few who spoke in favor of it often backed down when challenged. While Barry Bonds has never been proven guilty of using steroids the public is convinced. The evidence is near undeniable. His amazing run at history with the real game starting when he was closer to 40 than to 20. His dramatic increase in size. The fact that his personal trainer is seemingly the center of a steroid web. Bonds was convicted in the public domain, even if the courts and authorities couldn't prove his guilt. Therefore, many said, he did not deserve to go to the Hall of Fame. They said he would disgrace the game because, even though not official, he had used steroids. That got me to thinking. If Barry Bonds, unarguably one of the best players to play in the MLB, was locked out of the baseball Hall of Fame for allegedly using steroids; then shouldn't O.J. Simpson be removed from the football Hall of Fame for allegedly murdering two people? I mean. If we're going to judge these things by public opinion then O.J. Simpson is guiltier than sin. The evidence against O.J. Simpson was nearly overwhelming and still is. He disgraced himself further by writing a book entitled, "If I Did It," and then doing a show about it. He defended himself saying he needed the money to get out of debt and that he didn't pick the title. But would anybody who was actually "looking for the real killer" pen such a novel? Or anyone who had the mother of their children brutally murdered write such a book? In the eyes of most people O.J. Simpson proved the favorite axiom of his late, great attorney Johnnie Cochran that the "color of justice is green" is true. So if public opinion and popular belief is enough to lock Bonds out of the Hall of Fame, then isn't it enough to remove O.J. Simpson? No, you say, because his crime was committed after his playing days. That's fine, but isn't murder just a little more heinous than using steroids? Perhaps, but that is irrelevant since the Hall of Fame is about performance not character and crime. Really? Isn't what we're told time and again by reporters, Hall of Famers, and fans that the character of the player up for the Hall is as important as his stats. Could the Hall of Fame not be shamed just as much by a current member as a proposed one? Isn't that one of the reasons many people have used as to why someone like Michael Irvin shouldn't get in? And someone who brutally murders (since most people don't think of it as "allegedly murdered") the mother of his children and her friend is probably of a low character, no? My point is this. I'm no fan of Barry Bonds, and I feel he probably used steroids. But there's no conviction thus far and his career is worthy of the Hall of Fame. So unless we're going to yank O.J. Simpson out and then audit the lives of all Hall of Famers Barry Bonds should get in first ballot. In fact, there should be no debate about it.