Steroid Poll Results

I thought the question I asked last week about steroids in regards to the Hall of Fame was an interesting one given that we are fully into that time where the suspected users are becoming eligible for the HOF vote.

First of all, here was the question:  How should steroid users or suspected steroid users be handled in terms of the Hall of Fame vote?

And here are your votes, with percentages rounded off:

None of them get in 1 (7%)
Keep out only those that actually failed a test or admitted use 4 (30%)
Handle on a case-by-case basis 3 (23%)
Put deserving players in, note the steroid link on plaque 3 (23%)
Vote as normal without considering steroids 2 (15%)

Although it's close, the winning vote was that you keep only those that actually failed a test or admitted use out of the Hall of Fame. 
 
Here's the problem with that:  Under this logic, you are letting in Sammy Sosa (who never failed a test or admitted use but is highly suspected of using), yet keeping out Rafael Palmeiro (who failed a test).  That doesn't quite seem fair, especially if you think Palmeiro was a better player than Sosa (and he was). 
 
So then you say, keep out all suspected users.  Here's the problem with that:  If you have no proof, isn't it possible that some guy is being accused when we really don't know?  Take Jeff Bagwell for example.  He was a great player, but many people think he used steroids.  However, what if he didn't.  It is right to keep him out of the Hall of Fame on suspicions alone?
 
The next step is to handle on a case-by-case basis, which again creates the same dilemma as above.  You end up letting some people in because you don't think they used (when they might have), and you keep some people out because you think they used (when maybe they didn't).
 
Basically, this is my long-winded way of saying that I think you have to start voting in steroid users and suspected steroid users if their numbers are deserving.  I think if you know for a fact that they used steroids, then you need to note on their plaque that they either failed a test or admitted use.  If you don't know it for a fact, you have to assume innocence until proven guilty. 

Does this jeopardize the integrity of the Hall of Fame?  Probably.  But the entire sport has had its integrity called into question by the use of steroids and shouldn't the Hall of Fame reflect that era, just like it reflects any other eras (segregation, juiced ball, dead ball, etc)?