But this ballot wasn't just about PED users or suspects. There were plenty of viable candidates. Curt Schilling. Craig Biggio. Mike Piazza. But not a single one of them was worthy, according to the writers in sum.
What is the purpose of Baseball's Hall of Fame these days? Is it a tool by the voters used to show up the steroid-era by refusing to include those deemed too impure?
The funny thing is that guys like Schilling, Piazza, and Biggio will likely get in -- eventually. But why wait? They aren't playing any more. Nothing they can do will enhance their chances any further. If the writers won't let them in now, what makes them worthy the next time around, or the next?
Maybe many of you understand it better than I do, but it's approaching a level of sense common to that of the BCS system in college football -- not very clear at all.
Baseball is supposedly America's passtime but the number of young people engaged in the sport has been declining over the years. The sport is in dire need of a boost, something dynamic that shows off a progressive push to an enlightened future. Baseball needs a group of writers who embrace the past both distant and near and include it in the shrine of history and fame -- clean or not.
Then again, maybe that's the way "Baseball" and the writers who cast votes (or lack thereof) for the Hall want it to be; an exclusive clubhouse. But if they continue on this course we may see a growing gap in inductions as the wall is placed in front of players of the past twenty years. An enlarging gap of emptiness than may soon replicate the favor Americans have for the sport in the coming years.
Sound Off: What is your reaction to the results for baseball's 2013 Hall of Fame Ballot?
Justin Mikels is a staff writer for Operation Sports. Give him hell in the comments or on Twitter: @long_snapper