Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? My current votes on Steroid Era stars

In the article "Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? My current votes on Steroid Era stars" by Jon Heyman he discusses how tough it will be to vote players into the Hall of Fame. He says it won't just be over statistics, but also cheating and how much did cheating help the player. "Some voters will eliminate all the steroid guys. Others will take it case by case" (Heyman). All the players have a different story, some admitted to using steroids and others did not. He says he will vote case by case because what would the Hall be like without a whole era of players missing. Heyman says he will judge by two questions: Did the player take steroids or other PEDs? and Did the PEDs turn him into a Hall of Fame player? He claims that he has trouble not voting for a player that is considered an all-time great such as Barry Bonds whom he said he would vote for because he was all ready a good player before steroids.
I somewhat agree with this article. I also think that the voting should go by his two questions. The thing is though that the second question is so hard to answer about whether steroids made a player a Hall of Fame candidate. I think in Barry Bonds case steroids made him become the greatest home run hitter of all-time and caused him to break non-cheaters records. Then again it is to hard to tell whether they made him a Hall of Fame player or not so that is where I disagree with Heyman and I would not vote for Bonds. My opinion may be the same about other players also because deciding who should be in the Hall is tricky and is not something I would want to vote on.

Heyman, Jon. "Hall of Fame or Hall of Shame? My current votes on Steroid Era stars ." Sports Illustrated 18 May 2009: n. pag. Web. 15 April 2010. .