Plain and simple. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons were implicated in MLB’s doping scandal years ago. Each one of them had tremendous talent and accomplishments, but got even better as they aged, dominating in home runs (Bonds) and starting pitching (Clemons). In their last year of eligibility, both were denied entrance into MLB’s Hall of Fame on Tuesday. Their claims to greatness, much of it well-deserved outside the steroid-enhanced years at the end, nevertheless will always be tarnished. Why? It’s a question of integrity and fair play. As the Washington Post’s John Feinstein said,

Are many of us who oppose the inclusion of men such as Bonds and Clemens in the Hall of Fame hopeless romantics who still cry during the final scene of “Field of Dreams”? Absolutely. But the steroid cheats damaged the game. Here’s the bottom line question: Whom should baseball honor as its all-time home run hitter: Bonds or Henry Aaron? Case closed.

Now I’m actually somewhat sympathetic to voting for them–had they just used their raw talent they likely would have been there anyway. Sure they “sinned,” but is there forgiveness? But as with Christianity, that requires repentance. And neither Bonds nor Clemons has really owned up to what they did. So there are at least three reasons to be against them being included in the Hall of Fame. First, they lied about the reality of who they were–presenting themselves as “clean” players competing on an equal footing with others in baseball (integrity issue). Second, their performance-enhancing drugs gave them a competitive advantage. When Sammy Sosa and Mark McGuire were chasing Roger Maris seemingly unbreakable single-season home run record, it was unbelievable–the ball seemed to explode off of their bats. No one denies the advantage, which is why almost all the cheaters denied they had it. This is the issue of unfairness in competition–rigging the game for your advantage. Finally, as Feinstein noted, they damaged the game–once you realize all these accomplishments are rigged, fans don’t find the thrill of achievement quite so appealing. MLB had to act, and they did (belatedly).

But when you consider these reasons, they are all part of the current controversy of allowing biological males to compete against biological females in sporting contests, despite the vast physical differences–differences that no amount of hormone blockers can effectively eliminate. Lia Thomas is emblematic of this, and is the current lightening rod of the transgender movement. This athlete has dominated the women’s swimming events for UPenn, even though while competing previously in college in the male competition, Thomas was not considered a serious contender. Thomas’ subsequent resulting overwhelming victories while competing in the female category are tremendously demoralizing to the females who have trained their whole lives to compete as champions, as teammates admit.

Thomas’ (and other male athletes who compete as women) claims to be a female lead to the identical problems that Clemons and Bonds created. Those claims are untrue biologically, no matter how much Thomas identifies mentally–there is a lack of integrity in the competition that everyone knows, yet few have the courage to say. Second, the advantages Thomas has are significant–allowing Thomas competitive success that was not possible when he competed as a male. Finally, if this is allowed to continue, women’s sports is at risk–at least at the level it would otherwise be. Even if the broader culture allows and encourages transgender women inclusion, how many young girls will be willing to make the years of tremendous sacrifices required to be a competitive athlete if the game is going to be rigged against them? So if you think Bonds and Clemons should be sanctioned, you must logically join those arguing that biological males should not be allowed to compete as women athletes. The idea of a transgender woman is a lie biologically, theologically, and historically across all cultures and all times, and it is time for the NCAA to stop supporting unfair competition. Choices have consequences, and one male’s choice to identify as a female should not be allowed to trump a females right to compete fairly in sports.* Most fair-minded people recognize this, and I suspect the LGTBQ+++ movement has overreached in this regard, and there will be a backlash against the transgender movement going forward.

* As with most things in the transgender movement, there are relatively few social problems with biological females identifying as males, as biological females are little threat to adult men. The problem is almost always exclusively in the other direction.