The New York Times reports on the circus that will be this year's Hall of Fame ballotting. This is the first year of candidacy for Bonds, Sosa and Clemens. A mostly matter-of-fact will they or won't they story until the final two paragraphs:

Danny Knobler, a baseball columnist for CBS Sports, said he would not be particularly influenced by the verdict. “The standard of proof is totally different, and should be. My opinion isn't putting him in jail, and my Hall of Fame vote is based only on whether I believe he should be honored as one of the game's all-time greats.”

Knobler indicated that he did not think so.

Really? I can understand feeling the taint of steroids, I can understand (less so) the taint of lying to a grand jury (btw, I completely don't understand Pete Rose, but that's a separate issue). But is Knobler seriously suggesting that if there were no steroidal taint on Clemens, that he wouldn't consider him an all-time great? Tell me I'm reading something wrong here.