Baseball purists aren't going to like what I have to say next.
If there already isn't a steroids user in the Baseball Hall of Fame, there will be soon enough.
I came to that conclusion after the 2017 Hall of Fame election results were announced Jan. 18. Not because of which players were elected to the hall of fame, but rather because of which players gained significant ground in the voting.
Both Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, two players who highlighted the steroids era during the 1990s and 2000s, climbed past the 50 percent mark in this year's voting. Clemens received votes from 54.1 percent of the Baseball Writers' Association of America, while Bonds was right behind him at 53.8 percent.
The two made a significant jump from the 2016 voting. Last year, Clemens was at 45.2 percent, while Bonds came in at 44.3 percent. They each still have five more years on the ballot to get to 75 percent, which is enough to elect them to the Hall of Fame.
Voters are beginning to change their minds regarding Clemens, a seven-time Cy Young Award winner, and Bonds, a seven-time Most Valuable Player. Although neither tested posted for steroids during their careers (but that was a result in a lack of testing), both were linked to steroids in the Mitchell Report, which was released in 2007 following an investigation into the use of steroids and human growth hormone in Major League Baseball.
When Bonds and Clemens were first on the ballot in 2013, neither received 40 percent of the vote.
So what is the reason for their recent upswing? Is it the rise of millennial voters who are becoming more sympathetic toward them? Is it because Bud Selig, the commissioner who presided during the steroids era, will be inducted into the hall of fame this year?
Or is it because some voters believe a steroids user is already in the Hall of Fame?
When documentary filmmaker Ken Burns unveiled the "Tenth Inning" of his "Baseball" series in 2010, Washington Post sportswriter Thomas Boswell dropped some scary truth on the baseball community.
In the film, he told a story of when he was standing next to a player - who is now in the Hall of Fame - who mixed something into a drink.
"What's that?" Boswell asked.
"It's a 'Jose Canseco milkshake,'" the player responded.
When a baseball player drinks something named after Canseco, a player who has admitted to using steroids during his career, that doesn't bode well for the player's integrity.
If you're looking for a more recent argument, let's take a look at Ivan Rodriguez, one of the three players who was elected to the Hall of Fame earlier this month.
In a press conference held the day after the election results were announced, a reporter bluntly asked Rodriguez if he had used steroids during his playing career.
Rodriguez responded: "I played the game the right way."
Instead of giving a simple answer to a "yes or no" question, the Hall of Fame catcher dodged it with a vague answer. What does that say about his credibility?
The steroids era was one of those "best of times, worst of times" scenarios for baseball.
Take the 1998 season, for example, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were chasing Roger Maris' home-run record. I have many fond memories of that season, as I was glued to the television, intently watching every swing McGwire took. I can tell you where I was, what I was doing and the exact time when McGwire hit his 62nd home run.
Since then, McGwire has admitted to using steroids, which includes during that magical '98 season. Suddenly, those fond times of my childhood felt tainted. Fake. Make-believe.
Talk of players using steroids has been around for several years, and it isn't going to go away anytime soon.
But the one thing baseball purists have been able to do year after year is to hold the Hall of Fame on a pedestal, that it's an enshrinement of players with great morality and character.
It's time for them to take note Bonds and Clemens are on the rise. It's no longer a question of "if" they'll be elected to the Hall of Fame, but rather "when" they'll be elected.