I suspect this is a common workaround.

At least brings up Raines's cocaine use. Most of the commentators have either forgotten or chosen to sweep it under the rug:

"The 10th man on my ballot (and electors may vote for only 10) is Tim Raines. Raines had drug issues, but they were recreational drug issues. Cocaine, to be exact. 'Coke' was illegal, but no one has suggested it made for better careers. It messed up Raines' head but it didn't attack the integrity of the on-field product.

Meantime, I will not vote for McGwire until/unless he is cleared."

"Recreational drugs" are okay because, well, presumably because they're "recreational." The lesson for our nation's children is that crack is sort of like hiking or camping. It's "recreational."

"No one has suggested" that cocaine made for better careers. Well, let me be the First Person Ever to suggest that cocaine could conceivably make for a better career and attack the integrity of the on-field product.

I actually don't know.

I could conceive of a situation where cocaine relieves pain and provides energy. That sort of thing.

But let's suppose that Raines took an illegal substance that hampered his baseball-playing ability. Ummm, why are we rewarding him for this? At least McGwire's illegal substance helped his team win baseball games.