In almost all certainty, when the 2007 class of the Baseball Hall of Fame is announced Jan. 9, Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn will be included, and Mark McGwire will not.

Although McGwire hit 583 home runs, a figure that usually would guarantee him enshrinement, his legacy is tainted by the widespread belief he used performance-enhancing drugs to achieve his Hall of Fame numbers.

Gwynn and Ripken have the on- and off-the-field credentials for Cooperstown. Both are considered two of the all-time good guys of baseball. Gwynn, who won eight batting titles, is arguably the best pure hitter of at least the past 50 years. Although Ripken was one of the greatest offensive shortstops in baseball history, he is even better known as the man who played in 2,632 consecutive games.

I voted for Gwynn and Ripken. I also voted for McGwire. Let me tell you why.

McGwire, who leaped to near-mythical heights by hitting 70 home runs in 1998, was almost as popular with baseball fans as Gwynn and Ripken, if not more so, at the height of his career. But on March 17, 2005, he painted himself guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs when he refused to address the issues of his use before a session of the House Government Reform Committee. He repeatedly dodged questions by respectfully saying, "I'm not here to talk about the past.''

Immediately, McGwire's popularity plummeted. No one wanted anything to do with a rules breaker.

Except, of course, he wasn't breaking any rules of baseball. If he were taking performance enhancing drugs, he not only was not breaking the rules, but he also was doing what the men who ran the game wanted him to do. By winking at what appears to have been widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs -- from amphetamines to human growth hormone -- Major League Baseball and the players union were quietly urging players to get bigger and better so as to draw more fans, sell more merchandise and turn on more televisions.

Suppose Ripken had been asked to appear before the same Congressional committee as McGwire. And suppose he was asked the following by one of the congressmen: "Mr. Ripken, it is rare when a player participates in all 162 games of a regular season. Yet you were able to participate in every game for more than 16 seasons. That is truly amazing and, to be honest with you, somewhat hard to believe. Mr. Ripken: Were there any days when you really didn't feel like playing and you chose to use amphetamines, which we know were easily available in major-league clubhouses, to get yourself ready to play?"

Did Ripken cheat to get his record? Probably not. But when you consider the magnitude of his accomplishment -- it's a far more astonishing record than Barry Bonds hitting 73 home runs in one season -- maybe he did.

And that's why I voted for McGwire.

Why should McGwire be penalized because he happened to appear before a Congressional committee, when others, who did not have such a spotlight on their behavior, might be just as guilty. Why should there be one set of standards for the likes of Mc-Gwire, Bonds and Sammy Sosa -- men who have been publicly linked to steroids -- and another for men who might just as easily used steroids but were not caught?

Does anyone seriously think Roger Clemens, who if he were on the ballot this year would have been a certain enshrinee, has not used performance-enhancing drugs? The man was 44 at the end of last season and had an earned run average of 2.30. The year before his ERA was 1.87. His career ERA is 3.10. Did he suddenly achieve his peak after passing 40?

Rafael Palmiero, who is one of the few players in baseball history with more than 3,000 hits and 500 home runs, was probably headed for the Hall of Fame before failing a drug test in 2005. That failed test will probably keep him out of Cooperstown.

But what about all the players before him who didn't have to take drug tests? For all we know, Palmiero, dragging at the end of his career, might have resorted to steroids only in the 2005 season in hopes of ending his career at a decent level. Should that wipe out his previous accomplishments?

I don't think so.

Toward that end, I have adopted a simple rule in evaluating Hall of Fame candidates. I think it is the only fair method of determining who belongs and who does not. If a player is on the ballot and I think he's good enough, he'll get my vote.

If baseball doesn't want these men in the Hall of Fame, take them off the ballot, just like they took Pete Rose off the ballot. Let baseball set the ethical rules for who belongs in the Hall, not the individual voters. If the crimes of these men were so heinous, get them off the ballot. Otherwise, open the doors at Cooperstown to all who have played at a Hall-of-Fame level.