I'm gonna pull a Jim Tressel.
But if forced to vote:
Bonds was an amazing player before roids, he was HOF material without the juice, BUT he is breaking THE sacred record and he wouldn't have done so without roids. That is why I couldn't vote for him, if he took roids and maybe hit 73 HR's but only say, 640 HR's then I might reconsider.
McGwire hit like 46 hr's his rookie year, but like Midas said, wihtout the homers we're not talking about him. And most of his dingers were helped by roids.
Now, to choose, I'd probly have to lean towards Mark, like I said he isn't close to the career mark so I am less "offended" by his numbers.
That and I'm racist.
Either way, neither deserve it, it's a shame in Bonds case becausehe didn't need the stuiff.