Thanks, Repoz. I hadn't realized that King had returned from his (professionally) ill-timed vacation.

From the article:

"and the public wants to see some players peeing in jars."

Well, that would be one way to replace the home run derby.

I've read somewhere that this is the same argument used to keep Eddie Gaedel in the record books. Bill Veeck argued that to do otherwise would destroy the flow of the history of baseball.

That is correct, Veeck as in Wreck made that same point.

Other, lesser sports can scrub their record books clean.

Really? How does football or basketball accomplish this? What about soccer? What about any other team sport?

Not baseball. Eliminating from the records that part of history that doesn’t suit us is wrong and weird and smacks of Stalinism

Funny, I thought that Stalin eliminated inconvenient facts from the history books. How is this different from pretending that steroids don't affect records? If Kaufmann had his way, I suppose his final book on the subject would be The Steroid Vanishes.


but aside from that, how do you do it? If Bonds didn’t hit those record 73 home runs in 2001, did the pitchers who gave them up not give them up? Did the Giants not win the games Bonds’ homers helped them win? Do we take the runs scored away from the men Bonds drove in?

Now you're getting into more serious questions. If you start trying to figure out which particular games were decided by steroids, of course you'll never get anywhere, and as a result you might as well just void entire seasons.

And another reason for not going this route is that the numbers of innocent players, and teams, would be punished for the acts of a relative few. (I'll expand that "few" estimate when I hear more than speculative percentages like "50%" without any further evidence or testimony to back it up.)

But this has nothing to do with individual records. I see nothing at all wrong with certifying Bonds' place in history by (a) acknowledging his 73 home runs, and (b) at the same time, also acknowledging with an asterisk the illegitimate circumstances surrounding the record. This isn't "changing history," it's giving the whole story and not half of it. And there's a fundamental difference between the two.

And then future generations can decide the relative importance of (a) vs. (b). As can future Hall of Fame voters, I might add.

Andy,

How about Gaylord Perry? We know he cheated.

How about Willie Stargell? He was on greenies.

I fully believe that steroids are bad and baseball has a right and an obligation to get them out of the game.

But I think that the moment you try to add editorial content to the record book, you're heading down a very slippery slope.

Fans can void individual seasons if they want to. I personally don't care for the increased offense of the current period, but that's just me, and I accept that it is this way. We adjust for run-scoring environment, and all sorts of factors influence that environment, from fence distances to foul territory to, yes, performance enhancing substances. OPS+ and ERA+ already weed out the effects of steroids, you see; they don't discriminate among the other causes of increaased offense, so why are steroids different? They're just another factor like all the others.

A record book is inteded to be just that, a record. It isn't inherently supposed to convey greatness, it's just a record of events.

Track and Field (the lesser sport you're looking for, Andy), wipes out records by making the event not happen. Ben Johnson's record didn't count because officially he didn't participate. The official result was as though he never was in the race.

Bonds participated in these games, he hit those home runs. He hit more in a regular season than anyone else. That's all a record book says.

It doesn't say that one player didn't play against black players. It doesn't say that one player played in a larger or smaller ballpark, with a livelier or deader ball. It doesn't say if a player used steroids or played in an era where players did. It just says what he did.

If you want to mark Bonds' HRs because of what he did, you have to mark a whole lot of other records. It doesn't mean that taking steroids is the same as, say, a dead ball era, but if you're trying to tell a deeper story with the record books, you're going to have to go a lot further than just steroids.

Track and Field (the lesser sport you're looking for, Andy), wipes out records by making the event not happen. Ben Johnson's record didn't count because officially he didn't participate. The official result was as though he never was in the race.

Larry, am I stretching to understand, or are you advocating wiping out whole games from the MLB record book?

Larry, am I stretching to understand, or are you advocating wiping out whole games from the MLB record book?

I think he's advocating the opposite TVerik. He doesn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater by marking out every single player who "cheated" in one form or another.

Track and Field (the lesser sport you're looking for, Andy), wipes out records by making the event not happen. Ben Johnson's record didn't count because officially he didn't participate. The official result was as though he never was in the race.

Your point being what, Larry? That T&F;should just list Johnson as the winner? That it should pretend that he won it on the square? What, exactly, would be your alternative? But in any case, as I said above, I don't propose this solution for baseball.

Bonds participated in these games, he hit those home runs. He hit more in a regular season than anyone else. That's all a record book says.

But by omitting the asterisk, it's also conveying a legitimacy to that record which isn't deserved. This isn't history, it's half-history.

It doesn't say that one player didn't play against black players. It doesn't say that one player played in a larger or smaller ballpark, with a livelier or deader ball.

Surely you see the distinction between era differences which were common to all players within an era, and a secretive advantage gained by steroids which is gained only by certain players within an era. But perhaps you don't.

But now we're getting back to the "steroids aren't any different from the lively ball, or racism, or ...." blah blah blah. You obviously believe this garbage. Be my guest.

How about Gaylord Perry? We know he cheated.

How about Willie Stargell? He was on greenies.

This is the old reducto ad absurdum argument, which might as well include corked bats and prohibition era alcohol for relaxation. I'll let Backlasher handle the details of this, but there is a lot more evidence that steroids add to muscle mass (and power) than there is that greenies added any particular skills to a player's repertoire. And Perry, when he was caught, was dealt with at the time, in the same way that pitchers with intentionally deceptive motions are dealt with by the balk rule.

Pops, I've heard permutations of this argument at my workplace for days on end. One person even compares this to the Pete Rose thing - should he be reinstated to HOF eligibility because of what he did on the field exclusively? I guess they're drawing the parallel between him and Bonds' 73. But Rose's hits record is still in the books, and I haven't heard a reasonable argument for dismissing it. So I don't know that the example holds water.

And Perry, when he was caught, was dealt with at the time, in the same way that pitchers with intentionally deceptive motions are dealt with by the balk rule.

Andy, I was right there with you until that.

How was Perry punished at the time? I honestly don't remember.

I do remember that someone (I forget who) was grandfathered in as a spitballer because he had been doing it since before it was illegal. Should we entertain the notion of grandfathering Bonds and Giambi thusly?

"and the public wants to see some players peeing in jars."

Well, that would be one way to replace the home run derby.

"Dude, get it in the cup. This time it counts!"

Your point being what, Larry? That T&F;should just list Johnson as the winner? That it should pretend that he won it on the square? What, exactly, would be your alternative? But in any case, as I said above, I don't propose this solution for baseball.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm in favor of, you moron. I'm saying that track can do that. Baseball can't.

But by omitting the asterisk, it's also conveying a legitimacy to that record which isn't deserved. This isn't history, it's half-history.

You're trying to make the record book something more than it is. It's a record of events. The event happened. It's legitimate. It's not legitimate to say that because he hit 73 HRs that he's the greatest HR hitter ever.

Surely you see the distinction between era differences which were common to all players within an era, and a secretive advantage gained by steroids which is gained only by certain players within an era. But perhaps you don't.

Yeah, which is why I wrote:

It doesn't mean that taking steroids is the same as, say, a dead ball era

Should records of the 1919 Series receive asterisks? As far as I know, the idea has never been seriously suggested. In fact, I recall hearing about some later pitcher (I forget who) who was the first since Lefty Williams to lose 3 Series games, disregarding the fact that Williams set out to lose all three of his starts.

George Frazier, 1981.

In fact, I recall hearing about some later pitcher (I forget who) who was the first since Lefty Williams to lose 3 Series games, disregarding the fact that Williams set out to lose all three of his starts.

Which makes it an even more pathetic accomplishment.

I should have read the article before posting. Kaufman brought up the 1919 Series in his column.

How was Perry punished at the time? I honestly don't remember.

IIRC he was kicked out of one game. There is a complete difference of consensus between Perry and Bonds among fans, players, the rulebook, and common sense which is reflected in the outrage over steroids and the indifference over spitballs.

Your point being what, Larry? That T&F;should just list Johnson as the winner? That it should pretend that he won it on the square? What, exactly, would be your alternative? But in any case, as I said above, I don't propose this solution for baseball.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm in favor of, you moron. I'm saying that track can do that. Baseball can't.

Sorry for being a moron, Larry, but as you can see, I wasn't the only one who found your first try a bit unclear.

You're trying to make the record book something more than it is. It's a record of events. The event happened. It's legitimate. It's not legitimate to say that because he hit 73 HRs that he's the greatest HR hitter ever.

I suppose that depends on your defintion of 'legitimate.'

But I see by the next sentence that our real difference may be more style than substance, since you don't engage in the fantasy that his 2001 season makes him "the greatest HR hitter ever." IOW, you're acknowledging implicitly what I want the record book to be explicit about. This is an honest difference of opinion, but the reason I am adamant about the asterisk is that fifty years from now, I want Bonds' defenders to have to explain why the asterisk is in there, rather than have the handful of people with a memory of this sorry creature have to keep pointing out why Barry Bonds is not, in fact, "the greatest home run hitter in history."

Surely you see the distinction between era differences which were common to all players within an era, and a secretive advantage gained by steroids which is gained only by certain players within an era. But perhaps you don't.

Yeah, which is why I wrote:

It doesn't mean that taking steroids is the same as, say, a dead ball era

Well, then, what is the qualitative difference? Is there a distinction beyond a mere acknowledgment that this is not 1915? And are you really saying that the record books should just--by omission--equate the two? I'm not trying to bait you, just trying to draw you out.

I believe that they should just say what's happened on the field. Let the history books say what Bonds, et al, did, but leave the numbers alone.

So, to recap, Andy thinks there should be content in the baseball record "book", specifically an asterisk to show people that Bonds' record is "tainted".

Larry thinks there should be no such thing, noting that every record has some historical context that means that direct number-to-number comparisons are fruitless anyway.

Did I capture both arguments?

I believe that they should just say what's happened on the field. Let the history books say what Bonds, et al, did, but leave the numbers alone.

But with the asterisk, the numbers will still be there. The asterisk can simply serve as a permanent witness to the crime. Again, let Bonds' defenders be forced to explain it away. The burden of disproof should rest with them.

This is the old reducto ad absurdum argument, which might as well include corked bats and prohibition era alcohol for relaxation. I'll let Backlasher handle the details of this, but there is a lot more evidence that steroids add to muscle mass (and power) than there is that greenies added any particular skills to a player's repertoire.

As I read it, "a lot more evidence" is the key to your argument here.

The issue is that steroids aid performance to a greater degree than another drug or than a corked bat, or what-have-you. And then, given that, the line determing what is "acceptable cheating" falls just below steroids.

Here's the thing. In terms of the enforcement of rules, I basically agree with you here. (Though I'd definitely include greenies on the unacceptable list and I'm not sure why you wouldn't.)

I am extremely turned off by what i perceive as a self-righteous attitude, when, as I read the terms of the debate, it's one of careful line-drawing. We just draw the line a little further along than others.

I draw the line in one place on rule enforcement and another as regards the record book. I don't like moving backwards and guessing about what should and should not be legitimate. Going forward, those who crossed the line into unacceptable cheating should be punished. But it doesn't necessarily follow that their records should be expunged.

Or that they should be asterisked, or whichever.

OPS+ and ERA+ already weed out the effects of steroids, you see; they don't discriminate among the other causes of increaased offense, so why are steroids different? They're just another factor like all the others.

No, they don't. They may normalize everyone to an era, but these adjustments diminish the performances of those who chose not to use steroids. Frank Thomas has a career 162 OPS+. Manny Ramirez has a 156. Jim Thome has a 151. None of these guys have a "steroid body" and, if you were going to bet on which players who performed well were definitely not on steroids, these guys would be high on the list. Giambi is a 149. Sheffield is a 147 Bonds is 184. Bonds, Sheffield and Giambi are higher than they should be and, as a result, Thomas, Ramirez, and Thome are lower than they should be (or, at the very least, relatively lower on the list).

How about Gaylord Perry? We know he cheated.

How about Willie Stargell? He was on greenies.

I fully believe that steroids are bad and baseball has a right and an obligation to get them out of the game.

But I think that the moment you try to add editorial content to the record book, you're heading down a very slippery slope.

Perry's form of cheating is accepted in baseball. Anything you do on the field is "allowed" unless the player gets caught so long as the "cheating" happens on the field and only on the field. A lot of LHP's balk every time they throw to first base, which you'd have to consider to be "cheating," but they are rarely caught and/or penalized for it. There are consequences, of course, but any player would say that this form of "cheating" is okay if a guy can get away with it.

Greenies were distributed by the teams, and thus at least implicitly, and arguable explicitly, allowed by baseball. It's unclear whether they were any more potent than a caffeine pill or a cup or two of coffee -- they obviously weren't very powerful stimulants or you would have had ballplayers dying on the field, a la Steve Belcher. I don't think you can draw a meaningful analogy between greenies and steroids.

Steroids are different because they give a small number of players a large advantage over their law abiding adversaries. There wasn't a major league rule against them and there shouldn't have been -- major league baseball shouldn't have to explicitly stipulate that its players shouldn't engage in illegal behavior. The fact that some players chose to engage in dangerous, illegal behavior over an extended period of time to the detriment of their colleagues makes me think that these people are completely unworthy of our trust, compassion, or acknoledgement. I would be happy if they ###'d out these players' names and left their numbers (for continuity sake), but I'll settle for an asterisk.

For those of you who think that steroids aren't a big deal, imagine engaging in a course of conduct where you repeatedly broke the law and endangered or harmed everyone you came into contact with in a professional setting over the course of several years, if not over the course of your career. If you gained an advantage from inflicting this harm, and you parlayed that advantage into some tangible accomplishment, shouldn't you be deprived of recognition once the truth comes out?

What Bonds, Sheffield, and Giambi did was at least as harmful to the other players, and perhaps far worse, as what the owners did with collusion in the 80's. These dopers and their as yet unnamed colleagues created an environment where otherwise good or great players were unremarkable and paid as mediocrities. If you had a coworker who did what they did, you would think that coworker was the scum of the earth. Why credit these people who willfully damaged the game and those who played it honestly? Baseball (mlb and the greater community) has the power to punish these cheaters in a meaningful way, and no measure should be spared in doing so. My only regret in the whole thing is that it is unlikely that the player's union will be able to get the cheaters to repay to those who played the game honestly the money that was stolen.

But with the asterisk, the numbers will still be there.

But they won't be left alone. The record book isn't a history lesson, it's a list of things that have happened.

Also, what do you put asterisks on? Just for Bonds, Giambi and Sheffield? What years? What about the IBB record? The BB record? The MVPs?

Do you put an asterisk on McGwire and Sosa, just on suspicion? If you don't, what if they were on steroids but we never really know? Not putting an asterisk on their numbers but putting one on Bonds' would send the message that their numbers are more valid than Bonds', even though they may not be. If you do, what if they weren't on steroids? Is that fair?

It's impossible to start throwing around asterisks and be completely fair. The only fair thing is to let the record books be what they are -- a record of events that happened.

Here's the thing. In terms of the enforcement of rules, I basically agree with you here. (Though I'd definitely include greenies on the unacceptable list and I'm not sure why you wouldn't.)

I would include greenies on the unacceptable list. I don't see them as corrupting to the records as steroids, but I'd ban them nevertheless.

I draw the line in one place on rule enforcement and another as regards the record book. I don't like moving backwards and guessing about what should and should not be legitimate. Going forward, those who crossed the line into unacceptable cheating should be punished. But it doesn't necessarily follow that their records should be expunged.

As I've said above, I don't consider the asterisk to be a form of expungement, merely a form of explanation. I never said that the 73 HR's should be expunged from the record book.

As for 714 or heaven help us, 755, I would love to see the NL pitchers respond to this by intentionally walking Bonds about 500 times a year. Let him aim at Rickey Henderson instead of Hank Aaron. It would be a fitting gesture of contempt for a contemptable man.

I will leave open the question of an asterisk for the 500 IBB's....

What Bonds, Sheffield, and Giambi did was at least as harmful to the other players, and perhaps far worse, as what the owners did with collusion in the 80's.

But collusion was much worse for the game.

I draw the line in one place on rule enforcement and another as regards the record book. I don't like moving backwards and guessing about what should and should not be legitimate. Going forward, those who crossed the line into unacceptable cheating should be punished. But it doesn't necessarily follow that their records should be expunged.

I see no reason to limit "cheating" to what the rules explicitly mention, though. If I drugged the opposing pitcher by, say, applying novacaine to his throwing hand shortly before each game then that would be cheating, even though there's no rule against it. It'd be illegal, of course, but not against baseball's rules. Allowing a player to engage in illegal behavior that is not explicitly against the rules of baseball would seem contrary to any definition of fairness or good sportsmanship, and would necessarily be considered cheating. I don't see how taking illegal drugs to help me rather than hurt the competition should be any different.

All right, you've seen through my Bonds-supporter argument. The '90s were an era in which players had the option of using steroids, just like the option of lifting weights, or eating right, or anything else. It was up to them to do it or not, and if they did it, they reaped the results. Nobody says that players from the '40s were really better than their numbers but for their being somewhat malnourished, which they were. The problem with my argument is that it is clearly the argument of someone who was hurt by Barry Bonds. He's a great player--I still think so, and he belongs in the HOF, and his home run record is as "real" as any other--but I really believed that he hadn't used any performance-enhancing substances. I really believed it, and it turned out not to be true. So, while I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it, I wish he hadn't. And some people believe in God, too... it's the same thing.

But collusion was much worse for the game.

I dunno. That remains to be seen, really. Collusion made a struggle between competing power structures more intense and made it more difficult for the parties to trust one another. This steroids thing could destroy the union, as the union (in the past) has vehemently defended that highest earners against all criticism. If the top 10% of players (say) quit the union in protest over this, the union will lose a lot of bargaining power. I would hope the owners wouldn't exploit such a schism in the interests of the game, but if there's one thing we've learned from the disputes between players and the owners it's that the welfare of the game is a distant 3rd on the priority list...

I agree with you on most of the merits.

I don't feel righteously angry or that these guys are the "scum of the earth."

Greenies were distributed by the teams, and thus at least implicitly, and arguable explicitly, allowed by baseball.

I'd drop this argument. Steroids weren't outlawed by MLB, and players whose owners had to know they were juicing kept being signed to bigger and bigger contracts. Steroids were implicitly accepted by baseball for years.

That's the main reason I'm not so indignant. The wrong here is systemic much more than individual. I'm more interested in fixing the system than yelling at Jason Giambi and his parents.

I dunno. That remains to be seen, really.

No, it was worse for the game, and it had nothing to do with money.

For three seasons, teams agreed to not try their hardest to win. Trying too hard to win pales in comparison.

I see no reason to limit "cheating" to what the rules explicitly mention, though.

I wasn't clear.

Regardless of whether there was a rule or not, we'll never know how much of Bonds' or Giambi's or Stargell's or anybody's accomplishment are tainted by their cheating.

I don't think it's the place of the record book to tell us which are ok. One asterisk next to 73 implicitly supports the validity of every non-asterisked record. You become ethically bound to very carefully determine a line and perform a hell of a lot of research to determine who falls on which side. I don't think that's a disagreement that the record keepers should get involved in.

Larry, rather than copy your entire last post (#27 above), I'll just say that

1. I'd asterisk McGwire, too. As I've said many times, it's not whether it was banned, not banned, legal or illegal. The bottom line is that McGwire's home runs were aided by artificial means---and since the question of "what, exactly, do you mean by artificial?" has been gone over ad nauseum in countless threads and debates, I'm not going to go over that one again. I'm with Potter Stewart here.

2. I wouldn't asterisk Sosa until concrete evidence (or confession) of his steroid use came out. Same with anyone else. I would have said (and did say, many times) the same thing about Bonds up to the point of the release of his testimony.

As for the ambiguity of the record books while the truth is being sifted out, I guess I can live with that. In summary: Proof first, asterisks to follow. No proof, no asterisk. But none of this pretend BS that since he only admitted to "flaxseed oil," that there's "no proof." I'll leave that one to the Jonestown survivors.

But what if no proof ever comes out that Sosa used steroids? You're then giving his HR totals a legitimacy that they don't deserve, aren't you? Are we punishing guys for using steroids or are we punishing them for getting caught?

If I drugged the opposing pitcher by, say, applying novacaine to his throwing hand shortly before each game then that would be cheating, even though there's no rule against it.

If I got the opposing pitcher drunk the night before a day game and hit three home runs off of him the next day, didn't I take legal advantage of him? If it could be proved, what would be an appropriate punishment for my offense?

In the 20's, the White Sox manager had a few of his players take Babe Ruth out drinking all night so he'd be hung over for the next game. The next day Ruth hit a homer, and yelled at the hung over White Sox sitting on the bench, "Where we going tonight, boys?"

more to the point, if I did this to Pedro Martinez, could I have Enrique Wilson's career?

But what if no proof ever comes out that Sosa used steroids? You're then giving his HR totals a legitimacy that they don't deserve, aren't you

I guess, again as I said in dozens of threads on this very topic, I don't believe in jumping to conclusions: not about Bonds two weeks ago, and not about Sosa today.

Are we punishing guys for using steroids or are we punishing them for getting caught?

For getting caught, of course. I don't see what the alternative is to that, other than punishing them for getting on the wrong side of some baseball version of Matt Drudge.

And even though it's not "fair" that Bonds got caught while others may get away with it, I'm not sure how that differs from an ordinary crime committed by ten people where five get caught and five get away. We don't spare the five that get caught because they were "unlucky"--we just redouble our efforts to catch and convict (with proof, not speculation) the five still at large.

Are you talking about the past or the future?

In terms of future punishment, I agree - you haave no choice but to only punish those who get caught.

In terms of the recording of past achievements, you also have the choice to print only the numbers and let people receive them with the proper critical eye. In terms of the record books, I prefer this more conservative solution.

1. I'd asterisk McGwire, too. As I've said many times, it's not whether it was banned, not banned, legal or illegal. The bottom line is that McGwire's home runs were aided by artificial means---and since the question of "what, exactly, do you mean by artificial?" has been gone over ad nauseum in countless threads and debates, I'm not going to go over that one again. I'm with Potter Stewart here.

What? You don't care if it's not banned or legal?

2. I wouldn't asterisk Sosa until concrete evidence (or confession) of his steroid use came out. Same with anyone else. I would have said (and did say, many times) the same thing about Bonds up to the point of the release of his testimony.

What concrete evidence is there that Bonds used steroids during his 73 HR season?

How about Cap Anson? He inflated his own statistics by helping to keep black players from competiting against him. That's gotta be on a level of "cheating" which isn't actually in the rulebook. It's wholly unethical. Can we mark up his records? How about anyone else who contributed actively to the sin of segregation? Or just passively?

It's a really complicated line to draw, once you start calling some records and not others into question.

In terms of baseball's necessary crackdown on PEDs, the questions about Perry and Stargell and Anson are not particularly relevant. In terms of the record book, they are directly relevant.

In terms of the recording of past achievements, you also have the choice to print only the numbers and let people receive them with the proper critical eye. In terms of the record books, I prefer this more conservative solution.

This solution works a lot better while events are still within vivid living memory than it will fifty or a hundred years from now. Which is why I also hope that the HOF electors take note of character issues when Bonds is placed on the ballot. (And please note, I do think he should be on the ballot.)

Andy, I'm just curious about this, not being sarcastic:

What evidence would you find compelling enough to add the asterisk to the book? Grand Jury is obviously pretty compelling, but they only get convened for certain court matters. If Sosa had tested positive for Rick Reilly two years ago, would all of his HR totals be in doubt?

*smiles, having wedged a shot at Enrique Wilson in a thread that wasn't about him at all*

AJM,

1. No, I don't. I thought I made that clear.
2. His own testimony is good enough for me. It covered 2001 through 2003, according to the SF Chronicle story. If you want to swallow the flaxseed oil story, fine. Not many others will.

Mikael,

All the questions you raise are legitimate, but I'm not convinced by the analogies. Steroid use is rather precise, if not precisely quantifiable, in its positive effect on home run power. It positively affects those who use them, and them alone. Asterisking those proven offenders is a service to history, not a Stalinization of it.

Anson's (and many others') racism affected the whole game, and affected the competition just as you say. This is one of the reasons why I have argued many times here that the modern game is far superior to its pre-1947 counterpart, and why I have also maintained that records from that era are, in fact, rather suspect in comparison to today's. (Aside: fond memories of agreeing with Treder)

But I'm not sure that an asterisk would be the answer, other than a giant mental asterisk over the whole period, which many of us have formed in our minds already. And I certainly wouldn't object to Anson's HOF plaque being amended to include a line or three about Fleetwood Walker.

But as for Stargell and Perry, the matter of degree enters into it to such an extent that I simply don't see any real comparison. I'm pretty sure I dealt with those two above. I'll just agree to disagree here.

Andy, I'm just curious about this, not being sarcastic:

What evidence would you find compelling enough to add the asterisk to the book? Grand Jury is obviously pretty compelling, but they only get convened for certain court matters. If Sosa had tested positive for Rick Reilly two years ago, would all of his HR totals be in doubt?

The quick response to your question:

Not only would his HR totals have been in doubt, but the public's perception of his general mental capacity would have been irreparably damaged. In a just and decent world, he would have been sentenced to live in a room full of playful, declawed kittens until full recovery was pronounced.

And I am equally serious about both parts of my response.

Asterisking those proven offenders is a service to history, not a Stalinization of it.

You're removing objectivity. Of all the punishments/reactions to the steroids threat, marking up the rule books is the one thing I abhore.

other than a giant mental asterisk over the whole period

What's wrong with a giant mental asterisk over Bond's records?

Earlier you said that you wanted the asterisk to put a burden on those who defended Bonds in arguing for the legitimacy of his records. aren't you just arguing for the memorialization of contemporary moral indignation in the record books?

What's wrong with a giant mental asterisk over Bond's records?

Of course that's already there. It's Part One. But you don't let criminals off with just a lecture, unless you're Turn Em Loose Bruce.

Earlier you said that you wanted the asterisk to put a burden on those who defended Bonds in arguing for the legitimacy of his records. aren't you just arguing for the memorialization of contemporary moral indignation in the record books?

Yes---but nothing prevents future generations from expunging said asterisk or asterisks.

I'm going to rant fo awhile (and just to cut down on the negative posts that may follow, my rant is not in response to anything anyone else has said in this thread. It's just my general thoughts). Here goes.

First of all, I think steroids are terrible for the game and they need to create much stronger rules regulating them, but that said, it would be incredibly unfair and hypocritical for MLB to do anything whatsoever to punish Bonds and Giambi when it's unclear that they even broke a rule. THG wasn't even on the banned list at the time they used it, nor did baseball even have a testing method at the time. I guess you could say they violated the part of the substance abuse rule that forbids every illegal drug, but according to this rule there is no distinction between PED's and any other illegal drug, like marajuana. If baseball wants to crack down on stuff like this, they need strict, pre-established punishments for offenders. People wrongly compare this to the Pete Rose situation. The big difference is that there was always a rule stating that gambling would result in a lifetime ban. MLB shouldn't say that a first positive test will result only in treatment, and then ban players or asterisk their numbers anyway. No one could complain that they were being treated unfairly if the punishments were already set in stone in advance and they chose to break the rules anyway.

Second, I don't see why some players are treated more harshly than others for identical offenses. Caminiti and Canseco admitted to juicing years ago, and I don't remember anyone saying that their numbers should be deleted, or their MVP awards taken away or asterisked. Bigger stars like Bonds shouldn't be treated any differently than anybody else. It's like Sosa with the corked bat thing. People suggested that his big homer seasons be asterisked, and I even heard a few morons say that he should be banned from the game. Where is the precedent for that? I don't recall anyone saying that Wilton Guerrero be banned when he was caught back in the late 90's. Personally, I think that the old school generation of fans and sportwriters are secretly happy about all of this. They don't think it's possible for modern guys to be as good as their heroes, and they've been looking for reasons to discredit current numbers for years. Remember, before the steroid scandal everyone was talking about a juiced ball, despite no evidence whatsoever. It's always one thing or another. Barry Bonds dared to challenge the greatness of Ruth, Williams, etc, and because of that, people are more than eager to dismiss him at the first possible opportunity. It's as simple as that.

Last thing- people are saying that for the first time numbers are no longer directly comparable across eras because of the unfair advantage steroids give. Well, anyone who knows anything about baseball could tell you that numbers have NEVER been directly comparable without adjustments. Due to their sheer volume, modern homerun totals have had to be toned down a bit when comparing eras for a decade or so. Whether it's because of 'roids, weight training, small ballparks, bad pitching, it doesn't matter- the very fact that there are so many means that they need to be put into context, like batting averages in the '20's and '30's and ERA's in the deadball era. It doesn't make a differnce that the .400 hitters in the twenties weren't cheating, it still was a different era and the numbers should be viewed with skepticism when compared to batting averages of say, the 1960's. Steroids haven't changed the way anything should be viewed. Homeruns weren't quite what they used to be before these revelations, and they still aren't. Nothing's changed.

But you don't let criminals off with just a lecture, unless you're Turn Em Loose Bruce.

An asterisk is just the same thing isn't it? With the added benefit of herd mentality, that is. As a punishment it's purely abstract. It doesn't really harm Bonds, it's just a blight on his legacy which he may or may not care about.

Do you want the asterisk there to punish Bonds?
Do you want the asterisk there to protect the record books?
Do you want the asterisk there to discourage steroids?
Do you want the asterisk there for all of the above?

Asterisks should never even be considered, for all the reasons people have mentioned above. It's up to each individual fan to determine for themselves how much luster (if any) they want to take off numbers due to steroids, segregation, greenies, etc. Barry's 73 homers are a record whether he juiced or not, just like Hornsby's .424 average and Chamberlains 50 points per game remain in the record books despite playing in eras where those numbers were much easier to attain then they are now.

Booey,

Without getting into a long response,

1. I agree that Bonds and Giambi should be treated no better or worse than Caminiti or Canseco when it comes to asterisks.

2. What retroactive punishment there should be, or not be, applies to player penalties. But records achieved by juice, no matter how technically legal, are still tainted by their chemical enhancement.

3. For future offenders, lifetime suspension for first offenses. That should take care of the "inconsistency" bit. They will have been emphatically warned.

4. Until two weeks ago, I defended Barry Bonds' personality as irrelevant to anything other than his general human reputation, and I considered him one of the two greatest players of all time. No more.

5. I'm 60, and I've always thought that in terms of the game on the field, "the good old days" are now. I'm only nostalgic about ticket prices, not about the Washington Senators.

And with that, g'night for the night, my friends.

Do you want the asterisk there to punish Bonds?
Do you want the asterisk there to protect the record books?
Do you want the asterisk there to discourage steroids?
Do you want the asterisk there for all of the above?

All of the above, but if Barry Bonds had been aborted, all of the rest of them anyway. But mostly to prevent market-induced amnesia, like the attempt to whitewash Pete Rose.

And this time I really do mean g'night.

1. No, I don't. I thought I made that clear.
2. His own testimony is good enough for me. It covered 2001 through 2003, according to the SF Chronicle story. If you want to swallow the flaxseed oil story, fine. Not many others will.

1. Not only do you have a problem with steroids that may or may not have been illegal at the time of use, you have a problem with substances that are within the rules of the game and perfectly legal too. May I ask why?
2. According to the chronicle story he said he used those substances in '03.

That should be "he used those substances beginning in '03."

Other, lesser sports can scrub their record books clean.

Really? How does football or basketball accomplish this? What about soccer? What about any other team sport?

Um, I think that means "for all he cares". Maybe not, but I think that's it.

a hunk of cowhide

It's *horsehide*. AUGH!*

*I know they switched to cowhide, but that;s not the point. It's *called* "the horsehide".

1. Not only do you have a problem with steroids that may or may not have been illegal at the time of use, you have a problem with substances that are within the rules of the game and perfectly legal too. May I ask why?

I have a problem with any substance which is used for the sole purpose of increasing muscle mass, since players who use them are not competing on a level playing field with those who don't. Within this framework, the question of legality or illegality is little more than a debating point for lawyers on both sides. Since I'm not trying to throw any player in jail for this, I'm not particularly concerned about whether flaxseed oil or Andro were legal or illegal in this year or that year, since whatever the case, they still improved their users' muscle mass.

This refers to the record books debate in particular. Other, non-muscle enhancing illegal substances have no demonstrable positive connection to performance, and thus would have no bearing on the record books. Whether or not you want to deal with players on greenies is another story. When it comes to the issue of a "player's health," on the specific question of illegally obtained and illegally sold greenies I'd go after the pusher and let the player suffer the health consequences of his own stupidity. Nobody's ever claimed that greenies enhanced Willie Stargell's career in any demonstrable way.


2. According to the chronicle story he said he used those substances in '03.

The information about Bonds provided to The Chronicle was corroborated by a source familiar with Anderson. The source told The Chronicle that the weight trainer had obtained steroids and human growth hormone for Bonds dating back to the 2001 season.

I'll let you sort that one out. If it turns out Bonds was truly innocent of steroid use in 2001, I'd take out the asterisk. But given what else is known, and particularly in light of the above quote, I'd say the burden of proof at this point is definitely on Bonds' defenders.

I'm sure that you're just as eager as I am to let all the facts surrounding Bonds emerge, correct? We certainly don't want to leave this hanging in an atmosphere of of uncertainty, now do we?

I think we can all think of a few ways to get the facts out, but then of course we'll quickly find out that this is the last thing that the players' union wants to have happen. For obvious reasons.

I think we can all think of a few ways to get the facts out, but then of course we'll quickly find out that this is the last thing that the players' union wants to have happen. For obvious reasons.

The owners only want those facts out because they think they can use it as a wedge to break the union. No one's being ethical here.

If steroid use was as prevalent - especially among the game's top stars - as it appears to have been, everyone had to know what was going on. And no one did a damn thing about it. Demonizing the players' union, to me, misses the point drastically.

I really don’t think asterisks are necessary. We don’t asterisk the 1919 World Series because it’s common knowledge. We don’t asterisk the totals of the Black Sox (or others) who threw games, gave away at bats or grooved fastballs because (a) it’s impossible to tell (a la steroids) and (b) those who were caught and punished is common knowledge and becomes a well known fact of baseball history.

I feel pretty confident that 50 years from now when people look at Bonds’ incredible totals or see Giambi’s stats and how he fell off a cliff it’ll be common knowledge that they juiced the same way we now how some players used greenies, gambled and threw games, or became ill or were often injured (Gehrig, Reiser etc.), or who played before 1947 or the decades before the game became fully integrated.

Heck, 20 years from now MLB may be loaded with players from the Pacific Rim who’ll average 270 hits a season and steal 150 bases and will usher in a different era of run scoring. When a player averages 200 hits and 50 steals year in and year out in this era we'll know it's not as impressive as it would've been in 2000-2009. We'll mentally adjust for the circumstances of that time.

When we look at numbers, history tells us that we have to adjust to the era: 19th century, dead ball, 1920’s-30’s, WWII/Pete Gray, pre-Jackie, the pitching decade 60’s (1963-68 anyway), the astroturf/burner era of the 1970’s-1980’s, the Latin invasion, the silly ball/new bandbox ballpark/steroid era, the possible Japanese/Korean era etc. etc. etc. While you’re at it, we have the gambling era, the Landis era (cleaning up the game), the reserve clause era, Messersmith/McNally which ushered in free agency and enabled players to devote themselves to baseball 24/7/365. When we look at the record book, our mind is already full of asterisks. Why isn’t “Indian Bob” Johnson in the HOF? Had he put up those numbers from 1959-71 rather than 1933-45 he would be--however, we “asterisk” his totals due to the era in which he played. Bonds spike from ages 35-40 (including the HR records) stick out like a sore thumb on what was already a HOF career. In the ensuing decades, fans will look at those numbers and will automatically think “PES” the same way we look at the Reds 1919 World Series championship and think “Black Sox”….it’ll be common knowledge the way “Shoeless Joe,” Pete Rose, Gaylord Perry et al are [common knowledge].

The asterisks are already there. No need for more.

Best Regards

John

If Mark Field is reading this thread, I fear for his safety.

The owners only want those facts out because they think they can use it as a wedge to break the union. No one's being ethical here.

If steroid use was as prevalent - especially among the game's top stars - as it appears to have been, everyone had to know what was going on. And no one did a damn thing about it. Demonizing the players' union, to me, misses the point drastically.

The owners, and their marketers, are probably as guilty as the players, but you don't generally find their statistics in Baseball Reference.

John,

I wish I could be as confident about future generations' perspectives as you are. In my crystal ball the marketers are as flinty-eyed as ever. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Best regards,

Andy

I wish I could be as confident about future generations' perspectives as you are.

Hey, if I can get perspectives, the love-child of a lobotomized Ralph Wiggum and a brain dead Irish Setter bitch can get perspectives.

So I'm guessing future generations will have perspectives....if they don't, they'll have obliterated the environment, nuked the planet, turned on each other, and fully embraced reality TV and it won't matter.

Best Regards

John

Hey, if I can get perspectives, the love-child of a lobotomized Ralph Wiggum and a brain dead Irish Setter ##### can get perspectives.

Isn't love grand?

Best regards,

Andy

Hmm, is the b-word stricken only if it's italicized, or do John's saintly qualities earn him an exemption? Now I know that God reads minds, and I am fearful.

"But they won't be left alone. The record book isn't a history lesson, it's a list of things that have happened."

Isn't Bonds taking steroids something that happened?

Hmm, is the b-word stricken only if it's italicized, or do John's saintly qualities earn him an exemption? Now I know that God reads minds, and I am fearful.

Jesus loves me likes me puts up with me has his finger on the button and is waiting for the signal.

Best Regards

John

"a list of things that have happened."

...on the field

I have a problem with any substance which is used for the sole purpose of increasing muscle mass, since players who use them are not competing on a level playing field with those who don't. Within this framework, the question of legality or illegality is little more than a debating point for lawyers on both sides. Since I'm not trying to throw any player in jail for this, I'm not particularly concerned about whether flaxseed oil or Andro were legal or illegal in this year or that year, since whatever the case, they still improved their users' muscle mass.

I'm sorry but I think that is a ridiculous position to take. Are you against weight training too? That is done to increase muscle mass.

This refers to the record books debate in particular. Other, non-muscle enhancing illegal substances have no demonstrable positive connection to performance, and thus would have no bearing on the record books. Whether or not you want to deal with players on greenies is another story. When it comes to the issue of a "player's health," on the specific question of illegally obtained and illegally sold greenies I'd go after the pusher and let the player suffer the health consequences of his own stupidity. Nobody's ever claimed that greenies enhanced Willie Stargell's career in any demonstrable way.

Cocaine and amphetamines would seem to a positive effect on how you play. Just because nobody has claimed that doesn't mean it's not true.

The information about Bonds provided to The Chronicle was corroborated by a source familiar with Anderson. The source told The Chronicle that the weight trainer had obtained steroids and human growth hormone for Bonds dating back to the 2001 season.

I'll let you sort that one out. If it turns out Bonds was truly innocent of steroid use in 2001, I'd take out the asterisk. But given what else is known, and particularly in light of the above quote, I'd say the burden of proof at this point is definitely on Bonds' defenders.

I was refering to the article that had his testimony, he said didn't use until '03.

I'm sure that you're just as eager as I am to let all the facts surrounding Bonds emerge, correct? We certainly don't want to leave this hanging in an atmosphere of of uncertainty, now do we?

I guess it would be nice to have all the facts, but to tell you the truth I really don't care whether he (or anybody) used or didn't.

John, #61- Exactly. That's essentially what I meant in my earlier post. You said it much better. I think everyone pretty much already does know that homers are out of whack right now, and they don't compare them head up with totals of twenty years ago without acknowledging the difference in time periods. Records should be listed exactly as they happened. If people want to discuss which seasons were actually more impressive compared to their era, then THAT'S when steroids and segregation and such should be brought up- at each fans personal preference. MLB shouldn't force people to see anything a certain way by adding asterisks.