I don't really give a rat's behind that Barry Bonds is a jerk. He's not the first unlikeable player in baseball history, after all. In fact, Bonds's unbearable arrogance might make him considerably more interesting than the average player.

The problem with Bonds is that he cheated, pure and simple. That home run statistic is probably the holiest in a game obsessed with statistics, and he's going to earn it in an unethical manner. I suppose I'm like a lot of baseball fans; when I think about Bonds getting away with this, it burns me up. Taking steroids is at least as bad as betting on the game or throwing a World Series, but the league lacks the gumption of a Bart Giamatti to do what has to be done. Barry Bonds doesn't disgust me any more than Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa disgusts me. All of them should have been slammed for using steroids, and none of them should be in the Hall. They won't be forgotten; Joe Jackson isn't forgotten, after all. Bud Selig and the rest of the owners are gutless, and they have been for a long, long time. The greed of the Player's Union and their implicit defense of the players' use of narcotics, which is well-documented, is egregious, but the buck stops with the owners. They get absolutely no sympathy from me.

For fun sake:

He did in fact, or in all likelihood, take those drugs. The problem with this is ascertaining what role they had in his breaking the record. I would argue that they played a lesser role than is accorded them (that there were other factors that led to this man breaking this record at this time that aren't chemical in nature). What difference this makes is ultimately academic of course, but I'm killing time at work, so please indulge me.

1. What about pitchers who took them? He's surely faced plenty of them in his tenure. Does this cancel out his taking of steroids and re-create a level field [at least some of the time]?

2. What about two other developments that probably have had a far greater impact upon his home run total: expansion (which diluted the level of pitching) and the trend towards smaller ballparks (allowing for easier home runs)?

[As argued in this op/ed: <link> ]

3. There is a reason that Barry Bonds on steroids is breaking this record: because he is Barry Bonds. While adding increased muscle and endurance is surely helpful for a home run hitter, it is not nearly enough in baseball to see the effects we saw with Bonds. [Take a look at a lot of the guys who have been caught: a lot of 160 pound short stops who won't be hitting 73 home runs]. Hitting a home run (hitting in general) is largely a skill. While it can be aided by increased muscle mass, batting well ultimately rests upon that persons skill. Again, I would argue that this diminishes the role steroids should be credited with in his breaking the record. Contrast this with, say, Defensive Tackle in the NFL; while there is skill involved, size and strength are at the premium and it would seem to be that steroids would have a greater impact upon performance for that position.

Even still, we still have the near surety that he used. Does it matter that the record is being broken thanks to an above zero/but less than 100% addition by steroids and if so then how much?

I'm not too invested in this record and so don't really care. I'm also somewhat rooting for Bonds because of how the media have treated him [making millions off McGwire and Sosa when we all knew what was up, giving guys like Sheffield and Giambi a greater/lesser pass for doing the same thing, but raking Bonds over the coals as their scapegoat because he doesn't bow and kiss their ring].

I'd like to address one point that seems most pertinent in your reply. The idea that the surge of home runs in the '90s was due to an increase in smaller ballparks and league expansion will only hold up if we see home run stats continue at their '90s clip; it seems to me that the number of home runs hit has gone down considerably. Albert Pujols, arguably the best all-around hitter in baseball, hit a career-high 49 home runs last season. That's an incredible achievement, but it falls pretty short of the numbers Sosa, McGwire and Bonds were putting up.

If pitching improves, maybe my theory won't work, but has pitching really improved that much over the 90s?

Secondly, Barry Bonds, earlier in his career, was not the power threat he has been since the late '90s. Something dramatically changed in his game. I find it hard to believe that you would not consider his dramatic increase in size and strength an obvious correlation.

Like I said in my top post, I have no concern with Bonds's personality. The fact that he is an asshole has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he ought to receive some punitive repercussions for taking steroids. And if steroids have no impact on player performance, as you opined, then I find it hard to believe so many players would have gone on the juice. Taking roids is hardly like developing a taste for cocaine or being a heavy boozer.