[Al C.risafulli]

Well, I can understand that logic, but to me it's next to impossible to separate the users from the non-users, and to quantify the results of using.

Very few players were actually confirmed to have used steroids. 104, right? Lots of names have been implicated. Lots of other names have not - Griffey, as an example. Pujols, as another. Do we know they didn't use? Nope. It wasn't that long ago that people were rooting hard for Alex Rodriguez to break Bonds' record, because at least he was clean. The reality is that all we have is these guys' word - there are, apparently, a million ways to get around these tests.

Pitchers, also, have been implicated. So if a batter on steroids is facing a pitcher on steroids, doesn't that level the playing field? And if 80% of baseball - an estimate I've read multiple times - was using steroids, is it cheating?

And do we know what percentage of home runs were a result of steroids and not improved conditioning, nutrition, smaller parks, better equipment, weaker pitching? No.

And if we're going to expunge everyone who cheated using steroids, then we've got to expunge everyone who cheated using amphetamines. Pete Rose's hit record? Gone. What evidence do we have that Hank Aaron wasn't using amphetamines, besides his word? None.

Do we know Roger Maris wasn't using anything? No. But look at his career stats, and how his career ended - if he played in the 90s with those numbers, we'd automatically assume he was using.

Do we kick out Gaylord Perry's numbers? Or anyone who's used a corked bat? The 19th century guys who used monkey testosterone (or whatever ridiculous thing it was)?

To me, if we're going to disregard the records of guys we suspect of using steroids [I]when we're considering them for our own opinions[I], that's fine. But if we're going to do a pure statistical analysis of the best offensive season ever, then Barry Bonds' 2004 season is the best, period.

-Al