I disagree. First of all, for your theory to work, we have to assume EVERY player is juicing. Otherwise the balancing-out effect just doesn't hold up. Secondly, even if it *was* every player doing it, it's still fruit of the poison tree. Once you pollute the game, there's no longer any basis to judge what the statistics mean. And without that basis, the stats themselves mean nothing. No we don't. I never said it makes it completely equal, but it certainly does level the playing field somewhat. We don't know how many homers Bonds hit off of pitchers on performance enhancing drugs...especially BEFORE 1998, if you go by the assumption that he started taking them that season. I agree that steroids should be out of the game. But there's no way to go back and test players from the past. If we could, we might as well go back several decades and test for amphetamines and other things. More players than we'll probably ever know have done something against the rules to gain an advantage and were never caught, simply because there was no good system in place to catch them. Now, we have drug testing. It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. Punish the guys who get caught. That's all you can do. Edited to add the word "somewhat." Stupid of me to leave out a key word. I know there's no way to go back---that's my point. And there's also no way to apply faulty logic to "level" the playing field and then say "oh hey well it was juicers against juicers so therefore Bonds' 72 can be judged on the same basis as Maris' 61." I just don't agree with that, and I never will. What I *DO* agree with is that the steroids era has tainted the stats of baseball for this time period, and nothing that happens during this era can be compared honestly with another era, where there weren't performance-enhancing "designer" drugs available en masse. I certainly agree the only thing we can do now is punish those who are caught. Did I suggest somewhere that we shouldn't?