I was disturbed by the comments left, too, Lowell. But your message didn't get lost on me. I understood and agree with everything you said. Now I don't always, but I don't see how you can be more black and white with what you wrote. The fact is (like you don't know this) you have some people who read you just so they can contradict whatever it is you have to say in the comments. I swear, if Lowell wrote a column talking about how good it is that the sun rises in the east, some of you would hold him responsible for the fact that it tends to peak over the horizon too early.

I think some of you folks are the ones needing to get over yourselves.

I wonder if Tiger Woods takes steroids? It seems in these last years of great power and strength from these enhancers, maybe not only football and baseball players are the only ones. These steroids have contaminated sports figures in other sports as well.
The one constant that seems to be a telling sign of the usage is physical breakdown at some point by the users. Could Tiger be one of the next to be found out?

Lowell I don't mean this disrespectfully so please don't take it that way. Regarding people attacking you, I kind of see this the same way I see actors. There are folks that read about famous people in “US” magazine and get all worked up if they see someone who is famous on the street. For whatever reason we give them more power then they deserve. It is the same thing with professional athletes and the same thing with sport writers. So you wrote a blog and because people can find you on the internet, so they kind of freak out because they perceive you as “famous” and because you think and have opinions. It amazes me how personal people get because they can’t come up with anything that resembles intelligent thought. Personally, I like to see people who comment on you blog live up to your standards. What are those standards? You have an opinion and you give reasons why you feel that way. End of story.
I think this issue is a tricky one and who knows what the right thing in the end is. Ethics in general can be different from society to society. In some places bribes are a normal business transaction. In the US you will do time for a bribe. So sure wrong is wrong by our standards here in the US and since we are not headhunters in the middle of the jungle somewhere …we all know what those standards are. Period. Taking steroids is cheating period. How we deal with the fall out is open to debate. I think that is all you were trying to do…open the topic for debate

Not sure if I agree with the consensus here.

This is a public blog that includes a section for comments. How is criticism coming from a reader any different than the criticism a writer/blogger directs at a public sports figure?

How is Lowell lambasting an Al Davis managerial decision any different than a commenter lambasting what he thinks is a misguided argument? The criticism comes with the territory.

I agree that there are moments when that criticism is undeserved. It may also come in poor taste. This happens. But, again, the same can also be said about the the work of some sports writers/bloggers.

There's alot of kids out there that aspire to play pro ball--most won't make it. If baseball lets guys get away with taking drugs how many kids are going to think they can better their chances by doing the same. For the money these guys make is being honest too much to ask? Anyone who defends the "privacy" of these idiots is just that...an idiot.

I just want reasons to back up the comments stated. I don't like the personal name calling..that's a waste of time. Would you agree?

I'm against the taking of steroids, of course. It's cheating. However, considering moral relativism, here's a scenario to ponder.

Say that you yourself are a marginal major leaguer. You don't know whether you will reach the majors and become wealthy or be a career minor leaguer and remain poor. You believe that steroids would likely boost your capabilities enough to make a major league club. Further, say that steroids are not specifically prohibited yet. Or that they are outlawed, but there's no punishment until you have multiple positive tests, which would take years, probably. The evidence that steroids are harmful is ambiguous, at best. What do you do?

If you answer that you would be a straight arrow, good for you.

By the way, were you crossing your fingers behind your back?

Hey Lowell, I think you are coming more toward a reasonable opinion here. You are right in saying the penalties should be harsh for steroid users from this point forward, but you are wrong about the penalties. First of all, it's meaningless to take away things like batting titles and records. Those are just words. You can't "take them away." Just like you can't "take away" Barry Bonds' 762 homers. I also disagree with penalizing an entire team for one player's steroid use. How would that work anyway? Let's say Prince Fielder fails a steroid test in spring training. Do you take away two of the Brewers wins from last year? I guess the Mets should be in the playoffs then. Do you take away two of their wins from the upcoming season? How can that be right?

The things you mention sound all fine and dandy in a blog or a column, but they just don't work in logistical terms.

The way to penalize players is simply to suspend them without pay. Money is what drives these guys to cheat in the first place. You think anyone would have taken steroids if they were giving huge contracts to players who led the league in stolen bases instead of home runs?

Money is the most appropriate penalty, and it's the one that easiest to impose logistically.

That is a good question and honestly I would be afraid of the long term impact to my body. I know there is the chance I could become rich and this of course would be a serious temptation for anyone. I don’t pretend to answer for everyone, but I think being rich with a serious health issue isn’t better than being healthy period. Obviously steroid use wasn’t outlawed back then and I think that is why some people (including Lowell) wouldn’t hold that against people in HOF balloting. Well I am certainly not without sin so I won’t be casting the first stone. But I do think we have responsibility to the next generation and I think we clearly need to clean this up. That is where my allegiance is. If Barry Bonds didn’t make the Hall I’m not losing any sleep over that. Mark McGuire…no way I vote for him. Morally I would not feel great about kids thinking this is acceptable because “everyone is doing it”. I don’t buy the excuse that “everyone is doing it”…ever. Back in the 80’s “everyone” was doing cocaine. Because “everyone was doing it” that didn’t change the fact it destroyed your body and people needed to be educated about that. Personally I wasn’t doing coke and I’m happy about that. You can say it’s a victimless crime at some level, yet we all know people were getting killed over this business and still are. We also know that insider trading is illegal and if you don’t get caught you will get rich. However if you do get caught you are going the way of Martha Steward. People DO get hurt by steroid use as well. At some level we all make our own choices…. but I can’t get behind rewarding anyone (including voting them into the Hall). This sends a message that steroids are the way to succeed to the next generation. (You and I know some kids will see it that way). For me that’s the litmus test. Would I want my kids doing what I am doing? If I don’t, well even if there isn’t a law against…there must be something wrong. What do you think?
BTW: I appreciated your comments. It's an opinion and you backed it up with your thoughts....I'm just doing the same thing here.

I do have a blog and I get criticized. I'll probably be criticized for my next blog about Bonds.

I would suggest that Lowell and the readers here take a good look at Jonathan Littman's article in Playboy, "The Persecution of Barry Bonds". Google it and read it, it's online. It gives the other side of the story. For example, did Barry Bonds take steroids? Well, the infamous "clear" isn't a steroid at all. The article goes into detail about how $55 million of your tax dollars were spent to essentially fuel an IRS agent's vendetta against Bonds.

Oh, but taking "clear" is cheating, you may moan. Taking any drug is cheating, you complain. There were 103 major leaguers who tested positive for steroids in 2003. That doesn't mean that only 103 major leaguers took steroids, but that 103 got caught. How many didn't take it near enough to the testing to be caught, or who used a masking agent to conceal it? How many took human growth hormone? Or some other agent? Or took it in 1998?

While the feds have spent $55 million to send Victor Conte to jail for a few months for laundering $100 dollars (yes, one hundred dollars, five twenties from an ATM) think of how many Wall Street crooks looted our country for trillions of dollars. Think of the pallets of money sent to Iraq that disappeared. And then think of the sins of Barry Bonds over steroids.

In spite of your outrage, Lowell, morality is relative. It always has been, always will be. Many people who shout "Thou shalt not kill" when it applies to abortion have no problem with capital punishment or war. Or vice versa. That's how human nature is. That's why President Bush, who owned the Texas Rangers while Canseco and his teammates were sticking needles in each other's butts, could use his State of the Union speech to target athletes using steroids as a danger to children. What you choose to write about is not based on a strict moral code. It's what bothers you, and that varies from day to day. I've never seen you rail that all 103 players testing positive for steroids in 2003 should have their records thrown out. Or that 2003 is so tainted that no records should survive. Or that someone should track down Ken Caminiti's MVP trophy and break it on your altar of outrage.

Is there anything to be outraged about? Yeah, the perversion of our justice system, because when there is no justice for Barry Bonds there is no justice for you or me.

Again, readers should track down and read Littman's article. It will open your eyes.

What is the URL to your blog Bob? By the way we might see eye to eye all the time but that was a good post.