There are going to be outliers.

I knew Cleveland has a 50+ year championship drought for its three major league sports teams. What 30 For 30's Believeland made me realize is how rarely they even came close.

I won't detail these heartbreaks, but here's the rundown... 

1980 (NFL season): Red Right 88. The Browns lost a divisional play-off game. If they had won it, they would have had to beat the Chargers in the AFC championship game and then the Eagles in the Super Bowl. There isn't a compelling reason to believe they could have done both.

1986: The Drive. Had the Browns won this AFC title match, they would have had to face the Giants in the Super Bowl, and would have been underdogs.

1987: The Fumble: Had the Browns won this AFC title game, they would have played the Redskins in the Super Bowl and would have had an even chance of winning. This is the most significant football heartbreak.

1989: The Shot. Michael Jordan's Bulls eliminated the third-seeded Cavs in the first round of the NBA play-offs. As opposed to inevitably loosing in a later round to eventual champion Pistons.

1995 & 1997 World Series.  The Indians lost both, could have won both. One would have been great. This is how close Cleveland came.

1995: The Move: If anything, this was a "win" for Cleveland, because unlike other cities that lost a franchise, they got a team in a few years, and it was the Browns.

2010: The Decision: The Cavs couldn't attract free agents to make them better. That's why LeBron left. There aren't any "what ifs."

Of course, there were other disappointing seasons and playoff losses, but these were the gut-wrenching ones.

And the thing is, the Packers have just as many in the past 20 years alone. Five overtime playoff losses. Two others ending on the last play. And the 1997 Super Bowl loss. Without two Super Bowl wins in that span, Packer fans would feel cursed.

And that's because the Packers have had a solid organization (not to mention two long-tenured great quarterbacks) since 1992. No Cleveland franchise has had anything close to that level of stability for more than a few years at a time.

If they had, there would have been a heck of a lot more gut-wrenching disappointments. Plus a championship or three.

But I don't think this general organizational malaise is a reflection on Cleveland itself. I wouldn't find it an any more  or less attractive place to live than any number of cities. It just so happens that its three teams are running a little behind the averages.

Take the Chicago Cubs. It hasn't won a world series since 1907. Mathematically there almost has to be an outlier like that. One team (the Yankees) wins a bunch. Several others win more than the mean, some win an average number, some less than average, and some much less than average.

With the major leagues having 30-32 teams, an average franchise would win their conference about once every 15 years and the championship once every 30 years. It so happens that each Cleveland team is behind on championships in the last few decades. But in terms of its overall history, the Browns have won their "share" of NFL titles. Just not recently.

And any of it can change quickly. The Seattle Seahawks, which began play in 1976, didn't win their conference until 2005. Now, it has three titles conference titles and a Super Bowl win in its 40 seasons. It went from outlier to average in ten seasons.

Just as it's not surprising for a team to go over 100 years without a winning a World Series, so it's not surprising for a city to have three teams not win a title since 1964. It's random . It's like saying the Islanders, Mets, and Nets haven't won a title since 1986. That doesn't mean New York is cursed.

Ozzie Guillen's Possible Dilemma

Regarding the Miami Marlins manager who is in hot water for saying he "loved" Fidel Castro, as I originally posted on Facebook:

I don't know what's in Ozzie Guillen's mind. But I can imagine that if I grew up in Venezuela in the 1970's as Ozzie did, aware of U.S. attempts to treat all of Latin America like colonies for a century, and told that Castro in Cuba has thwarted U.S. domination, I might think, "Way to go, Castro" and that bit of affection might stick with me through the years, for the very reason that the Castros have STILL thwarted U.S. domination. Of course, if Ozzie tried to explain this, he would come off as not just pro-Castro but also anti-American, which is even worse.

Ethics in Sports: P.R., Profits, and Wins

About a year ago, Manny Ramirez was traded from the Red Sox to the Dodgers. He lifted that then-mediocre club to the division title and NLCS. Before then, however, he was accused of some awful things by the Red Sox, particularly quitting on the team.

Bill Simmons, a Red Sox and Manny fan, cast some doubt on this. What I couldn't get over about Manny is that he shoved a traveling secretary to the ground after he was told his unreasonable request might not be fulfilled.

That seemed to be an underrated story, whereas the fact that Manny didn't run out ground balls seemed overrated to me. If Manny is a jerk, or "bad guy," it is demonstrated in how he treats the support staff.

And then Manny gets caught with a banned substance after MLB had instituted drug testing, demonstrating that he's a cheater, and is suspended for 50 games.

Yet he's cheered by Dodger fans.

Meanwhile, ESPN radio has reported that Henry Aaron is urging Pete Rose's reinstatement to baseball. Even though as a manager Rose would bet his own team, which compromised his judgment. After all, what is a manager, really, but a manager of relief pitchers? Betting on games could have clouded Rose's judgment to the detriment of the best long-term interests of the team. (The only thing more compromising, of course, would have been betting on the other team.)

Then again, he has been banished for twenty years. Perhaps reinstating him now would be a gracious act.

Meanwhile, Michael Vick has been conditionally reinstated by the NFL. Two years ago, the nation was horrified by revelations of dogfighting. Now, plenty are saying "What he did was horrible. He served his time and paid his debt, let him play!" Others are saying, "If I were convicted of a felony, I wouldn't be hired back. Why should Vick?" Team owners, however, fear the public relations and ticket implications of signing this guy, not sure if he's still a pariah.

Daunte Stallworth killed a man while driving drunk and got less than a month in jail. The New York District Attorney, meanwhile, is demanding prison time for Plaxico Burress, who accidentally shot himself in the leg. Should Stallworth ever play again? Will anyone sign Burress?

Terrell Owens was kicked off one team and released by another even though he could still play. Quarterback Jeff George was out of the NFL before the age of 35, even though he could still throw a beautiful long pass. As late as last year, at 41, he thought he could still play. Neither of them had scrapes with the law.

What do these stories have to do with each other? To me, they just go to show that a commissioner's decision to suspend or reinstate an athlete, or a GM's decision to sign or release an athlete, has little to do with judging the content of the player's character. One player may be embraced despite a conviction; another released solely because of personality clashes. It's not about the interests of any particular individual or what anyone "deserves," it's about the interests of the organization. For the League, suspending and reinstating players is about public relations and profits. For individual teams, it's about public relations, profits, and winning games.

This may seem cynical, but I actually believe that p.r., profits, and wins really are the only impartial, ethical assessments to determine a player's eligibility. If I'm a team owner and Michael Vick is available, I'd be asking my marketing and p.r. guys what they thought were the implications of signing him. Backlash and protest? Public embrace? Only then would I ask my GM and coaches what they thought about Vick as a player and teammate.

What if I say, "No, I can't stand what Vick did. He doesn't deserve a chance?" Or what if I say, "Vick got screwed; the dogs were his own property. I'm signing him as a way of giving the finger to the prohibitionists of the world?" Either way, I would be putting my own narrow perspective above the interests of the club. This is unethical because it is willfully stupid - foolish.

Sometimes there are no right or wrong answers. Sometimes there are just business decisions, all of which are calculated risks, and they can be judged only by the results.

Where's the apology to A-Rod?

The famous Letterman joke was intended to be about the reputation of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility of two adult public figures: Alex Rodriguez and Bristol Palin.

It was allegedly perceived by some, like their mother Sarah, to be a joke about Alex Rodriguez having sex with her younger daughter, Willow Palin, a 14 year-old girl.

That is, the joke was perceived by some to make A-Rod out to be a child molester.

That's about the worst thing you can imply about a man, in a joke or any other context.

Being made fun of for a scandalous personal life may not please A-Rod, but he understands it comes with the territory. Being accused of being a child sex offender, however, is a low blow and doesn't come with the territory.

Think of it this way: what if, during the Lewinsky scandal, a late night talk show host made a joke about Clinton having sex with a well-known 14 year-old child actress of the day?

Would it be perceived more as demeaning to the girl, or as a vicious, "gone too far" assault on Clinton's character? Clearly, the latter.

Yet, those who believe the joke was intended to be about having sex with a 14 year-old, don't seem to think that A-Rod should be owed an apology as well. I haven't followed this closely, but no one seems to bring it up.

Letterman apologized to the Palins and all who were outraged by the joke, but not to A-Rod.

Perhaps because if Letterman apologizes to A-Rod, he'd feel reluctant to make jokes about him in the future.

By remaining silent, A-Rod is the only one who's conducted himself through this with class.

What a vote for Manny means

Sometimes policies are instituted only after the unexpected happens. That's understandable; no one can foresee everything. I won't fault Major League Baseball, then, for not having a policy prohibiting players who have been suspended for much of the season from being eligible for the All-Star game.

Out of respect for the game's rules, there should be a policy preventing suspended players from being All-Stars. At the same time, it's great for the game that the policy wasn't in place this year. In fact, this omission is probably the greatest thing to happen to Baseball in the entire Steroid Era, and should be the final statement about it.

That's because the player in question, Manny Ramirez, is very close to winning a spot on the All-Star team, even though he was in violation of MLB's performance-enhancing drug policy.

Before MLB instituted drug testing, several of the game's biggest stars had been suspected of using drugs that were banned by the government, but not banned by Baseball. The level of evidence varies from case to case, but the reputations of every one is tarnished considerably.

Yet, during the Steroid Era, from the early 90's until recently:

• the Player's Union shielded players and stonewalled any proposed drug policy
• the owners and Commissioner looked the other way
• the media marveled at the unprecedented feats, told the fans that steroids wouldn't be helpful for baseball players, and if anything speculated that it was the ball that was juiced.

This was before there was a steroid policy. Then revelations dropped that steroids were actually commonplace and that big stars were probably using. At the news of this, the media became angry, and began to wonder if such stars do not belong in the Hall of Fame.

But what was the opinion of the typical fan, whether casual or die-hard?

During the era, it appeared they had the same view as the Union, management, and media. At the same time, one may sympathize with fans who thought the game was on the up-and-up. I, for one, followed the 1998 home run chase with some interest. I believed what I was told about workout regimens and nutritional supplements as the source of weight gain and muscle mass. I believed it when the media said that greatly-improved strength through steroieds would hurt a pitcher's control and a hitter's swing. Steroids disrupt one's body rhythm.

Then the revelations came forth that steroid use was probably true, and my thought was, "Oh, so it was steroids. Huh. What will I have for supper today?" I couldn't work myself up to have felt cheated. I couldn't work up much disappointment in the accused players.

Also, I found it hard to even get worked up about the integrity of the record book. Rare feats, and the athletes who perform them, can only be judged relative to the era in which they were performed. Everyone knows that 1950's-60's NFL running back Jim Brown wouldn't be as dominant today, as he would have rivals just as big and fast, and the defenses he would face are much larger and more athletic. 1960's NBA Giant Wilt Chamberlain would face more big men today and better athletes overall. Wayne Gretzky's passing would be disrupted by more athletic defenders, and his shots by better goalies today than in his 1980's heyday. Their accomplishments only demonstrate how much better they were than the rest in their respective eras. But their stats, taken alone, prove nothing. That goes for baseball stats as well.

Finally, I grew disgusted by Congressional investigations. I have even defended the Steroid Era, even as I'm glad MLB is taking steps to end it.

And I think the votes Manny is getting is the final statement, the coda on the Steroid Era. The media vilifies ex-players who may have used when there wasn't even a policy. Manny admits to violating the policy that is in place, yet many fans still want him in the All-Star game.

That settles it. Perhaps the Steroid Era could have been thought of as total failure by the Union, Owners, and Media, with the fans the only victims because they were deceived by the "cheating." The votes for Manny have become the response of the fans: "It's okay. We were in on it too. Perhaps we didn't know then, perhaps we were naive, perhaps we looked the other way, but today, we don't care. The users didn't do anything we wouldn't have done in the same situation."

The fan is saying, "Let's forgive and forget. By putting Manny in the All-Star game, what we are really saying is, put the best players of the era in the Hall of Fame."

And I agree. More importantly, I insist on this:

• If you are a baseball writer with a Hall of Fame vote, and
  
• if you are are outraged about the "cheating" in the Steroid Era, and
  
• if you are convinced the superstars of the era with Hall of Fame numbers were users, and
  
• you refuse to elect them to the Hall of Fame, yet
  
• during the Steroid Era, you never raised a peep of suspicion or mounted an investigation, then

Do the honorable thing and resign your vote!

Those who are guilty of stupidity and negligence - i.e., incompetence - do not deserve a position that decides if another person is worthy of an honor. That is, an honorable baseball writer with a Hall of Fame vote and righteous anger against Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, or Manny, should think to himself: "Wait a minute. I suck as a baseball writer because I couldn't even see what was going on. Regardless of whether they deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, I don't deserve to have a vote!"

Instead of morally judging others, we are better off just moving on, with lessons learned but no regrets.

Maybe as a result of all this, baseball fans will learn to appreciate baseball statistics, and appreciate the great athletic feats, in the context of the era and stop comparing them to history. The Steroid Era will teach them to wake up and remember to judge a player not by history, but by his own era.

An Unbelievable Allegation

According to Jason Whitlock, Selena Roberts, then of The New York Times, helped lead the lynch mob against the Duke lacrosse team. (She turned out to be just as credible as The Times' Judith Miller was on Saddam Hussein's WMD's.) Whitlock concludes "I’m not going to trust her, not without some on-the-record reporting, not after what she wrote about the Duke lacrosse players."

I agree. Without on-the-record sources, allegations made in the book can be doubted because, as far as anyone knows, the messenger made up the message. I haven't read the book myself. That said, there is reportedly one allegation in the book that is particularly interesting. In blow-out games, A-Rod supposedly tipped off opposing batters on what the pitch would be, so that they would do the same for him and everyone could inflate their stats (except, of course, the poor pitchers). If this is true - and I don't believe it is - it is the worst thing A-Rod would have done. Not only for betraying teammates and compromising the integrity of the "game" (or at least the statistics and records), but most of all for punishing the fans.

If I were a baseball player with Hall of Fame hitting skills, I would commit myself to giving 90, maybe 95% effort. There would be situations where I'd just call it a day.

Of course, I wouldn't admit it publicly. I'd want the other team to think I'm trying. But I definitely wouldn't give full effort in blow-out games - whether I'm on the winning or the losing team.

If it's the 8th inning in a near-freezing day in April and my team is down by 7, I'm unlikely to run out every ground ball at full speed. Frankly, I would probably intentionally do less-than-my-best at the plate, in order to give the pitcher a false sense of confidence for the next time he faces me.

My feeling will be, sure, because there have been over a million Major League games played, the numbers tell us it's possible to rally from this deficit because it's been done before. But it's still unlikely. Everyone wants to go home - the opposing team, my team, the fans. Let's get out of here and make sure were not in the same situation the next day.

I would feel the same if my team is up by a huge lead. I would remain vigilant while on the field, in order to get the outs to put the game away. But I'd also be somewhat inclined to take it easy on the mediocre relief pitchers I'd face. Especially in inter-league games, or games in which my opponent is not a rival for a play-off spot. If we lose, it will be because of our own blown pitching, not because I didn't "give 110%" while at the plate or running the bases.

If my team leads the division by one game and is creaming the last-place team by 8, 12, 15 runs, they'll run out of pitchers. And what if the next day, they'll face the #2 team in the division? Instead of piling on to inflate stats, it's better to ease up on offense, do our job on defense, and allow this last-place team to be in a stronger position, pitching-wise, to face the #2 team the next day. Get the outs on defense and win the game. By the later innings, the game has to be close for the fans to even care. Give them a break - give the young adults the chance to hit the bars sooner, allow the families with bored kids to escape to the parking lot. Especially on cold or drab days.

If a game has not been competitive, my impulse in the later innings is not to pour it on to assure a victory, nor would it be to try to trigger a rally. It would, instead, be to just get it over with. Save my strength for when it counts.

I don't know what margin, at what inning, would prompt me to pull back on my offensive effort. If I played, I would find out, controlling also for home-away, relevance of opponent, time of year, the weather.

This is what I'd do as a manager. Pete Rose was banned from baseball because, as a manager betting on his own team, his choice of pitching in certain games might have affected the team's season for the long haul. So managers aren't expected to bring forth their best possible personnel every game. Just as no marathon winner is expected to be the faster runner in every 285-yard increment for 162 increments. I would argue that, for the same reason, it is wise for players to not bring forth their best possible effort every time at the plate.

A-Rod's alleged strategy was the exact opposite: if the game is out of hand anyway, let's prolong it. And betray my own pitchers in the process.

Even if I believed A-Rod was such a vain person to do this, I find it nearly impossible to believe that members of opposing teams would get in on the quid pro quo. Heck, I would publicly snitch on A-Rod just to add another distraction to the Yankee clubhouse and perhaps get him booted out of the league, so as to advance my own team's competitive chances.

So with this allegation even more so than others, I'm definitely with Whitlock. Roberts needs an on-the-record source (and in this case, more than one) for me to believe this.

A-Rod's the victim

It looks like the revelation of Alex Rodriguez's positive steroid test six years ago may have violated both confidentiality agreements and the Fourth Amendment. I would love it if the investigation of this leak ultimately results in Barry Bonds's exoneration.

I can understand - not condone, but understand - cops going a little overboard on the Fourth Amendment in obsessive pursuit of a serial killer or some such person. But you can't ascribe good intentions to investigators in the BALCO and Bonds cases. Steroid abusers harm nobody but themselves. One may object that they harm the integrity of Major League Baseball. But that's MLB's business, not the government's, and MLB didn't take action against steroids until a few years ago.

An emailer to ESPN this afternoon says that A-Rod isn't sorry for having used illegal substances, he's only sorry he got "caught." But that's the thing: he didn't get caught; it's more accurate to say he was exposed through illegal means. Confident now that he would never test positive for steroids, and also confident now his positive test result from years ago has been destroyed or remains confidential, he could lie and tell Katie Couric that he's never taken steroids. Sure, it's a lie, but it's a lie about something that was nobody else's business.

Imagine Joe Blow is asked on 60 Minutes whether he ever had an affair. He says no. Then his psychiatrist comes forward to say that Joe Blow did have an affair, after which Mr. Blow admits that, yes, indeed he had and is very sorry.

It does no good to accuse him of only being sorry the affair was discovered. It is more likely true that he was sorry that he had it in the first place, which is part of the reason he didn't want it discovered: it wouldn't do any good for anybody, including himself. The real crime in this case is not the adultery, and not lying about it. It is, rather, the contractual breach of confidentiality on the part of the psychiatrist.

Likewise, that A-Rod used steroids should come as, at most, a mild surprise. The real scandal is not his behavior, but the leak that exposed it.

I don't condone steroid use. Because A-Rod was presumed "clean" and seemed destined to break the all-time home run record, maybe karma caught up to him. But if that's the case, karma wil also eventually catch up to the leakers and prosecutors in this unethical and unconstitutional war on steroids.

McCain on steroids

John McCain was on (by phone) ESPN's Mike & Mike in the Morning show today; what I saw was an abbreviated "Best of" version on ESPN2 this afternoon. He was asked about government involvement in sports. He said he was "reluctant" to get involved and thinks, generally, the federal government shouldn't get involved.

Well, that sounds like the right thing to say, but it doesn't seem to be consistent with my memory of McCain's behavior as Senator. If I recall, McCain always seemed to be the first to hold hearings on issues like boxing and steroids in baseball.

And indeed, McCain did say that he didn't want to get involved in the baseball steroids issue, but the owners and union were doing nothing and the people were angry they weren't doing anything.

But why should that justify government involvement?

If baseball fans were so upset about steroids, they could have done something about it. They could have stopped buying tickets and stopped watching and listening to the games.

In the wake of Jose Canseco's revelations, Congress could have done nothing and let the free market work. It didn't need to grandstand, embarrass some superstars, and pressure MLB to do something. It could have just let the issue alone and see if the public really did care about steroids. And if the public remained happy with steroids in baseball, what of it? Congress had more important concerns to address.

After all, the fans are the ones who voluntarily pay the tickets; baseball isn't a staple and no one is forced to go to or watch the games as a matter of survival.

McCain is as "reluctant" to meddle in the market in the same sense that he's "reluctant" to go to war. The reluctance is theoretical; in practice what he does is look for an excuse to meddle.

(And if McCain voters come across this and think that I think Obama would be any better, well, I don't.)

Pleading the Tenth

Has anyone ever refused to answer a question from a federal inquisitor on Tenth Amendment grounds? I don't know, but I'd love to hear it from Roger Clemens when he testifies at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee next month:

"Mr. Chairman, I have read the Constitution and it does not grant you authority to ask the question or hold this hearing on my alleged steroid use. Therefore, I will exercise my rights as an American citizen under the Tenth Amendment, and my natural rights as a human being, and refuse to answer it.

"But let me clarify one thing: I do see under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce among the states and with foreign nations. I will assume this includes the selling of drugs across state lines. I do not believe any drug should be regulated by any government, but I respect the legitimacy of such legislation under the Constitution. I will thereofre affirm that I do not know how steroids, or any other illegal performance enhancer, is produced or distributed. I have no knowledge of drug trafficking or drug smuggling at all, and even if I knew someone who dealt drugs, I never saw him or her transport drugs across state lines. To the extent a Congressional hearing on steroids is Constitutionally legitimate, I do not have any information to help you. To the extent this hearing is illegitimate, I refuse to cooperate.

"My non-cooperation does not mean that I endorse performance-enhancing drugs in baseball or anywhere else. Major League Baseball is a private organization, and has the right to ban steroids among its players, and suspend or fine those who are caught. I see the merit in this, because young men shouldn't be caught having to choose between a huge paycheck today and poor health tomorrow. Steroids could also disrupt the competitive balance of the game, if it becomes dominated by steroid-induced strikeout pitchers and power hitters who are intentionally-walked all the time. Much of the excitement of baseball as we know it today - base-running and chasing balls in the field, would disappear.

"So I agree that Baseball should ban steroids, and Baseball has banned steroids, and is taking measures to upgrade its enforcement. It does not need the help of this committee. Tens of billions of dollars have been squandered on waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq, yet you insist on holding a hearing on a problem that the private sector is taking care of by itself.

"The Constitution you have sworn your allegiance to gives the Congress few and specific powers. Prohibiting individual drug use is not one of them. This is clearly left to the states and to "the people," as the Tenth Amendment says. If steroid possession or use should be illegal, the states should have laws and enforce them. But better yet, if drugs are so bad, the private sector could provide drugs tests, and indeed much of the private sector, including baseball, already does. But we do not need a federal police force and federal prisons warehousing thousands of non-violent drug dealers and drug users. The whole War on Drugs, of which the War on Steroids is a part, is a Constitutional travesty. I will not defend steroid-dealers or any other kind of drug-dealer, but if they are bad, you members of this Committee are much worse. For they are out to make a buck from willing customers, whereas you people are out to take away the freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves, without their consent.

"Most of this committee is Democrat, and I bet most of you Democrats and maybe a couple of Republicans here are [use hand gesture to signify quotation marks] "pro-choice." If it is a Constitutional right for a woman to pay a doctor to kill a human life inside a woman's womb, why do individuals not also have a Constitutional right to take any substance they please, including steroids or some mind-altering drug?

"The federal republic was formed to provide an internal free-trade zone and a common foreign policy for the states. In few cases, like counterfeiting or treason, does the federal government have the authority to arrest and try individuals. Steroid use may be dangerous. Steroid use may be morally wrong. But steroid use is none of your business.

"I do not recognize the legitimacy of this committee hearing. I will now leave."

The Case for Bonds

Barry Bonds tied Hank Aaron's carrer home run record tonight. Assuming he is guilty of steroid use/abuse, along with everyone reasonably accused of the same, I believe Bonds, by the very fact of using steroids, advanced the best interests of baseball and deserves to be in baseball's Hall of Fame.

Here's the situation: steroids apparently elevated Ken Caminitti into an MVP. Steroids also gave Jose Canseco not just an MVP season, but a near-Hall of Fame career. Steroids also allowed Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa to put up not just record-breaking stats and MVP-level honors, but Hall of Fame numbers. And also gave Rafael Palmeiro Hall of Fame numbers. We can also assume that Ken Griffey Jr. and Frank Thomas, two of the other premier hitters of the last twenty years, never took steroids.

What Bonds does is, he answers the "what if" question. Held in higher regard than even Griffey and Thomas, a reasonable question must be asked: is Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa can put up these numbers, what would a sure-fire Hall of Fame hitter like Bonds have done? Thomas and Griffey had too many up-and-down and injury-prone seasons since the ridiculous McGwire/Sosa years of 1998-99, and weren't doing steroids anyway.

But Bonds?

He took steroids, and surpassed even Babe Ruth as the most dangerous and feared hitter of all time, at the very age he should have been declining. Since he had earned Hall of Fame credentials even before taking steroids, we don't have to answer the what-if question.

Barry Bonds, an undisputed Hall of Fame-caliber hitter before ever taking steroids, had sick, cartoonish stats never seen before in baseball when he did take steroids. He became the best hitter ever at the very age he should have been declining. Whereas without steroids he would have cracked the elite 600 home runs club, with steroids he shattered the single-season mark and prolonged his career long enough to break the all-time record.

Steroids could elevate good talents like McGwire and Sosa into players with seeming Hall of Fame credentials. But those achievements are overshadowed by what Bonds, a legit Hall of Famer, did when he took steroids. He was much, much better. He was too good, in that walking Bonds always seemed safer than pitching to him.

So while I think Bonds's claim on the all-time record is "tainted" by steroids, that's not the point. The point is Bonds proved that steroids can allow an individual player to be literally too good for the game, which makes a steroid crackdown necessary.

The last several years of Bonds's career goes to show what an all-time great can do with an illegal edge. It is a sign that if baseball doesn't crack down on steroids, future great hitters will shatter the single-season and career marks of the all-time greats. And that will destroy much of the appeal of the game. Bonds's contribution to baseball will not be the home run record, but that he proved baseball should be played by humans, not super-humans.