Number 755.....

interesting question. I'm not sure of my thoughts on the matter. Today, we have better shoes, better uniforms, better training, and yes, steroids. It seems that we learn new ways of doing the same thing, often with "better" end results. Look at bicycle racing. In the days gone by, the racers used to smoke cigarettes while pedaling, to give them the rush of energy. It seems that athletes are always looking to get stronger and do more, or do it faster. Steroids, in my opinion, are just a part of that vicious cycle of wanting it all now. To tie the record, Bonds must be a pretty decent hitter, as none of the other steroid guys have tied it, YET. I think that when we begin to compare one player to another, it becomes difficult, even without steroid usage. What was different when one guy was playing vs the time when another guy was playing? Each player has unique circumstances. There is so much more than steroids involved in this record. Look at the number of games being played in today's sports. There are many more opportunities at bat, when the sport is played almost year round. I find it very interesting that we, as a society, say where we draw the line in the sand, for that which we think is acceptable. Should a player in basketball, who broke a record for scoring this season, fully utilizing the three point line, be considered an lesser important in sports than someone who set the record without having a chance at sinking a three pointer due to the lack of a three point shot? Again, IMO, you cannot equally compare different athletes, no different than you can accurately compare the beauty of the smell of lovely-scented flowers. Each is unique.

All I can add is that my son, who has followed and admired baseball almost all his life, is sickened by Barry Bonds and has changed the channel because of the news.

Hank did it on Steak and Eggs.

I may be wrong on this, but back when Bonds went from average Joe to the muscle bound player he is now, there was not a clause in neither major league baseball's nor the union's contracts prohibiting the use of steroids. Was it moral? No...but that's my opinion. Was it illegal at the time? Apparently, not. The rules have since changed. The big question is did he use them after they became illegal? If so and if it can be proven, then by all means, nail him to the wall. If he didn't, he sould come clean. Personally, I think he used them, and at some point it will all come out. His reputation is already damaged close to the point of Mark McGuire's....

Hank Aaron will still be the best in my eyes. Barry will forever have a * by his name.

On a side note A-Rod just hit his 500th and well on his way to besting Bonds' potential title.

Barry Bonds ties Hank Aaron on the all-time home run list. Do you consider Bonds the rightful heir to greatest home run hitter of all-time ? Will he go the Hall of Fame upon eligibility ?

:scratch: Good question g44! I've thought about this quite often, and agree with Sj about the differences of today and yesteryear and his points of comparison between the two......but I still feel unsure and the whole act of comparing seems unreasonable. It helps to hear other's opinions.

Kat

not a baseball fan here....

not a baseball fan here....

But Audie, they wear tight pants... and they swing

Wow...this didn't take very long! Wonder what will pop up when he breaks the record?