Quote Originally Posted by Del Murder
I agree with that. You are only hurting yourself. Steroids don't help you see a slider or put the bat on the ball. The Bonds lovers will come out and defend him, and the Bonds haters will come out and bash him. In the end his stats will go into the hall of fame and the public will be left to judge what they will.
Steroids don't help eye coordination, but it does help your muscles to develop bat speed. That gives Bonds a fraction of a second more to think about the pitch thrown to him, and in baseball that's a HUGE advantage.

According to polls done by ESPN and CBS, most say Bonds stats should either be removed or have an asterisk next to them. While only 10% of the people believe Bonds should have those stats stand. I would say keep the stats, but have an asterisk. Why? Because baseball, football, hockey, and even basketball all had steroid users in past decades. Yet science didn't catch up until now.

Although people may think I'm biased when I say this, but players in the NBA are least likely to use steroids. Although there are big guys in the league like Ron Artest and Shaq Daddy, many of the players aren't nearly as bulked up as athletes of the other 3 major sports. And basketball isn't about strength, it's more about skill. You can still hit a jumper when you're 40 like you did when you're 20, with SLIGHTLY less accuracy. When you look at the physiques of the players in the league, they look huge(and they are, relatively speaking), but compare them to football players they're sticks. Does anyone remember Michael Jordan at the plate? He looked like a beanpole, but on the court he looked more muscular. The average weight for a player 6'6" in the league is about 205 lbs. It's almost 100 lbs. more for a player of similar height in pro football. Not saying NBA athletes aren't guilty of steroids, but they are highly unlikely due to the NBA's strict substance abuse policies.