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.