I think we as sports fans, need to get the facts about leagues rules straight before we go running around pointing fingers. I remember during the spygate debacle, I lost count of how many fans, AND paid so-called experts were attacking the Pats as cheaters for stealing signals. Meanwhile, stealing signals isnt against the rules, it's filming them that's against the rules (though every team does it, or did it I'm sure).
Same thing goes for steroids in baseball. When exactly did steroids become a violation in baseball ? If it became a violation starting in 2004 or 2005, then doing steroids prior to that asn't against league rules. I know it sucks, but baseball players have been trying to get an edge for over 100 years, whether it's corking bats, scuffing baseballs, spitballs, etc. Here's a blurb I found:
Nov. 13, 2003: MLB announced that 5-to-7 percent of 1,438 tests were positive during the 2003 season, well above the threshold, setting in motion mandatory testing for performance-enhancing drugs with punishments for the first time in Major League history. The first positive test put a player on a medical track that includes treatment and further testing. Otherwise, there's no punitive for a first positive test.
If you notice, this was AFTER the 2003 season ended. Meaning 5-7 % of MLB players were on steroids during the 2003 season, That's 72 players if you go with 5%, and 101 if 7%. Also, punishments for performance enhancing drugs STARTED in 2004.
So yes, it sucks, watching Barry Bonds during the 2001 season break the season home run record was amazing (I was living in San Francisco during that time), it's quite distressing knowing he was juiced up. Same with Mcgwire and Sosa in 1998. But we need to understand, steroids were not punishable by the MLB until 2004.
@ everyone who said the HR record now had a chance of being broke "the right way".
