i would also add that in my view, sports are living cultural artifacts that are evolving and dynamic, not static and fixed. so after a few decades, it becomes meaningless to compare the current "greats" to the past greats. they are apples and oranges.
better to compare players against their contemporaries or near contemporaries. on those grounds, i agree with you that Bonds is the best hitter.
in this sense, if most contemporaries are steroid abusers, then it doesn't matter if Bonds also takes roids. however, it is a skewed comparison to stack such players against those of the past, who did not have the opportunity to take roids or the benefits of modern training.
i don't even think the moral issue is a big deal.* after all, many players in the old days were corrupt and involved in game fixing. this is probably rare today, not because players are more "moral", but because they already make so much money through their legal contracts that they don't need to cheat.
likewise, some players of the past probably would have abused roids too if they'd had the chance.
* as in politics, the coverup is often worse than the crime. |
