Click here for more current events lesson plans matched to national standards.

Online NewsHour:
Bonds new home run record draws mixed reaction. 08.08.07

Steroids carry implications in Major League Baseball 04.03.06

Federal agents are cracking down on doping in professional sports. 01.01.04

Browse the NewsHour's coverage of sports and health.

Extra Links:
Top Story: Baseball Player Bonds Nears Historic Mark 05.24.06

Top Story: New Jersey Tests High School Athletes for Steroids 01.04.06

Top Story: New Designer Steroid Detected Among Top Athletes 11.05.03

Kevin Whitaker, a rising high school junior, argues that Barry Bonds and his home run record should be remembered for what they are -- a great player and an impressive feat in a new era of baseball.

The career home run mark is generally regarded as the biggest and most notable record in baseball, if not all of sports.

But when Barry Bonds hit his 756th home run earlier this month, breaking Hank Aaron's all-time record, the reaction from many members of the media was something like this: It is a sad day for baseball, Bonds' record is tainted, and Hank Aaron's legacy has been unfairly degraded.

August 7th was not a sad day for baseball; it was another notable moment in the game's illustrious history. I believe that once enough time passes to gain some perspective of the issue, Bonds will be remembered - rightfully so - as the best player of his era.

I will not argue that Bonds did not use steroids. When trying to defend him, many people have used the "innocent until proven guilty" defense, basically saying that, because we don't have absolute proof that he used steroids, we can't act as though he did.

However, even though most of the evidence that Bonds used steroids is circumstantial, there is so much of it - including leaked grand jury testimony from Bonds himself - that it becomes extremely difficult to argue that he didn't use steroids. I don't know for sure that Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs, but I feel safe making that assumption.

So, how do I defend the actions of a steroid user? Bonds never really did anything wrong. Before 2004, baseball had no rule regarding steroid use. Bonds could have stood out in left field in front of everybody and injected some steroids into his system, and baseball couldn't have punished him.

In 2004, there was testing, but no real penalty; a player had to test positive twice to be suspended, and people testing positive just once weren't announced publicly. So, although it was technically against the rules of baseball, there was no incentive not to cheat.

Baseball has denied that they knew about the steroid problem beforehand, but if it was as rampant as we have been led to believe, how could they not know? It seems very unlikely to me that nobody in the MLB offices knew anything about the steroid problem in baseball; rather, it seems much more likely that they decided to keep quiet.

After all, with McGwire and Sosa chasing down one of baseball's most famous records just a few years after a crippling strike, how would the public feel if they found out their heroes were using performance-enhancing drugs? The blame for the situation has to lie with the game of baseball itself.

People argue that Bonds violated our country's laws by using steroids. This is true, and morally, Bonds was obviously in the wrong here. But the reality of the situation is that the period from roughly 1994-2004 will be known in baseball history as the "steroid era".

Jose Canseco said that 85 percent of major league players in the late '90s used steroids, although it is very possible that he inflated that number to create publicity for his book. Ken Caminiti put the number at 50 percent, and Curt Schilling agreed.

The more important problem is that we have no idea who did and did not cheat. If we only punish Bonds, McGwire, and the other people that have been named for using steroids, we are effectively letting Jose Canseco and Congress define our view of the era.

The more rational approach is to say that, because we have no idea if any particular player from the era cheated, we have to just evaluate all of them based on their stats and throw away any suspicion that we might have of steroid use.

Bonds' record is not tainted, it is a product of his era. Bonds hit 756 home runs in an era when many people used steroids and more home runs were being hit. You can even make the case that Babe Ruth's 714 homers were a product of his era, because he didn't have to face any African-Americans or any players from other countries. It does mean that we have to look at the numbers differently when comparing players from different eras, but it does not mean that Bonds' record is "tainted."

So, in the end, what will Bonds' legacy be? The steroid cloud will follow him wherever he goes, of course. But he used steroids at a time when lots of other players did and it was not against the rules of baseball, and he was a better offensive player than anyone else who played during his time.

And as for Hank Aaron's legacy? History is not defined by numbers, but by people. Aaron will no longer be remembered as baseball's all-time home run king, but he will still be remembered as what he is - one of baseball's all-time greats.

--Kevin Whitaker will be a junior this year at Niskayuna High School in Niskayuna, New York. He is an avid baseball fan and he writes about high school sports for timesunion.com.

Do you have an opinion about this article? Or do you have a personal experience related to this article that you'd like to share with our readers? Click here to submit your story.

Debating The News
My Story
Editorial Page
Poetry

Click here to find out how your essay or poem could appear on NewsHour Extra.