When did Schilling start becoming such a loudmouth? Did it coincide with his move to Boston? It just seems that he always has something to say publicly about items like this. Even if I agree with some of his former statements, I find his likeability (from a fan perspective) dropping the more and more he opens his mouth.

I have tons of respect for Schilling as a player, and I respect his right to express his beliefs, whatever they may be. But, I can't say I haven't had my occasional doubts about his mental state. No one can change the past. Then again, maybe we should criticize Dennis & Callahan for asking such a bone-headed question. Or, maybe we should ask why we are giving credibility to anything that is said on the rumor mill that is WEEI! :)

When did Schilling start becoming such a loudmouth?

Oh, come on, AJ! You don't think the Yankee fans put the "Aura and Mystique appearing nightly" signs up during the 2001 world series for nothing, did you?

The first thing I thought of was that part of The Numbers Game (excellent book by Alan Schwarz incase someone has not read it) where the editor of one of the encylopedias starting changing numbers, making up or taking away from events that happened. It would be impossible to figure out if players were erased Men in Black style like Robinson proposes.

Didn't Doc Ellis pitch a no-hitter while under the influence of LSD? Does that get erased? And what about all the ballplayers who had drink during prohibition, I guess those records get erased too.

To respond to the last comment, I'd say that drinks aren't performance enhancers, but I think David Wells would have something to say about that.

Seriously, I don't think some people realize how useful it is for a batter or pitcher to "take the edge off" before a particularly stressfull game.

Curt is wrong. How are we going to decide whose stats were inflated by steroids and other similar substances? Baseball failed to address the problem in a timely manner. Are we going to eliminate all stars of the 80s and 90s? Do we just assume that Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds must have been "juiced"? Do we doubt all future record breaking performances?

But alcohol was prohibited, by a constitutional amendment. And there are some relievers who drink lots of coffee before they go in a game, just to get "up". Legal, but at least though of a performance enhancing.

We just have to face it, there never was a perfect time in baseball, accept the records as is and move on from here. Rigorous but fair testing.

I think what Frank Robinson and Curt Schilling are getting at has nothing to do with players from the past. What Rafael Palmeiro did was get to 3000 hits while in the middle of his appeal for failing the steroid test.
Take him off the list of 500 / 3000 players, and be done with it.

no

we need a new test for guilt or innocence

we ask any player who was ever better than replacement level or had a fluke year (except frank thomas and ken griffey because they never met jose canseco therefore they could not have used) if he ever used roids

if he says yes, we burn him alive at the stake to set a good example for The Children

if he says no, we tie him to a large stone and throw him in the ocean. if he drowns, he was innocent and we fish him off the bottom, break up the stone and sell the pieces on ebay. if he don't drown, he's guilty and he gets burned at the stake, too. after he dries off, that is.

and as for the record books, we wipe out their names and make up some numbers

I'm sitting here trying desperately to figure out whether or not Lisa was joking...

In any case, lather, rinse, repeat. It's silly to wipe the record books, what's done is done. Besides, there is still absolutley no study being done on how much PED's can help a professional baseball player. Baseball, along with hockey, is probably the sport which PED's would have the least effect on how well a players performs.

Still, there are no studies, no evidence of whether a season in which a steroid-induced Raffy hit 40 home runs would've been a 30 home runs season without steroids. Or a 39 home run season. Or a 20 home run season.

The problem with baseball is, it is so skill-based, that a study would be well-nigh impossible -- you can't duplicate the variables in a pitch, swing, and contact to any accurate degree. So how can you be sure if the ball is travelling 5 feet more than it would normally, or 50 feet?

Such a conundrum, yet people are so willing to call themselves experts and state their unwavering opinions. Sad.

As soon as Schill owns up to all of the times he "inadvertently" scuffed or cut the baseball in his starts, I'll take his self-righteous pontificating seriously. As soon as Gaylord Perry gets thrown out of the HoF as a self-confessed cheater, I'll take the ranting of various HoF members seriously. Until then, I'd appreciate it if they'd all STFU.

If you want to disregard the records set by players who have been caught, confessed to or are suspected of steroid use, you're perfectly free to do so. Talk of "erasing" statistics is asinine, and smacks of Soviet-style "corrections" to the historical record. The hits were hit, the games were won and lost, and players did what they did - how you view or rank those records is one thing, denying that they ever happened is something else entirely.