Of course, Aaron's post-35 homeruns were aided by his moving from a lousy hitter's park to a great hitter's park.

They notice it, as well as the fact that you didn't see an explosion a player's offensive abilities after that age as you do with big Mac, bonds, etc. Bonds' HR totals are certainly suppressed by the fact that teams simply didn't pitch to him as they normally would have after the 73 year I would think...

Also over 28% of the Hammer's ABs came after he turned 35.

I firmly disagree with the claim that Robinson's "Cranky Old Man" bit is the result of jealousy or fear of moving down certain lists. The chances are much greater that he simply cares for the integrity of the game. Many fans feel the same way he does, and they have no records or legacy to protect.

Sometimes, its just about the game, and what's right for the game.

That may be true, Andy, but Robinson has a history of being one of those, "Players were better in my day," people. He had a really tough time early in his managing career dealing with players who he thought were not as good as he was making more money than he ever made. If you listen to Jim Bunning during the 2005 steroid hearings you hear the same thing.

...Of course, it's just impossible that records set in the 1950s could EVER be broken. 'Cause in the good old days, players were just better and baseball was purer and, damnit, America was better too.

Yeah, most of those rich scumbags today are cheaters. Hell, every hitter today with big numbers took this magic pill called "steroids" (sic) or is otherwise suspect, because there's just no way that hitters today are as good as the hitters of Frank's day or even before that. Sour grapes. Frank's been channeling that Dana Carvey character for some time now.

Give me progress at all levels. Outside of baseball, I'll take today over 1940 or 1950 or 1960 or, pick your year "back then": no thanks "colored" drinking fountains, no thanks Marlboro Man, no thanks Domino Theory, no thanks Ozzie and Harriet, no thanks baseball players as "owned" by their teams.

Baseball? For crying out loud, determine (we're moving in this direction) what PEDs will be banned, ban them, codify the penalities for testing postitive to them, and move on. For guys like Frank Robinson to fail to understand that players today ARE more "professional" than they were in "his day," well, that's on him. The competition's greater--which has lead to actual (read: very real) positive tests to banned PEDs by outlying players like Mike Morse, Matt Lawton, and a whole boatload of mediocre/no-name pitchers--and players today lift weights, play ball, eat right (maybe not Carlos Lee and Matt Stairs), watch film, practice, have laser eye surgery, have Tommy John surgery, and take perfectly legal and/or experimental PEDs all year long. And, yeah, some took (may still take...that's be foolhardy) HGH and or other PEDs or "cheated" better. Who? We all "know" who did it. So, let's get 'em.

The dirty secret to me doesn't even involve the players. You give professional athletes (humans in general) wiggle room (i.e. no real rules about PEDs) and wave millions of dollars at them or a nice pension for those able to hang around long enough and many will take advantage of the situation. Would you? The dirty secret is that the sporting press and baseball management and the owners and MLB KNEW what was going on and they didn't say anything. More importantly, they didn't DO anything, until it was convenient for them to do so. I remember "knowing" that Canseco was on steroids when I was in college (late 80s/early 90s), KNOWING it--come on, you the reader better remember that too--and it just went nowhere. It was a joke more than anything else.

I believe that McGwire made a monumental error in not taking the opportunity to drop a mea culpa on Congress; he had a perfect and forever lost chance to say, "I was young and I was influenced by him (Canseco) and I regret to say that for a few years there I took PEDs that I later realized were illegal." (Then again, I don't know what he did, I'm speculating and what he took may have been unknown when he took it, which would lead me to wonder why McGwire would be held responsible for not having the foresight to know what would be declared illegal at some future date.) Whatever, but he just looked like a little (big) baby and "Americans" don't like babies, no matter what generation you come from.

Awww hell, I gotta go to work. This will probably really piss people off, but I just see it as a stage and not even that big of a deal. All around me I see baseball fans and non-baseball fans just "knowing" that Bonds and McGwire are "cheaters." I see very little debate about what this "knowing" is or what "cheaters" are or what "steroids" are or what their effect actually is. And, don't give me that "they're just too big these days." I don't buy that for a second and gym members shouldn't buy it so easily either.

As an aside to this rambling, train-of-thought, and probably error filled post, anyone notice the NFL lately? Makes me chuckle that people believe that baseball's not as popular or as important as football. Please, the NFL his riddled with "steroids" and PEDs (hello Carolina Panthers...the TEAM) and it's not really given a second thought. Take about affecting the game, a game where raw speed and strength are of paramount importance! I think that most people "know" that PEDs are all over the place in the NFL. But, in a way, the NFL does it right. The NFL has a drug policy and when players are caught breaking it, they're punished and everyone moves on. Nobody cares about NFL records, no matter how great the league promotes itself as being. Everyone cares about MLB records AND baseball's still damn popular (see 2007 attendance figures).

Okay, have a nice day and no steroids, no caffeine, no chai tea, no power bars, no GNC, no Advil, no LASIK, etc. We all need to be pure like Frank Robinson, 'cause in his day, there wasn't any need to erase baseball (or history's) record book. Everything was just "right" back then. "Everyone knows" that!

Nobody notices because Aaron and Ruth didn't have the best seasons of their careers after age 35. Big difference.

Bonds' aging pattern is really in a world of its own. Nobody else has shown that kind of dramatic improvement from age 35 on.

Wow Kent, that was a great deal of effort to make a really bad point.

We know Bonds took PEDs--he admitted to it under oath. It has been well documented by the Chronicle reporters as well. Given Big Mac's horrible performance and Raffies' positive test I'd say Canseco's claims have been given an extraordinary boost in terms of credibility. You also must ask yourself what is more likely, as most rational people do.

Of course players today could break records of old--its HOW they are breaking them, HOW improbable their performances from one year to the next are, that really gives people a nasty taste in their mouths.

My response to Bonds' aging pattern is this: So. Yes, absolutely, it's incredible. But, I don't chalk it up to "steroids" as "the" answer. Do I believe that Bonds used PEDs to maintain his abilities? Yeah, I happen to believe that. Is it also possible that he really is so unique? Yeah, it is. Both? Sure. And, I fight the emotional side of fans who're so sure that the only way he achieved his milestones was by cheating...and that because they've determined that he's such a jerk--Is he? I don't know--that he should suffer for all of baseball's ills.

By the way, were his offensive numbers bad last year? Not really. And, no, I don't think that he was throwing down "steroid" milkshakes last year with everything going on. What are we going to say if Bonds keeps hitting and getting on base for the next couple of years? To me, it's just too easy to explain him away with talk of "steroids."

Fine Bill, but I disagree with you. I'm not saying that you're wrong or that I'm right, but I see the issue as one that's much "grayer" and much "dirtier" than what us baseball fans have previously seen. I think that I'm fairly well versed in the issues surrounding PEDs, I just see it differently than you seem to see it. What's more, I tend to think extra-critically when I see issues before me that "everyone" believes. I just don't think that life is so black and white.

Bonds? Does it really matter to you? He's done, the decision about him has already been made, just not by me.

I still absolutely refuse to believe in the "magic pill" theory. And on and on and on.

By the way, how is it that you know what Bonds said to the Grand Jury? Maybe I'm in the minority, but this issue is more important to me than PEDs and the "integrity of the game."

When exactly did steroids help McGwire though? He hit 49 home runs as a skinny rookie, and didn't start hitting home runs at a noticeably better rate than that until he was traded to St. Louis. (Well, his '96 was very good, then early '97 was back to normal, then with the Cardinals he was up to '96 levels and beyond)

His days with Canseco were some of the worst days of his career.

I think you have to prove at least 2 things.

First off, whether or not there is actual proof that someone used some sort of performance enhancing drug

Secondly, you have to prove whether or not it actually helped them statistically.

In McGwire's case, all you really have is Canseco's word, which doesn't mean much, as he's a proven liar. People point at McGwire's poor performance at that congressional hearing, but McGwire isn't exactly the greatest public speaker to begin with - how would you do, hauled up before a congressional circus show?

The statistics also don't back it up. If you look at when McGwire & Canseco were better, they were probably the worst parts of McGwire's career.

Even in Bond's case, there's not exactly clear cut proof. Yeah, I think he admitted to using certain sorts of creams, which might have contained them. But how much did they help him more than his lifting weights several hours a day?

And why is there a big disaparity between chemical enhances, and things like pine tar and corked bats? Kenny Rogers revitalized his career by using pine tar in Detroit. Yet he had no action taken against him at all...

Kent- thanks for pointing out that everybody who wasn't blind knew about PED use even back when it was occurring. To me, this is the most frustrating part of this whole argument- it seems that sportswriters were all too happy to ignore the issue when home runs sold newspapers, but now that it's recrimination that sells, they've suddenly adopted a holier-than-thou attitude.

Canseco was right about one thing- pro athletes are entertainers, and McGwire and Sosa (and others) gave the fans AND the sportswriters exactly what they wanted. It's wrong to pretend otherwise.

I'm not condoning PED use, but I think that the records set and accomplishments made in those years should stand, because the people in power knew about them and did nothing to stop them.

I recall Frank Robinson being asked in an interview in 1998 or 1999 about why so many home runs were being hit. He said the pitching was thin and the parks were smaller. Like every other former major leaguer I heard speak on the subject at the time, he failed to even suggest that the physical strength of contemporary players was a factor. For him to now take the position that it was due to steroids is totally hypocritical.

Will NFL players ever be held to this high a standard?