Asterisks on Baseball Records

[JoeRedskin]

Brud, TAFKAS - Generally, I agree that if it ain't illegal at the time then using a supplement shouldn't in any way be reflected in the records.

However, it is my understanding (from either a SI article or a Times mag article - and no, I don't have either link) that the steroids in question were on the "Controlled Dangerous Substance" lists of the time. As such, they could only be used if prescribed by a physician. Just b/c baseball didn't test aggressively doesn't mean the players didn't act illegally. And just so I am clear, if a player was determined to be using steroids illegally - would they have been allowed to continue playing or would they have been sanctioned in some way? I honestly do not know what the policy was in the 90's.

IMO - Anyone shown to be using a performance enhancing substance illegally should not be allowed to be a "record holder" if the record may have been aided by the illegal drug use.

This does require proof that a) the player used steroids and b) he did so in contravention of the law or of MLB rules. Record holders from the 90's should not ALL be "officially" tainted b/c some (or even a majority) acted illegally.

Of course, in the forum of public perception (a very different court) - it is perfectly acceptable to have doubts of some of these records unless and until the holders show that they did not help themselves through easily available and, apparantly, readily condoned steroid use.