I guess I don't understand the whole asterisk thing. Wouldn't this be like putting an asterisk next to Maris' 61 HRs in 61? I understand that these are two completely different issues, but at the time at least some people thought it was good idea to do it to Maris.
Although, you may think so now, is it possible that your point of view may change?? What if there are no findings of steroid abuse?
Are we going to start labeling each homer as cheap for everyone that is hit when the wind is blowing out at Wrigley? What about when batters face horrible pitchers? Don't forget 1987, there was a big issue b/c everyone felt the ball was juiced. Any asterisks there?
Don't get me wrong, I find it hard to believe that these guys didn't take roids, but where is the proof?
Let whatever records there are stand. They will be broken.
Although, you may think so now, is it possible that your point of view may change?? What if there are no findings of steroid abuse?
Are we going to start labeling each homer as cheap for everyone that is hit when the wind is blowing out at Wrigley? What about when batters face horrible pitchers? Don't forget 1987, there was a big issue b/c everyone felt the ball was juiced. Any asterisks there?
Don't get me wrong, I find it hard to believe that these guys didn't take roids, but where is the proof?
Let whatever records there are stand. They will be broken.