Josh,

I agree almost completely with your thoughts on Barry Bonds. I can't help but want to place more responsibility with the players' union and Bud Selig for not creating an environment where performance-enhancing drugs are simply banned. The penalty should be immediate...not "1st time...2nd time....etc.” The asterisk should be used in the record books if it is proven that drugs were used.

Glad you covered it.

Look, fans don't know what to believe anywhere. There could be a huge asterisk by all of sports. Look at the NFL. Perriman for San Diego tests positive for steroids and goes on to play in the Pro Bowl. I know people talk big about how they hate these athletes for cheating but do they really? You still watch major league baseball thus reinforcing their poor drug policies, along with the NFL & NBA. I mean if people really cared and wanted to make a difference, stop watching, stop paying for tickets, stop buying merchandise, stop watching ESPN, stop reading SI, etc. Until people make a stand, get used to it. And to think that college is pure would probably be a mistake. How many times in your four years at Brandeis did you get tested for drugs? Kids are getting recruited in the 8th and 9th grade, do you really think that there is not some type of pressure for increased performance standards?

JM, I enjoyed all of your comments today. I think you have brought interesting thoughts and perspectives to the table, so thank you for that.

You're right, I wasn't tested during my time at Brandeis. While Division III is currently in the midst of a pilot program testing for use of performance-enhancing drugs, it is difficult to imagine every student-athlete at every school being tested in the future. The cost is just too great, especially when we're talking about some of our smaller programs. But it has been recognized as an issue in college programs, and resources are being devoted to fixing the problem.

I agree the cost for that would be extremely high for either universities or the NCAA. My only point would be it is very hard to tell if college is truly clean. It would be hard to imagine it is with what we see in the pros. Just about everything has a trickle down. If you really look at the cases in pro sports the drug testing has only been around for a short time so how long have there been problems? Are we better off not knowing the cases with the universities? I am not saying there is a scandal but we may never know because a lack of testing. It's just something to think about with these cases. Maybe fans really don't want to know.

In reality every era, not just player, is tainted. How can we say Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player ever if blacks were systemically denied the opportunity to compete during Ruth's era? Roger Maris record is tainted because he played a 162-game season, while Babe Ruth played 154 games. On the flipside, how many more home runs would Hank Aaron have hit if pitchers like the Neikro brothers and Gaylord Perry didn't doctor baseballs?

The problem with cheating allegations is that speculation, even circumstantial evidence, does not always translate into a conviction or finding. Also, don't forget the most damaging information we have about Barry comes from illegally leaked grand jury testimony.

You wrote, "I do feel more comfortable that [steroid] use isn't as rampant at the NCAA level. Maybe I'm naïve, but I believe college games are generally more pure, and that makes me feel good."

Applying "truthiness" to an argument is not very compelling. I would say college athletes who desire to play professionally have an equal, if not greater, incentive to cheat.

The relevant measurement is not 380,000 student athletes (most of whom will "go pro in something other than their sport" and therefore don't have the same economic incentive to cheat). If you compared legitimate pro prospects against those currently in pro sports, my hunch is there would be little difference.

In the end, everyone (even jerks like Barry Bonds) deserve the presumption of innocence. It's not a good standard to suggest that Bonds is guilty even if you can't prove it, just as it's not appropriate to condemn a high-profile program based on media reports. Just my opinion!