I think this is a matter of opinion. Morals are subjective and that ladder is not set in stone. People may believe that those rungs are in different places and there's no quantifer to prove any of them wrong.Originally Posted by Cyclone792
Again, this is all opinion. I'm assuming that when you say "baseball knows..." you mean the powers that be, the ones running the game. Yes, there are many who agree with you. There are also quite a few who do not, and are fighting for very harsh punishments against steroids in baseball. The debate of how bad steroids are rages there as much as it does on these boards.Everything I stated in post 129 is how baseball will rightfully view steroids, Barry Bonds and everything related. They will put steroid use and Bonds' steroid use in perspective with the entire arsenal of baseball crimes that can be committed. At that point, he may or may not be penalized. I'll tell ya this much, he sure as heck won't be banned or anything remotely close.
Baseball knows where steroids sit on that ladder, and it's much closer to where I'm claiming they sit than where everyone else believes it sits.
I do happen to know people who have stopped supporting baseball since the steroid controversy heated up. I know people who left the sport during the strike, were brought back by 1998, and have since left again in part because of steroids. Some of this isn't due to steroids alone, probably; some of it is probably due to prices and contracts and Kenny Rogers and what-have-you. Fans are fickle and always will be, and most of them generally don't carry with them the "historical perspective" you're talking about on a daily basis when they go to the ticket office. I know one man who grew up a die-hard baseball fan and looked forward his whole life to sharing it with his kids when he had them. His kids are little now and he has not bothered to introduce them to baseball, because he's concerned about the role models they should have. I don't necessarily agree with the whole role model thing, but that's not the point...my point is that it is turning people away. And the bigger the stars, the harder they fall, the more this effect willl take place. Barry Bonds is a huge star and this will have ramifications and it will turn people away. Or will it? I can't say for sure, because sadly I do not have a time machine. A lot of what you say about how this will be viewed in the future and in the greater context of the sport is interesting and educated and I think you may well be right, but it's a weak argument because there's no way to back up an opinion using arguments of things that haven't happened yet.Disagree and think I'm wrong? Sure ok. Pepper Selig's office with letters and stop supporting the game - most notably financially - until they treat steroid users with the penalties you believe they should hand down. If enough of the anti-Bonds, ban-all-the-players-that-use-steroids crowd does that, then I'll be proven wrong because then the game will crumble due to loss of faith by the public.
Gambling nearly ruined the game in the first two decades of the 20th century, because ultimately gambling undermines and eats at the public's faith in the game to the point that the public stops supporting it. That's how the game crumbles. When people rail against steroid users, then still attend a dozen games per year, the game isn't crumbling.