[LSC9901]

It appears that names are slowly being leaked out to the press of the 104 players who tested positive for drugs in 2003. Not sure if that is good or bad, but there is no doubt that for years to come the discussion of the asterisk next to the name will always pop up when it comes to HOF induction and for just the record books in general.

In a recent discussion i had about the asterisk someone said that it shouldn't exist since for that era most players did P.E. drugs. Not everyone agrees . Where do you stand in reference to the asterisk and why ?

[Bette]

An issue I have with it is those are the players we know about, the ones that get leaked. What about the ones that dont get caught??
So then I guess you can keep your record if you dont get caught.

[Gotham Dark Knight]

None should be given, because none can be given...

How do you separate records? If a PE pitcher pitched to a PE hitter? If a fence got moved in allowing 5 more homers one season etc...how do you take it into account?

What about Gaylord Perry? Confirmed cheater (spitball user) in the Hall?

What about the poor sap that played in the deadball era, with 450 foot fences?

This is not a case of Bonds breaking a record while he alone used PE...This is about Bonds hitting a dinger off a pitcher like Clemens who may also have been on PE drugs...

What is baseball to do? Wipe out the books for 10 -20 seasons? Hardly!

It is what it is, and its in the court of public opinion and writers as to the HOF...no asterisk is thus needed.

[LSC9901]

Can't the asterisk be used merely to denote that the record holder was a confirmed PE user and that that record may not be totally accurate in respect to those that didn't use drugs or at least never got caught and obviously couldn't beat the record even while on drugs.

[dmcwv9]

Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a confirmed PE user.