(KRT) We will never know whether Mark McGwire’s use of androstenedione helped him hit 70 home runs in 1998. We have yet to be presented conclusive evidence that steroids contributed to Barry Bonds’ late-career surge.
With or without the burden of proof, some believe asterisks should be attached to statistics produced during what is becoming known as the Steroid Era.
Eventually the role of drugs in baseball will fade from public discussion, but the seeds of suspicion have been sowed forevermore.
We may never know what impact performance-enhancing drugs had on baseball’s offensive explosion during the past decade.
Is it fair, then, to label a generation of ballplayers and all they accomplished?
It’s becoming an ethical debate in a society in which innocent until proved guilty is a founding principle. Based on statistical analysis and circumstantial evidence, should we be suspicious?
The answer is best discovered by taking a more academic approach. This is a subject that inspires strong emotions. If you look at the evidence as a future researcher might, you’ll find that convincing conspiracy theories have been built on shakier foundations.
Future historians will considers statistics such as the ones published in a recent Sports Illustrated article. They will learn that beginning in 1993, when the offensive explosion began, the number of home runs per game increased by 24 percent and hasn’t stopped since. In 2003 there were 49 percent more home runs hit per game than in 1993.
The 50-home run mark was reached 18 times in 122 years before 1993, which is the same number of times the milestone has been matched in the 11 years since.
They will learn that Roger Maris’ single-season record of 61 home runs stood like a monument for 37 years. McGwire’s new record of 70 stood for three seasons.
Babe Ruth and Maris had been the only two players in history to hit 60 or more homers in a season. Between 1998 and 2001, that total would be surpassed six times.
Scholars will search for answers to these statistical abnormalities. They will learn about how ballparks and strike zones got smaller when ballplayers were getting bigger through both legal and illegal means.
They will factor in theories about balls being juiced in the wake of a labor dispute that forced the cancellation of the 1994 World Series.
They will learn that Ken Caminiti and Jose Canseco admitted using steroids and claimed steroid use was widespread in baseball.
They will discover that McGwire hit 49 homers as a skinny rookie, carving out a place for himself as a legitimate power hitter 11 years before shattering Maris’ record in 1998.
They will weigh that against knowledge that “andro” is a steroid precursor that helps the body manufacture testosterone, and press reports from 2004 that claim McGwire lost 60 pounds after his playing days.
They will compare pictures of Bonds early in his career with pictures of Bonds late in his career while trying to place his unprecedented late-career home run surge in historical context. They will examine the relationship between him and close friend and personal trainer Greg Anderson, who was one of four men indicted in the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroid probe.
Decades from now, historians will conclude that wars have been started with less evidence than this.
Was steroid use the only factor in the offensive fireworks that came to define baseball at the turn of the century? No way, their reports will conclude. Was it a significant factor? There seems to be little doubt.
So, to answer the questions asked earlier in this space: Is it fair to label a generation of ballplayers and all they accomplished?
Future generations have always attached labels to past generations. In this case, the only difference is that we may be jumping the gun.
Dead balls, live balls and artificial turf have skewed baseball statistics in the past. Accomplishments from those eras should be considered within the context of the era in which they occurred.
In other words, when placed in the proper historical context, Frank “Home Run” Baker’s 11 home runs in 1911 are more impressive than Brady Anderson’s 50 in 1996.
Fair or not, placing people and events in historical context is what historians do.
The second question _ should we be suspicious? _ is best answered with another question.
Based on what we know, how could we not be?
___
(c) 2004, Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, Calif.).
Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

Author