[nanwynnfan]

I'll reiterate what I said at the top of my post: It was submitted in the interest of sharing information.

In any debate, a topic can be viewed from any number of perspectives: in this instance - performance in a competitive sport at its highest levels; records and record keeping; nutrition and training regimins; protocols and prescriptions and risk-reward benefits; morality, the law; legislations; regulations and rule making; enforcement; social standards and expectations, and myriad other considerations, such that there are many more facets than one could imagine.

In this thread I have attempted to provide facts, with links to support them; to explore statistical comparisons in terms of age and rates of offensive production; to draw timelines of legal interpretations of substance abuse; to consider the nuances of substances categorized as "controlled;" to consider the stated legal confusion over the entire topic; and finally to consider the motivations of players to excel, and the willing dilemna of MLB in addressing a problem which really took roots as decided cheating in other sports, and in a milieu in which international, allegedly amateur competitions were involved.

If doctors, trainers, lawyers, chemists and geneticists can debate an issue; and a college professor [two, in fact, to my knowledge] can lay out statistical analyses that debunk the steroid-baseball link as overblown in side effects and performance benefit, I am disiclined to be judgemental, especially in the absence of a punitive code prevailing in the background.

As far as new challenges to suggested slivers of the data I've provided, I have no intention of responding to them, a futile effort in that it's like shoveling **** against the tide, or like a puppy fixated in chasing his own tail. The actuarially-challenged have better ways to allot their remaining time.