I don't know, I mean, I like watching baseball, I'm trying to follow the WBC and everything, but when I hear people talking about how this is bad because they can't compare the players of yore to guys like A-Rod and Santana, I just kind of turn my ears off, because it's not really a sensible complaint.
There are a million reasons why such comparisons aren't worth a dime, in my opinion, and steroid use is one of the smaller ones. I mean, can I go around saying that Ruth's records shouldn't count because he had it easy not having to play against black players? That he played against an artificially thinned talent pool? Of course I can't. The game was different then. You can say that Ruth was the greatest player of his time, and that's about all you can say. I know that doesn't sell many volumes of the baseball encyclopedias, but that's just the way it is for me.
So given that steriods are being used anyways by most players, that they're not terribly dangerous to adult males, and they players seem, by and large, to be okay with using them, I don't really see a problem with allowing their use.
Secondly, the only valid comparison is the comparison of a player against his League competition, during his time. Crunch the numbers, and you'll find that there isn't even a close second. Ruth revolutionized the game by out-homering entire teams during much of his career. Oh, and he could pitch a little bit, too...