Absolutely. This was really my point, that there were so many differences between then and now as to make statistical comparisons of individual players isn't worth anything. I could have used the example about other professional sports becoming more popular just as easily as the example I used for the same purpose.
So there is little validity to the argument that steroids are bad because they make such comparisons less valid, because such comparisons are invalid anyways.
2. Steroids DO skew the comparison, because they skew a player's comparison to the rest of the league during HIS time, which, as I stated above, is the only way to make comparisons across eras (ie Ruth vs his League when he played, compared with Bonds vs his League when he played). Without steroids, Bonds would never have had a 'Ruthian' 5 years where he was head and shoulders above everyone else in a way that was only matched by the Babe....