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....
1. Yes, they are. My point is that they shouldn't be.
2. If steroids weren't against the league rules, however, there would not be any skew because they would be equally available to all players. From all the evidence that has been released lately, it seems like that's the case anyway.