No it isn't. This is a matter of basic English, Stu.
Steroids were against U.S. law, and a prohibited drug in baseball since at least 1991, when Commissioner Vincent added it to the list (see Mitchell Report). What kind of exercise is like that? Yeah, it's hard to tell the exact percentage of effect steroids has on offense, but that's part of the disruption of fair play that steroids brings. Never have to consider that if they weren't there.
You can ignore surveys of opinion on the subject if you want, but the reason why is fairly clear and it's not what you're saying. I'm one of the people who came back with my money in 2000 after being turned off by the strike, and my money reflects my enjoyment of the game, not my perception of the problem steroids presents. Your interpretation of what attendance says about people's views on steroids is a reach, to put it pretty mildly.
Look when you say any sports records are important to the general population of America, which you did, you’re wrong. Whether or not you specifically used the word “sacred” is unimportant, your basic statement was 100% wrong, and quibbling over whether or not what you said equates to “sacred” is just dodging the point, the point being that baseball records don’t mean a damn thing to anybody on the planet who isn’t a baseball fan.
Until there was testing and punishment steroids were functionally not against the rules. And that didn’t happen until 2002 (see the Mitchell Report).
Part of your problem is that you think fair play has anything to do with this. MLB is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, fair play has no place in something like that. “Chicks dig the long ball” isn’t just a punchline to a mediocre joke, it’s a marketing reality. Home runs are good for the business of baseball, that’s part of why the league cared so little about steroids.
Sorry the reason why is PAINFULLY obvious and it is EXACTLY what I’m saying. TV ratings and attendance and revenue had their biggest climb of the last 20 years during the home run derby with McGuire and Sossa, the steroid fed home run derby, The reality is people don’t care about roids. There’s no reach about it at all, actually you just ADMITTED you don’t actually care about the issue right here “my money reflects my enjoyment of the game, not my perception of the problem steroids presents”. See you spend money on the game because you enjoy it, and your perception of the steroid issue doesn’t play into that, in other words you don’t actually care about the steroid issue. Which is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying about the masses, they don’t care about steroids, they like the game. The fact that part of the game is an increase in home runs that more than likely has been fed on both sides of the plate by steroids is something they ignore, because they like the game and don’t care about steroids.
Jack,
“...You can ignore surveys of opinion on the subject if you want, but the reason why is fairly clear and it’s not what you’re saying. I’m one of the people who came back with my money in 2000 after being turned off by the strike, and my money reflects my enjoyment of the game, not my perception of the problem steroids presents. Your interpretation of what attendance says about people’s views on steroids is a reach, to put it pretty mildly.”
Your assessment is spot on....I came back from the strike in 2003, when the Cubs were winning, solely for that reason...others have other reasons, but the STRIKE caused the decline in Baseball attendance, not stearoids!