American baseball legend Barry Bonds is (at time of this writing) seven home runs away from tying - eight away from breaking - his sport's most hallowed record: Long bombs in a career. Many are enormously upset about this, and do not think the achievement should be honored or even recognized.

Despite what some would like to claim, this has little to do with race. If Bonds was a surly white man whose neck and cranium had ballooned (along with his output on the field, suspiciously) in his late 30s, he'd be facing the same hostility. Mark McGuire is as white as they come, a veritable good ole boy, and his Hall of Fame credentials were doubted just as vocally (OK, maybe not as nastily) just this past off-season because of the same reason. His prodigious collections of hits, extra base hits and home runs are almost certainly (dear Mark McGuire legal team, please note the 'almost') the product of increased power and stamina derived from the use of steroids.

Many feel that the integrity of the sport is irreparably compromised by including such records, achieved through the wonders of modern pharmaceuticals. Babe Ruth didn't need that to be great, so the argument goes. These modern guys are cheating.

'Let us accept steroids, regulate them to prevent excess and shoddy pills, and stop pretending that the lads on TV operate under the same rules as the lads from the pub league'


Well, maybe. Then again, Babe Ruth never had to face at least half of the very best players, fielders and pitchers of his day. In da Bambino's day, whites played with whites and blacks played with blacks. Who knows how many home runs the fleet-footed Negro League fielders would have robbed George Herman Ruth of? Who knows how many conniptions sly and inventive pitchers like the young Satchel Paige would have given Ruth?

OK, you say, but what about Hank Aaron? After all, it's his record Bonds is about to break. Aaron has already made it clear that he will not dignify this breaking of his record with attendance, as holders of other sports records have done for their modern-day heirs. That is his right. However, it would be well to remember that Aaron played almost his entire career before the advent of pitcher specialization, middle relievers and closers who provide fresh arms and 100mph fastballs in late innings.

In Aaron's day, pitchers routinely pitched entire games. The Save stat had not yet been invented and the idea that a guy who pitches an inning a game could be a champion's most important player would have caused great mirth. I'm sure there's an exact number somewhere for the home runs that the great Hank Aaron knocked out against pitchers with very tired arms, who in today's game would never still be on the mound. I'm sure that number isn't small. Same goes for the Babe. So?

And what are steroids, really? I mean, Aaron, and definitely Ruth, also didn't have access to most of what we consider 'legit' sports medicine. Who knows how many homers Ruth would have hit if someone made him cut down – even a little – on the hot dogs, the beer and the broads, as today's management and media pressure would have.

Steroids are not some demon drug. At least not necessarily. They are a part of many of today's medications and pain relievers. When my eyes get sore due to prolonged use of contact lenses, the drops that were prescribed by my doc are steroids. Edgar Davids, the great Dutch footballer, has an eye condition, which is why he wears special goggles on the pitch. His eye drops were found to violate the doping rules – despite the fact that Davids and his then-club Juventus took great pains to try to ascertain the legality of the medication. He was suspended for many months, despite the fact that he was obviously not taking any dope for dope's sake – not for quick healing or more stamina. Didn't matter. Must keep the blood stream pure.

Well, I think it's time to adopt a more realistic approach. Steroids are here to stay. I understand the need to prevent the debasement of the game through store-bought, temporary physical excellence. I also understand the need to avoid demeaning the world of sports. We don't want our former idols, at 50 or so, looking all deformed. We also don't want them to suffer humiliating debilitation because they tried too hard to entertain us.

However, here are a few facts:

1. Steroids, as explained above, are a part of medicine. The question is dosage and reliability of ingredients.

2. Steroids, when used judiciously, can add years to an athlete's short career, and make those careers more productive – meaning more lucrative. Are we really going to tell professionals to forego maximizing their earning potential?

3. Steroids are not an unfair advantage. Everyone knows about them. Everyone can get them.

Therefore, the solution is not to ban them indiscriminately and insist that athletes not avail themselves of this useful tool. Rather, we should allow athletes to use steroids, and restrict only insofar as dosages and manufacturers. That way we also prevent the problem of championships decided in secret labs. You could get approval for a new and improved pill, 'clear cream'" or whatever, but your advantage will be fleetingly short, as approval of your new medication would entail disclosure of its formula.

The objection, however, remains that systemic use of steroids means the possibility of serious complications later on. After all, these concoctions simply haven't been around long enough to know what their long-term effects are. Well, let me tell you what has been around long enough to know about – professional sports, and the data isn't pretty. In practically every professional sport, veterans of the game tend to live less and suffer more pain in later years than your average citizen. The one exception to this is golf, but we're talking about games where sweating isn't optional.

In any case, the heroes of our imagination, the actors at our many theatres of dreams, have long since made the decision to trade life expectancy and some health for fame and especially fortune. Who are we to impede them in this regard?

Are we still fooling ourselves that, even without performance enhancing drugs, pro athletes don't already enjoy an insurmountable advantage over amateurs by merit of their superior medical care? What, a shot that'll make you heal faster is an atrocity, but a spray that'll mute the pain and let you finish the match – at cost of horrible pain afterwards, just ask any pro jock – that's fine? The team that has a better doctor, better medications and pays better surgeons and so on – doesn't enjoy an advantage already?

It is now widely accepted that the majority of baseball power-hitters in the 1990s used steroids to some extent or another. Only one has benefited to this extent. His name? Barry Bonds. I'd say it's about him, not his meds.

So let us accept steroids, regulate them to prevent excess and shoddy pills, and stop pretending that the lads on TV operate under the same rules as the lads from the pub league. Congratulations, Mr. Bonds. You may be an unpleasant jerk, but you earned that record, and I will applaud when you break it.

* I'd like to thank my friends John and Paul at the "Ornery American" forums for some of the observations above.