As sure as a fastball sizzles and pops into a catcher's glove under a warm Arizona or Florida sun, it's back. Baseball? No, the steroids scandal. At least it will be soon enough.

And where would baseball be without a good steroid controversy surrounding one of the game's greatest players as he begins his assault on one of baseball's most celebrated records held by the most celebrated player of all time? Forced to pay attention to the game and enjoy the moment, I suppose. But that's not going to happen when Barry Bonds steps up to the plate--doubtless to a cavalcade of boos--on April 3 in San Diego, just 7 homers shy of breaking Babe Ruth's home-run record for left-handed hitters.

No, digging into the box with Bonds will be the ever-tiring media chatter surrounding his Kerry-esque explanation of steroid use ("I never knowingly took steroids") and whether or not his career--and other MLB players--accomplishments are legitimate.

In short, it's hogwash. And that's putting it nicely.

Nearly all aspects of the controversy--including fan and media reaction, the contradictory medical and physical evidence, the flawed MLB testing policy, lack of simple baseball statistical support, the "epidemic of steroids in baseball" hyperbole and the MLB suspension policy--have been ripe with speculation, conjecture, rumor and rhetoric that has been either underreported, over reported or just plain ignored by columnist after columnist, and report after report.

And why should it stop? Because it is wrecking and tainting the brilliant and distinguished careers of many of the game's top players: Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmiero, to name just a few. This is not to excuse a player's use of performance-enhancing substances (alleged, in many cases), but merely to point out the disproportionate reaction of the fans and media who little evidence to support their arguments.

Over a series of posts, I will dissect the controversy and attempt to expose aspects of it that have mislead the baseball-loving public and helped put it into an almost needless, self-righteous froth.

"Steroids use in baseball is epidemic"

So warned Seattle Times sports columnist Steve Kelley. He was not alone in that thought. Talk show hosts and sports columnists around the country called steroid use "rampant", "widespread" and claimed the sport was "awash" in steroid use. And as now deceased and former 1996 NL MVP and admitted-steroid user Ken Caminiti said, "At least half the guys are using [steroids]..."

But a funny thing happened on the way to the ballpark after testing began in 2005....

The numbers didn't support any of the claims.

Here are the facts:

There are 30 teams in MLB with 25-man rosters, totaling 750 players. To date, 12 major leaguers have been caught using a banned substance for a total percentage of 0.016%. Or, 1.6%. And let's throw out the Texas Rangers' Agustin Moreno and the Seattle Mariners' Jamal Strong, both of whom are really minor leaguers. The number then dips to 0.013333, or 1.3%.

Expand it to a 40-man major roster totaling 1,200 players, counting Moreno and Strong back into the equation as a part of the 63 minor leaguers who've tested positive for substance abuse, for a total of 75 major and minor players who tested positive. The total? 6.2% (depending on whether or not those minor leaguers are counted and tested under the 40-man roster, and let's just assume they are.) According to Lee Jenkins' article in a July 2005 New York Times, "1,000 drug tests have been administered in the major leagues--there are approximately 1,200 players--and 900 have been processed". (Given the time of Jenkins' article, it's fairly safe to assume that all players have been tested by February 2006.)

6.2%. 1.6% or even 1.3%. By any medical definition, those numbers hardly constitute "epidemic". Cold and flu season deserves more attention.

Consider also that it is a player's responsibility to inquire about the rules and procedures for testing, and that it's also their responsibility to obtain the list of banned substances (more on this later, this list is massive and is not limited to steroids) from their clubs (who are not required or forced to provide this list). Not such a bad idea, right? I'm all for personal responsibility. But also consider that more than half of the minor leaguers and 5 major leaguers who tested positive for a banned substance were non-English speaking players from largely poor countries and limited educations. Suddenly, those numbers become even more suspect.

"Epidemic"? "Rampant"? No, no. What we have here are the beginnings of a hyperbole pandemic fueled by sportswriters and commentators.