Put asterisks next to all of Barry Bonds' records? Retroactively enforce the MLB suspension policy on Bonds based on grand jury court documents and testimony? To be blunt, are you nuts?

First, asterisks. There's no other way to say it: This is just Dumb and Dumber. With a noticeable lack of scientific evidence to support that steroids do indeed make players hit a ball farther, one would have to solely rely on one's judgment to say which homers were indeed the product of steroid use. And that's a pretty tipsy pedestal to stand on because...what do you asterisk exactly? Count only the balls that travel way over the fence? How about the ones that just squeaked over? Balls hit to center? Or the ones down the line? Can you say definitively that all of Bonds' homers were products of steroids? No, you can't. Just some, right? So where do you draw the line? You can't. You'd merely be engaging in the arbitrary and abstract.

Furthermore, in 2003, there was no rule in baseball that said taking steroids was illegal. It simply didn't exist. So do we erase all of his records prior to the 2004 season when the BALCO scandal broke in December 2003? What about after 2004? Can't do that because testing began in 2005. Which means 5 of Bonds' homers count. But hold on. What about 2004 when the media spotlight was harsh, is it believable that any of the players who testified during the BALCO grand jury hearings--Giambi, Bonds, Sheffield and others--would continue using steroids during that time? I doubt it. So can we count 2004? OK, let's see some stats from 2004.

Sheffield hit 36 homers in 2004; Giambi had health issues in 2004 (allegedly related to steroid use), but hit 29 last year; Bonds hit 45 homers in 2004, the exact same number he hit 2003, and he .361. Granted, that's just using superficial statistical evidence from isolated years (but key isolated years, mind you), but if Tom Verducci can do it (and he has, involving far less significant statistical evidence and years), then I can, too. However brief of a time period that may be, those stats do more to disprove the case that taking steroids helps you hit a baseball than it does to help prove the case that they do. (Yes, there could be residual affects of taking steroids "leftover" from the previous years, but that's pretty far-fetched and, again, difficult if impossible to scientifically prove.)

Do you really want to asterisk and debunk a guy's career and accomplishments with little concrete proof or evidence? You can, but you'd be very dishonest in doing so.

If asterisks are stupid, then retroactively punishing a guy for something that wasn't illegal at the time but is now, is really a case of Dumber and Dumberer. For those who say taking steroids is illegal under the law in the United States, you're right. Trouble is, none of the players who testified at the BALCO grand jury hearings were implicated or arrested on illegal steroid use charges; they were there testifying for the prosecution who had indicted Victor Conte and his company that was trafficking the steroids. No doubt deals were struck to get the players' testimony but their testimony cannot be seen as an admission of guilt, or even implied guilt in a court of law. I'm not a lawyer, but I have some knowledge of perjury and one cannot go back based on player's testimony and bring up charges--there's the potential of a player possibly committing perjury over that testimony. That's unconstitutional.

So why does baseball think it could retroactively enforce rules that didn't even exist at the time? Publicity is a likely reason. It would make MLB execs look like a strong, united and no-nonsense enforcer of the MLB drug testing rules. That's fine, and Bud Selig is giving it "some thought". But Selig probably won't do anything because he'll face a massive and justified fight from the player's union (MLBPA) over such silliness. It's sort of like Sen. Harry Reid backing Sen. Feingold's foolish and going-nowhere censure of the President. It's a nice idea in theory, but that dog simply won't hunt from a legal standpoint. Hence, we get a lot of grandstanding over retroactive suspension talk from Selig, sportswriters and sports talk show hosts.

Despite everything I've just outlined, we still get idiotic columns and "polls" from ESPN, SI and others who raise these inane and flat-out dumb ideas. And too many of my baseball-loving brethren are buying into the nonsense, making themselves looking as foolish as a batter swinging at a Roger Clemens splitter in the dirt.