[blackcat_mc]

Where are you getting your information? Steroids is a banned substance and always has been in the United States. They were NOT legal in 2003 and if you were found with them you were charged with a folony.

What you are confusing is that Major League Baseball did not have steroids on their list of un-approved drugs as of 2003. I find this rediculous in itself that sports should have to say you can't use an illegal substance. If it's illegal, then why did MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL all have to say you can't use it???

It's the same argument about Michael Phelps and the Bong. People want to blow it off as it's just a little pot, everyone has done it, he's young. That's BS, it's illegal, so he should have been smart enough to not have a picture of him doing it.

As for your final comment: There are many other players that have took steroids you dont see them hitting 40+ homers a year. It's not that steroids were the only factor of hitting homeruns. I'll use Bonds an an example. How did Bonds cheat mother nature by increasing his home-run output once he turned 40 than at any other time in his career. Yeah, steroids would have made him stronger, which probably helped him hit a few more homeruns, but what it did do for him was it gave him the "fountain of youth". Physilogically, it gave him an advantage that no other player his age has ever achieved. He stayed healthy when someone like Griffey Jr.'s body broke down every year. Bonds could hit homeruns because he was able to play.

If you want proof that Steroids makes in impact, go read Conseco's book. As much as everyone thought he was a liar and only out to make a buck, he has turned out to be the only credible source on the entire steriods issue!

And again, if they weren't specifically banned by the MLB in 2003 when he tested positive for them, what is the harm. He would have been a fool not to take them.