There's a handful of new articles relating to steroids on the ESPN.com Baseball page today.

Alan Schwarz writes about how the records have been affected, and compares them to other records that were perhaps set with a little help from the conditions of their eras as well. Buster Olney tells us what to expect from the 2005 season. Jayson Stark says it will take time for the new age to dawn in Baseball. There's also a SportsNation poll about what we as fans expect to see in Baseball as a result of the latest steroid testing policy. Lastly, I feel sorry for whatever issues are being put on the back burner in North Dakota while one of their Senators is busy arguing that Roger Maris' should get his record back.

Schwarz makes a great point that hadn't occurred to me. I don't have any children of my own, but I have a nephew I can't wait to take to his first full game this year (he only lasted about 3 innings last year), and I suddenly find myself dreading the conversation about all-time homerun leaders. See, despite Bonds' recent complaints to the media, I think he'll still probably pass Hank Aaron's total. I'm not sure how I'll explain to my nephew that one guy is the leader, but he might have cheated.

The Olney prediction I'm looking forward to coming true the most is the first one, which says that all this steroid talk will simmer down once the season starts and we're all too busy watching the games to think about these issues.

Stark's article is long, but interesting. The section that seemed the most interesting to me was at the end of page 3, where Stark says:

In the 10 seasons from 1993 through 2002, hitters reached or passed 50 home runs 18 times. Which equaled the number of 50-homer seasons in the 118 previous major-league seasons put together. In the last two seasons (since the launching of major-league steroid testing): Zero.

I think many people within baseball, and some fans, are starting to realize that this steroid problem took a long time to get out in the open. Seems to me that's an all too common issue with MLB.

In the poll, I take issue with question #3, which asks "Which would you rather see in baseball?" "Lots of home runs, suspicions of steroid use." (or) "Significantly fewer home runs, cleaner reputation." First of all, I don't think anybody wants to see suspicions of steroid use. And I don't think eradicating steroids will give way to a significant decrease in home runs. I think it's been shown that early claims by guys like Ken Caminiti and Jose Canseco were greatly exaggerated, and steroid use was never even that rampant in baseball. Plus, many believe that as many pitchers may have been juicing as hitters.

Don't get me wrong about the Maris thing. I feel for Maris' family and his fans. It's hard not to believe he deserves the record. But the fact is that Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds have all hit more than 61 homeruns in a season. The only way we'll ever know for sure if any of them used steroids is if they admit to it, which is highly unlikely. On top of that, supposing one of them admits to it, how many homers should be deducted from their totals for that season? Who's to say they wouldn't have still hit 62 or 65 instead of 70 or 73? Maris is down to 7th place on the HR list, and there's no moving up, unless he mounts the single most amazing comeback of all time.