The knee-jerk response is to put an asterisk beside Bonds' record (should he break it) due to his steriod use, but at the end of the day there are so many other variables involved here - smaller ball parks, different pitchers, different batting lineups, etc - that every record is hard to compare to another.

I mean, if you manage to play in a weak division, or are lucky enough to be followed by a strong batter (and therefore get fewer intentional walks) then you're likely to get more opportunities to hit HRs. You still have to be able to consistently hit very well over a long period of time to get to this point.

No matter how you look at it, this record is still pretty remarkable, so why not just celebrate it for what it is, and forget the comparisons to Hank Aaron?

I think it will taint baseball for sure.

If Barry hit his average HRs over the steroid years he would be at 650. Enough to get him to the Hall of Fame, but what he did was inexcusable. He cheated. It goes against everything that sportsmanship is about. When we teach our kids about fair play the first thing we say is no cheating, right? I only hope that this debacle sparks debate in the future. No matter what, even if there is no asterisk beside his record, people will always talk about the steroid years.