As the fallout from former Senator George Mitchell's report on steroids in baseball continues, I have some questions that neither the report or the debates taking place on radio and television airwaves appear to be concerned with. The first question is why baseball?

It would seem that basketball players would have just as good of a reason for using steroids as their counterparts. The salary boom in the late 80s and early 90s that made getting a competitive edge increasingly more desirable in baseball was also occurring in basketball. For the first eight years of his career Michael Jordan was making less than what Jerome James or Darius Miles get paid to stay away from their teams. Similar to baseball, as late as 1988 cracking the million dollar salary threshold was also an accomplishment in basketball. It was not until the early 90s that the heralded draft classes of 1983, 84, and 85 that delivered Jordan, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing and Hakeem Olajuwon into the NBA began getting paid anything comparable to what current NBA players are making. It would seem then that with this in mind a player such as John Salley who was often too thin to guard the dominant centers and power forwards, but who was a very good athlete in his own right, would have had a lot of incentives to use steroids or other performance enhancing drugs that were on the market. Wouldn't steroids have at least given Mark Eaton a chance to extend his career a few more years? As crazy as this might sound, but should the players accused of taking steroids at least be given some partial credit for their hubris?

The second question is why are people so up in arms about Barry Bonds possibly having a competitive advantage over Tim Wakefield, or Roger Clemens over Orlando Cabrera when in the grand scheme of things, Bonds and Clemens were always great players. Let me put it this way, if the public is going to demand that asterisks be put next to records set by players accused of using steroids, then should we not have asterisks placed alongside the applications of high school students who receive SAT training, and other competitive advantages that are not available across the board? The level field that we are saying was tarnished in baseball has never been there in other facets of American culture, yet most of us are comfortable going about our daily lives without voicing any complaints.

Thirdly, isn't it slightly disingenuous of sports writers and sports radio personalities to serve as the moderators in the town hall discussion on ethics in sports? People whose profession allows them to question the heart, integrity and intellect of athletes with very little recourse appear to be somewhat culpable in this entire fiasco. Faced with the option of getting raked over the coals in the press and thus having the public turn against them, or taking steroids, it makes sense why some athletes would take these drugs. Additionally, it seems odd that the same people who are now saying that they knew this all along, are the only ones now shaping the terms of public scrutiny.

Finally, what precisely is it that Bud Selig do as Commissioner of Baseball?