I think it is reasonable to say that players may have used, though assume innocence unless there is at least strong circumstantial evidence otherwise. Sosa met that criteria with his massive change in size & power, even before he went mute before Congress & was seen to have cheated with a corked bat. Anderson is about the weakest circumstantial evidence case you can fairly argue. Career year, added much more muscle: still could have worked out well & naturally, was never huge, just muscular & defined. But if he used, while his best year may have been more due to a fluke/being locked in, it would be very fair to say that his 50 may have been 40, thus absent PEDs he would never have reached this level.

Clean or not, he gets credit for things beyond pure PEDs that made him so good for 1 year. Though know too that some folks just react very well in terms of the efficacy of certain drugs. That extra % makes a big difference.

It wouldn't surprise me if Bautista used something, any more than it would surprise me if Dernard Span did, and no less, either. I'm not suggesting that he couldn't have used something, only that regardless of whether or not he did, PED's don't come close to explaining his power spike. He's as likely as any player to have used something, but whether or not he did, his improvement is primarily the result of other factors. If PED use was a primary cause, we'd see an absolute ton of 15-20 HR guys suddenly becoming 40+ guys.

Steroids have become the easy, cynical answer to any player's improvement, and it's a problem. While I'm sure PED's can help, we've seen no evidence to believe that we can tell a user from his statistical record alone. There have always been guys who have taken big leaps forward before PED's, and many if not most PED users have shown little to no change in their stat lines. Those that have taken the most extreme leaps forward who have been connected to PED's are also guys who changed physically. It's good to accept the truth that PED's are part of the game, and that you can never be sure about any player, but the trend of automatically equating success with PED use is unfortunate. As we move forward, one of the most critical things we need to stop doing is making that automatic connection between massive improvement and steroids. Why? Because not only is it unfair to the innocent players, but it perpetuates the cycle. Bautista hits a bunch more HR, and people make steroid insinuations, and people reach the conclusion that he must have used steroids, and that becomes a data point in the assumed effectiveness of PED's. Young players don't use steroids to ape Barry Bonds, they use them because they believe they will work. When we make these faulty connections between career years and PED's, we send an exaggerated message as to how effective PED's are.

Brady Anderson's an example. He's drifted into the "accepted steroid user" club for many, based solely on a career year, and has even been used as a comparison in favor of the argument that Bautista's probably on PED's. Now, I think there's a very good chance that Anderson did use steroids for at least part of his career, given the era he played in. I wouldn't be surprised if he started using, say, around the early 90's, when his power went from marginal to double digits, and he did put on quite a bit of muscle throughout his career. The notion that PED's were the direct cause of his 50 HR year, however, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In order for that to be true, one of the following would also have to be true:
1. He used steroids in 1996, which had a massive impact on his numbers, and then they just suddenly stopped working entirely the next year, or
2. He decided to give steroids a try in 1996 and turned into Ken Griffey Jr. Then, the following year, in his contract year, with no foreseeable consequences and huge incentive to keep using for another year, he decided to stop using.

Additionally, you'd also have to address the question of why PED's worked so much better for Anderson than for the hundreds of other 15 HR type guys throughout the majors and the minors.

It just doesn't make sense. He was an established regular and well paid in 1996, so there was no particular incentive to use them that year, and he was playing for a contract in 1997, so there was a definite incentive to use them then. He may well have used PED's, and he may well have been on something in 1996, but the idea that his 50 HR year was mainly an artifact of PED use is silly.

In this day and age, it is not "quite ridiculous" to assume steroids, and it will never be ridiculous moving forward. It's part of the game. MLB (players and owners) brought this upon itself by ignoring the obvious and thus encouraging steroid use for so long. This part of the pennance they'll have to pay. Everyone is now suspect.

I'm not saying he took them, but it is certainly fair to wonder. The one issue I do have is with your belief that he couldn't be taking steroids since he's shown no physical change. As we now know from players outed in the Mitchell Report and through other means, almost all of the players didn't show any signifcant physical changes. The Barry Bonds cartoon change is rare. The fact that Bautista didn't show physical changes is evidence of nothing.

The change in his swing is not evidence for or against steroid use. On the for side, Mark McGwire changed his swing to maximize fly balls and produce more back spin off the bat because he could now handle specific pitches. If Bautista is now able generate more bat speed to turn on inside pitches, it would make sense for him to maximize his swing to generate more fly balls.

I have no problem believing Bautista is clean. I also have no believing he's taking PEDs.

Nice article by SI.

There are a LOT of players who have used steroids over the past couple decades.
There are a LOT of players who hit as well as Bautista did earlier in his career, some who never even make the majors.

Unless you believe that Bautista somehow discovered a PED that's many, many times more potent than what all the other players have used while at the same time causing no visible change in his physique, or unless you believe that journeymen on the cusp of a regular MLB role are for some reason significantly less likely to use steroids, it's actually quite ridiculous to assume that steroids are a primary cause of his power spike.

The differences in his swing, on the other hand ARE obvious:

2008: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=2628995
2010: http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=10438965

He's using his legs more, he's hitting a ton of flyballs, and he's pulling the ball a lot more. Regarding his batting average: from watching him this year, when he's missed his pitch, he's been hitting a lot of high flyballs that are pretty much automatic outs for any outfielder.

Sure it's possible that PED's play some role here, but even if he's using them, it's at most a secondary cause to the adjustments he's made and likely a simple career year. It really doesn't even make any sense to assume that his rare power gain is the result of something as easy as PED use. It's too much of a power gain, from too common a starting point, and without the obvious physical changes to accompany it. If steroids COULD do that, the article would never have been written, because we'd see at least half a dozen journeymen every year making similar leaps.

In terms of performance: any performance with is not presaged by numbers that hint at it will cause PED concerns. Also, any performer who exceeds the expectations his minor league records show likely, will probably have the PED specter follow them through their first few years in the majors.

This is the sad outcome of the "Steroid Era" and the unfortunate legacy that some players cheating left us with. Or maybe I should say "cheating" since it wasn't against the rules or not punishable under the rules for years.

In any event, "Joey Bats" routine after he does his damage is quite obnoxious. After he's through with his act, you'd swear the his homers are freeing people from persecution or fixing global warming. They would HAVE to be that important.

PED's or not, what a clown.

1. Whether steroids are legal or illegal in Canada or Puerto Rico is moot. Steroids are available anywhere. MLB is testing players regularly. Bautista has allegedly been tested 4 times this year.
2. It is possible that there are steroid type drugs out there designed to slip by current testing procedures.
3. There appears to be a few legitimate (non-steroid users) examples of players substantially increasing their home run totals - Johnson, Mize, Yaz and Kiner. So precedence has been set.
4. In 2007, Bautista hit 16 homers in 117 games/400 ab`s. Over a full season that may be 25 home runs. 2007 should be considered Bautista`s break out year. 2010 may be the year of reaching his potential.
5. Whether Bautista hits 50 homers again does not matter. He is an asset to any club with his arm, speed and versatility. He is clearly the best athlete on the Jays.
6. We are living in a different age of baseball. Steroids or no steroids, home runs are much more valued as a way to score runs than they were 30 years ago. 30 years ago you might have 2-3 guys on the team who could go deep. Every hitter on the Jays can go deep and many of them are told to look for their pitch. 30 years ago, you wouldn`t tell Ozzie Smith to look for his pitch and take one out. You may tell him to find a way to get on base. If anyone read the SI article on Cobb and Lajoie, Lajoie dropped down 8 bunt base hits in a row during a doubleheader. The art of bunting for a base hit is a thing of the past. The home run has replaced it.
7. On a personal note, I echo the other Jays fans who have checked in. I believe Bautista is clean because MLB says so. I haven`t had many reasons to trust MLB over the years, but I do or want to on this one. I am still nervous though. And I`m always suspicious...of everything. Its part of the age we live in.