In any event, I'm optimistic that the position I am slowly coming to accounts for people making either conclusion. And locating the common ground in this volatile issue is key. I want a stance that as many people as possible can agree on.

So in that respect, having a no-steroids policy is not the same as having a no-balk policy. The analogy I drew Wednesday doesn't work, because a no-balk policy doesn't put people's rights and psyches at risk.

That being said, I'm still in favor of a steroids ban, because in my mind and the minds of many other people, the potential harm of steroids has not been disproven. (Is this an unfair, guilty-until-proven-innocent approach? We can debate that further if you want.)

So you do need testing, but there should be cause for testing. Now, the criteria for determining cause ... that's going to be tricky and is certainly a hot-button issue today, especially with today's news in the Times that "an industry source confirmed Wednesday that Major League Baseball was gathering information with the intent of invoking a never-before-used 'reasonable cause' provision that allows for immediate drug testing of any player suspected of using steroids." Defining "reasonable cause" - hmm.

Okay, so here's where I am now:

Current Beliefs

1) No one should use steroids, drugs or supplements that could be potentially harmful to the body, short-term or long-term.

2) No one should be pressured to use these supplements by the idea that they need them to stay competitive.

3) There is debate in the scientific community about how harmful steroids are. (Indeed, steroids are prescribed to promote health in certain cases to people of all ages and ilks.) They might be harmful to athletes, but some respected people say that you cannot conclude that they are harmful to athletes.

4) In the face of this confusion, it is not automatic that baseball should ban sterioids.

5) However, there is sufficient risk that steroids are harmful for baseball to take measures to eliminate them from the game.

6) A ban on steroids should have the support of both management and the players.

7) That support should manifest itself in a punishment structure that is carefully vetted, and that includes both reprimand and, if appropriate, rehabilitation.

8) In particular, the institution of drug-testing has serious human rights consequences. Therefore, methods for eliminating steroids from the game, such as drug-testing, should be instituted with the greatest care possible to protect those rights.

9) Punishment should not be applied retroactively - someone who broke a current or future rule, before that rule was enacted, should not be subject to reprimand.

10) Baseball is a game in which unfair advantages are frequent. Dodger Stadium works against hitters, baseball in Colorado works against pitchers, the first half of the 20th century worked against African American ballplayers, beer prices work against the consumer. There is no call to break out asterisks for statistics compiled by players who might be found to have used steroids. The record book is the record book.

I kept the list at 10 - not going after a Commandment angle, but it's a good number.

This certainly is not my favorite issue to discuss on Dodger Thoughts - you know I just want to talk about the game - but I sort of like the idea of dealing with this all at once and then getting it out of the way, so that each time the issue comes up, there's something of a ready response at hand. Maybe we'll be done with this before you know it. (We can dream, can't we.)

If you're getting tired of these posts, I understand. But I still urge your participation. If you have any suggestions, comments or criticisms, please continue to send them along in the comments.