Malcolm Gladwell has weighed in on what the book “Game of Shadows” means not only to Bonds but to record setters in general. The article is actually a two-parter. Gladwell defends his position in the second article entitled Forensic Analysis Redux. Gladwell writes:

What if–in sports like baseball and track and field and swimming–we had a record-review board. We assembled a panel of experts who reviewed the circumstances under which the record was set, physiological evidence from the athlete himself or herself, and statistical evidence about the plausibility of the performance. Beamon would pass. FloJo would not. Bonds would not–and nor, I would wager, would McGwire or Sosa. The point is that we have to do something, otherwise records will cease to mean anything at all.

Incidentally, in “Baseball by the Numbers,” by the Baseball Prospectus team, there is a very nice essay by Nate Silver doing exactly this: using forensic tools to try and gauge the extent of steriod cheating in major league baseball. It’s worth a read. Silver concludes, interestingly, that the overall amount of cheating seems to be quite small, and confined largely (at this point) to mediocre players trying to get a little edge, not superstars trying to become mega-superstars. I find that very reassuring, not just because it says that Bonds is an anomaly, but because it reminds us of just how useful statistical analysis can be.

Don’t be fooled: Gladwell is an extremly intelligent and articulate sports fan. He knows of what he speaks. What do you think about his solution to these “records” or “Game of Shadows?” I want to know.