Supposedly 4 years after doping, he hits for .314 (better than during 2001-2003, the admitted roid years). He hits 54 home runs (astounding number).

This at age 32, when you should be in decline!

Who's to say he wasn't doping then??

another thread about Arod and his roid use

HGH is a hell of a drug.

How old was Ruth when he hit 60? I guess he was on roids

I usually hear 28-32 is your prime. After that you start a slow decline until 35, then you decline faster.

The thing about this steroid era is how often the word "decline" is thrown around. Not everyone is the same.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending A-Rod, but this idea of age decline is just a little ridiculous.

Let's just go by age and if anyone improved or did not decline enough after age 32, then they are banned from baseball

let's ban everyone over 4 years old from baseball, and start over with tee-ball. weekly blood and urine tests, with 24 hour surveillance of every little leaguer

I don't think 32 is in decline. 28-33 are the best years of a player's career, give or take. A-Roid screwed up, much in the same way that Bonds did. A-Roid would have gone down (probably still will) as one of the best players in the history of the game, and still might, but it will be forever tainted. Much like Bonds, who was a HOF lock, then he started juicing and became a power hitter, and is forever tainted because of it. A-Roid is great, always has been. But, he made the decision, and his legacy is destroyed because of it. When he hits HR #800, people will talk about steroids, not about homeruns, and that is more punishment than can be handed out by MLB or anybody.