Nismo - I'm not comparing the 1919 Sox to Bonds.

But as for the team comment
Again - to point out - McMullen only had 2 at bats during the Series going 1-2 with a single, no playing time in the field
Weaver knew of the fix, but claimed to not be a part of it. His numbers during the series support that claim.

Back to the point - Here is my argument:
The Commissioner can punish players for commiting acts which are not expressly prohibited by major league baseball.

The 1919 Sox are merely an example of that argument.

Now you jump ahead to asking if Players are going to be banned for drug use - Using Steroids is more like Corking a bat or doctoring a ball - except instead of doing it to the equipment you are using you are doing it to your body. Players are not suspended indefinately for a first time offense (See Slammin Sammy Sosa's Superball Sin) but they are punished to some extent. And they always have their name attached to the offense (see George Brett and the Pine Tar rule - Gaylord Perry and the Spitball)

edited to add: I don't recall actually saying or posting anywhere that Bonds should be banned for using steroids. Don't put words into my mouth. Bonds does deserve a lengthy suspension for his use of steriods overe the past 7 years (and a suspension of other players who have used that are still active is appropriate as well) That being said: end of edit

An example needs to be made - and Selig's failure to do anything about the subject has lead to more rampant use of performance inhancing drugs. The reward for using steroids far outwieghed the risk of being caught.

Referring to Vincents comment about the 1991 policy - I hadn't seen or heard that anywhere before - yet I have heard from a number of other sources (though not in print) that Steroids were banned in 1991 although baseball wasn't allowed to test for the substance.