PDA

View Full Version : Bonds bombshell: Book details slugger's steroid use



Pages : [1] 2

pedro
03-07-2006, 02:07 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/03/06/news.excerpt/index.html?cnn=yes

Bonds exposed
Shadows details superstar slugger's steroid use
Posted: Tuesday March 7, 2006 12:55PM; Updated: Tuesday March 7, 2006 12:55PM

NEW YORK (SI.com) -- Beginning in 1998 with injections in his buttocks of Winstrol, a powerful steroid, Barry Bonds took a wide array of performance-enhancing drugs over at least five seasons in a massive doping regimen that grew more sophisticated as the years went on, according to Game of Shadows, a book written by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters at the forefront of reporting on the BALCO steroid distribution scandal.

(An excerpt of Game of Shadows that details Bonds' steroid use appears exclusively in the March 13 issue of Sports Illustrated, which is available on newsstands beginning on Wednesday. The book's publication date is March 27.)

The authors, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, describe in sometimes day-to-day, drug-by-drug detail how often and how deeply Bonds engaged in the persistent doping. For instance, the authors write that by 2001, when Bonds broke Mark McGwire's single-season home-run record (70) by belting 73, Bonds was using two designer steroids referred to as the Cream and the Clear, as well as insulin, human growth hormone, testosterone decanoate (a fast-acting steroid known as Mexican beans) and trenbolone, a steroid created to improve the muscle quality of cattle.

BALCO tracked Bonds' usage with doping calendars and folders -- detailing drugs, quantities, intervals and Bonds' testosterone levels -- that wound up in the hands of federal agents upon their Sept. 3, 2003 raid of the Burlingame, Calif., business.

Depending on the substance, Bonds used the drugs in virtually every conceivable form: injecting himself with a syringe or being injected by his trainer, Greg Anderson, swallowing pills, placing drops of liquid under his tongue, and, in the case of BALCO's notorious testosterone-based cream, applying it topically.

According to the book, Bonds gulped as many as 20 pills at a time and was so deeply reliant on his regimen that he ordered Anderson to start "cycles" -- a prescribed period of steroid use lasting about three weeks -- even when he was not due to begin one. Steroid users typically stop usage for a week or two periodically to allow the body to continue to produce natural testosterone; otherwise, such production diminishes or ceases with the continued introduction of synthetic forms of the muscle-building hormone.

Bonds called for the re-starting of cycles when he felt his energy and power start to drop. If Anderson told Bonds he was not due for another cycle, the authors write, Bonds would tell him, "F--- off, I'll do it myself.''

The authors compiled the information over a two-year investigation that included, but was not limited to, court documents, affidavits filed by BALCO investigators, confidential memoranda of federal agents (including statements made to them by athletes and trainers), grand jury testimony, audiotapes and interviews with more than 200 sources. Some of the information previously was reported by the authors in the Chronicle. Some of the information is new. For instance, in an extensive note on sourcing, the authors said memos detailing statements by BALCO owner Victor Conte, vice president James Valente and Anderson to IRS special agent Jeff Novitzky were sealed when they first consulted them, but have been unsealed since.

westofyou
03-07-2006, 02:13 PM
Sure to outsell Christy Walsh's stories of the Babe and his love of hot dogs.

savafan
03-07-2006, 02:13 PM
There will still be a large group of Bonds supporters. This book will make his kids cry. Unbelievable...

flyer85
03-07-2006, 02:14 PM
I'm shocked.

Heath
03-07-2006, 02:17 PM
I wonder if this cause the man to step down.....

pedro
03-07-2006, 02:17 PM
I've never doubted that Bonds used steroids. I just never thought he was such a maniac about it. That is, if the story is true.

KronoRed
03-07-2006, 02:20 PM
Yikes.

(if true)

To endanger your health like that..just baffling.

RedFanAlways1966
03-07-2006, 02:34 PM
And the sun rises in the east. And chickens do not have lips. And a bear craps in the woods. Yet some people refuse to believe that B*O*N*D*S has done any steroids. Only a urine test will convince them. Such is life.

Baseball's future HR King... baseball's future HR-King and Hits-King are some real fine people. OUCH!

:thumbdown

Caveat Emperor
03-07-2006, 02:39 PM
The only question remaining for me in all of this Bonds stuff is how big a pile of evidence baseball needs before they finally do the right thing and publicly denounce Barry and his "accomplishments" over the past years.

Speaking purely as a fan of the game (and divorcing myself from logic, to a certain extent, as a fan), every passing day increases my desire to see an asterisk added to his records.

PickOff
03-07-2006, 02:42 PM
Bonds was a big time steroid user. He knew he was using, and he did so to hit more home runs. End of story, enough of this 'alleged,' 'if true' bunk. If there is anything we do well in America it is the perpetuation of myths, and I am tired of the 'we will never know if Bonds used steroids' baloney.

flyer85
03-07-2006, 02:51 PM
Bonds was a big time steroid user. He knew he was using, and he did so to hit more home runs. End of story, enough of this 'alleged,' 'if true' bunk. If there is anything we do well in America is perpetuating myths, and I am tired of the 'we will never know if Bonds used steroids' baloney.The anecdotal evidence has always been overwhelming.

Chip R
03-07-2006, 02:52 PM
Barry's spin machine must be working overtime today.

Cedric
03-07-2006, 02:53 PM
It's beyond overwhelming. The guy should be banned from the sport and his records erased. RIGHT NOW.

NDRed
03-07-2006, 02:54 PM
If there was a shred of information in this story that was NOT true you can bet Bonds and a team of lawyers would have sued SI already. Therefore, I am sure SI has their information and can back it up.

It will be the first copy of Sports Illustrated I have bought in years.

Chip R
03-07-2006, 03:01 PM
It's beyond overwhelming. The guy should be banned from the sport and his records erased. RIGHT NOW.

Just playing Devil's advocate here but why? What he did then was not against MLB rules. If they want to denounce him, as Caveat said they should do, that's fine but banning him isn't the answer.

westofyou
03-07-2006, 03:02 PM
It's beyond overwhelming. The guy should be banned from the sport and his records erased. RIGHT NOW.Cascade events make that an across the board problem.

Did they take away Norm Cash's batting title yet?

flyer85
03-07-2006, 03:02 PM
Just playing Devil's advocate here but why? What he did then was not against MLB rules. If they want to denounce him, as Caveat said they should do, that's fine but banning him isn't the answer.MLB and the players were certainly complicit in allowing the stuff to go on. They liked all the publicity that Bonds, McGwire and Sosa were generating.

Cedric
03-07-2006, 03:06 PM
Special circumstances make for special decisions. Bud should get some guts and not force MLB into another black eye summer. It will be beyond embarrasing watching MLB pansyfoot around this issue.

How sad is it when possibly the greatest statistic in your sport HAS to be belittled by the league?

flyer85
03-07-2006, 03:07 PM
Bud should get some guts and not force MLB into another black eye summer. Bud will have to put out an APB to locate his spine before he could do something like that.

Mr Red
03-07-2006, 03:07 PM
Never really given the subject much thought but my knee jerk reaction is that this ranks right up there with Petey so ban him from the hall also.

cumberlandreds
03-07-2006, 03:09 PM
Another interesting aspect is his testimony at the Balco trial. If the Feds can ever prove he perjured himself then Bonds will go to jail for a long time. The Feds do not like to be lied to.

traderumor
03-07-2006, 03:12 PM
Bonds does have his budding career as a transvestite going for him.

Caseyfan21
03-07-2006, 03:29 PM
Wow, I never suspected Bonds took steroids. :rolleyes:

I bet Bonds will get mad he didn't write a book first and make money on the story himself.

RedsBaron
03-07-2006, 03:30 PM
The question of whether or not to ban Bonds is one issue; the question of whether or not Hall of Fame voters should vote for Bonds when he becomes eligible for induction is another issue. On the latter question, my answer is clear: If I was a HOF voter, Barry Bonds (and Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro for that matter) would never receive my vote for induction.

Johnny Footstool
03-07-2006, 03:48 PM
Looks like these authors have piles of real evidence instead of the usual "well, his arms are big" hearsay.

Good. Now go get McGwire and Sosa, too.

Chip R
03-07-2006, 03:48 PM
The question of whether or not to ban Bonds is one issue; the question of whether or not Hall of Fame voters should vote for Bonds when he becomes eligible for induction is another issue. On the latter question, my answer is clear: If I was a HOF voter, Barry Bonds (and Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro for that matter) would never receive my vote for induction.

I think you're exactly right. That was a major beef with the writers when the HOF changed the rules about the writers not being able to vote for guys on the ineligible list. They felt it was their call to decide who should or shouldn't be on the ballot. If they want to vote Pete Rose or Barry Bonds or Juan Castro in, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. It's not like Bonds is going to be standing in front of his plaque every time the museum is open shooting himself up with Winstrol.

traderumor
03-07-2006, 03:49 PM
I think all the pitchers out of work for all the extra homers given up ought to file a class action lawsuit

registerthis
03-07-2006, 04:00 PM
Absent from this discussion is any comments on how sad this whole ordeal is. The type of regimen the book describes Bonds as undertaking is the type of thing that has you dead of a heart attack by 50. Ultimately, this is an unblieveably selfish act on Bonds' part, because he likely will end up depriving his children of a father and his wife of a husband.

It's just a sad, pathetic thing to see.

Roy Tucker
03-07-2006, 04:05 PM
I know I'm out on a limb here, but I predict there will be a lot of talk about this.

Redsfaithful
03-07-2006, 04:09 PM
I know I'm out on a limb here, but I predict there will be a lot of talk about this.

It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking too much.

BCubb2003
03-07-2006, 04:09 PM
Bonds hit 57 home runs against the Reds and we want them back...

KronoRed
03-07-2006, 04:13 PM
Bonds hit 57 home runs against the Reds and we want them back...
1 million per :devil:

Johnny Footstool
03-07-2006, 04:17 PM
Ultimately, this is an unblieveably selfish act on Bonds' part, because he likely will end up depriving his children of a father and his wife of a husband.

From what I've read, he wasn't much of either. He had a longtime mistress whom he threatened and abused repeatedly.

Sea Ray
03-07-2006, 04:20 PM
I hope these author's evidence withstands scrutiny so we can put his denials where they belong. I wonder how they can write a book based on grand jury evidence. I thought it was a federal offense to leak grand jury testimony/evidence.

Chip R
03-07-2006, 04:27 PM
I hope these author's evidence withstands scrutiny so we can put his denials where they belong. I wonder how they can write a book based on grand jury evidence. I thought it was a federal offense to leak grand jury testimony/evidence.

I think that only attorneys and jurors are under a gag order. Witnesses are free to say whatever they want, and anyone is free to repeat what they've said.

Marc D
03-07-2006, 04:33 PM
I absolutely can not wait to hear Harold Reynolds and the rest of the boys at ESPIN go to work on this one.

Bond's makes me sick but the ESPIN hacks make me want to go to Conn and do bodily harm.

vaticanplum
03-07-2006, 04:36 PM
I hope these author's evidence withstands scrutiny so we can put his denials where they belong. I wonder how they can write a book based on grand jury evidence. I thought it was a federal offense to leak grand jury testimony/evidence.

The sources are pretty extraordinary. According to SI, this article was a result of a very exhaustive two-year investigation, and the material used came from, among other things, transcripts, sealed testimony, a secretly recorded conversation with Bonds's trainer, Greg Anderson, and memos and evidence lists obtained from BALCO.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/03/06/growth.doc0313/

I think this may be, at long last, the proverbial feces on the fan. This is not a case of a brief semi-star like Jason Giambi or a case of shaky evidence as it is (at present) with regards to McGuire. This is probably the single most famous baseball player currently in the sport, a huge personality and the guy who holds the single-season home run record. The steroid thing has really been snowballing the last couple of years and I think this is going to blow it up. I think it's going to be huge.

I almost feel sorry for him, this being his last season and all, but I can't really. Not much sympathy for someone who would so knowingly and adamantly do that to himself.

gonelong
03-07-2006, 04:41 PM
bombshell? Heck, its not even a cap-gun.

traderumor
03-07-2006, 04:42 PM
From what I've read, he wasn't much of either. He had a longtime mistress whom he threatened and abused repeatedly.But he points to the sky after a home run. Say it isn't so :evil:

M2
03-07-2006, 04:45 PM
Bonds may not get it yet, but I don't think he's going to be playing major league baseball this year. This very well could be it for him.

Tommyjohn25
03-07-2006, 04:47 PM
bombshell? Heck, its not even a cap-gun.

Why do you day that?

Red Leader
03-07-2006, 04:49 PM
Bonds may not get it yet, but I don't think he's going to be playing major league baseball this year. This very well could be it for him.


Agreed.

flyer85
03-07-2006, 04:49 PM
but I don't think he's going to be playing major league baseball this year. on what basis? Barry and his good dose of paranoia will keep him playing until he breaks Aarons record.

ochre
03-07-2006, 04:52 PM
I think all the pitchers out of work for all the extra homers given up ought to file a class action lawsuitHell, half of them pitch for the Reds.

vaticanplum
03-07-2006, 04:53 PM
on what basis? Barry and his good dose of paranoia will keep him playing until he breaks Aarons record.

I don't know that it will be his choice.

Reds4Life
03-07-2006, 04:56 PM
They have updated the story a little bit, they added this.


Sports Illustrated said that Bonds, when informed of the book on Tuesday morning and asked if he was concerned, told reporters, "Nope. I won't even look at it [the book]. For what? I won't even look at it. There's no need to."

Authors Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams write in the book that Bonds' drive to steroids began because he was jealous of St. Louis Cardinals slugger Mark McGwire, who staged one of the most memorable individual duels in baseball history in 1998 when he hit 70 home runs to Sammy Sosa's 66, according to Sports Illustrated.

The book says that Bonds told his mistress Kimberly Bell that the media and baseball was going easy on McGwire, who admitted using the supplement andro in 1998. "They're just letting him do it because he's a white boy," the book cites Bonds as telling Bell.

After that season, Bonds -- who hit 37 home runs that year -- turned to good friend and physical trainer Greg Anderson, a workout fiend and known for his ability to obtain steroids and growth hormone from AIDS patients in San Francisco who sold their legal prescriptions for money, the book says.

The book says the Giants learned that Anderson was connected to a gym known as a place where one could obtain steroids and that he was possibly a dealer, according to the SI report. But the Giants let Anderson have free reign at their facilities because they did not want to upset their best star Bonds.

The book cites Bonds' dramatic increase in home run production. He averaged one homer for every 16.1 at bats through 1998, when he turned 34. Since then, in the seven seasons of 1999 through 2005, Bonds has hit a home run for every 8.5 at bats.

After Bonds began taking Winstrol, also known as stanozolol, taken by disgraced sprinter Ben Johnson and baseball star Rafael Palmeiro, Bonds added 15 pounds of muscle in 100 days, the book says.

flyer85
03-07-2006, 04:56 PM
I don't know that it will be his choice.Baseball will suspend him for what? Until he has a positive test they have no authority to do anything to him.

MWM
03-07-2006, 04:59 PM
Bonds may not get it yet, but I don't think he's going to be playing major league baseball this year. This very well could be it for him.

That's exactly what I was thinking. If this book proves credible, I don't see how he could run out onto the field.

M2
03-07-2006, 04:59 PM
on what basis? Barry and his good dose of paranoia will keep him playing until he breaks Aarons record.

We'll see what the fan reaction is, but I'm guessing Bonds gets heckled constantly during ST while public outcry for him to leave becomes so loud that the Giants and MLB feel compelled to act upon it.

Roy Tucker
03-07-2006, 04:59 PM
Looks like the reporters crossed their t's and dotted their i's. I'm sure the due diligence for this story was massive.

Yeah, this is a big deal with a capital B and a capital D. It is not going to go away.

flyer85
03-07-2006, 05:01 PM
We'll see what the fan reaction is, but I'm guessing Bonds gets heckled constantly during ST while public outcry for him to leave becomes so loud that the Giants and MLB feel compelled to act upon it.They can't, the MLBPA will counter every move. The fan reaction will just feed Barry's paranoia and drive him on.

MWM
03-07-2006, 05:02 PM
They can't, the MLBPA will counter every move. The fan reaction will just feed Barry's paranoia and drive him on.

If this book is true, then even the player's union won't dare support the guy.

And didn't Bonds quit the players' union?

Chip R
03-07-2006, 05:03 PM
That's exactly what I was thinking. If this book proves credible, I don't see how he could run out onto the field.

With his knee he isn't running anywhere. ;)

Fan reaction will be what it always has been for him. He'll be cheered at home and booed on the road. But people will show up to watch the freak show at every stadium.

vaticanplum
03-07-2006, 05:05 PM
Baseball will suspend him for what? Until he has a positive test they have no authority to do anything to him.

No, not the organization -- I'm with MWM, I don't know that the fans and the team will allow it. How many people are going to support him now? How much crap will he go through every time he steps on a field? I'm not saying there will be legal action taken to force him out, but I definitely feel that "strong recommendations" for him not to continue will be made behind the scenes. again, I think this is huge.

flyer85
03-07-2006, 05:06 PM
If this book is true, then even the player's union won't dare support the guy.They have no choice, they will fight for Bonds because MLB and the Giants will have no legal grounds to suspend him(that is a precednt the MLBPA would not allow to be set). The book supposedly details Bonds steroid use from 1998-2003. Baseball had no policy for suspending major leaguers for steroid use during that time.

The only thing the Giants could do is pay him his money and release him.

BRM
03-07-2006, 05:06 PM
And didn't Bonds quit the players' union?

I believe he did.

flyer85
03-07-2006, 05:09 PM
but I definitely feel that "strong recommendations" for him not to continue will be made behind the scenes. A dose of paranoia and huge chip on his shoulder is what drives Bonds, he is not going to walk away. Being blackballed is the only thing that would end his career.

lollipopcurve
03-07-2006, 05:09 PM
The spectacle of Bonds passing Ruth will be absurd. In my view, we get what we deserve -- Bonds for his actions, and baseball fans for helping fuel a sports culture gone awry -- it's all about winning, getting ahead and being a star, starting in elementary school.

M2
03-07-2006, 05:09 PM
They can't, the MLBPA will counter every move. The fan reaction will just feed Barry's paranoia and drive him on.

As MWM noted, he's not a member of the MLBPA.

FWIW, I think you've hit the nail on the head about the payoff. My guess is the league agrees to pay off Bonds' contract, the Giants release him and no one ever makes a phone call to the guy after that.

Red Leader
03-07-2006, 05:10 PM
...and I also believe that Bonds reps probably told him this information probably wouldn't be released last year while he was on the DL. Barry, being Barry wanted to come back and play to break the record and go out on top. His reps probably told him that it would be iffy whether the news would break sometime during the season, and Barry thought he was bullet proof. Enough so that he thought that he could play 1 more season...

MWM
03-07-2006, 05:11 PM
What will be interesting is how Bonds' apologist Harold Reynolds reacts on BBTN. He's been Barry's biggest cheerleader over the years.

My guess is he will say the steroids didn't help him hit a baseball.

flyer85
03-07-2006, 05:12 PM
What will be interesting is how Bonds' apologist Harold Reynolds reacts on BBTN. He's been Barry's biggest cheerleader over the years.

My guess is he will say the steroids didn't help him hit a baseball.Of course not, doubling your HR rate after age 35 is a common occurence.

Reds Nd2
03-07-2006, 05:13 PM
My guess is the league agrees to pay off Bonds' contract, the Giants release him and no one ever makes a phone call to the guy after that.

Something like that would border dangerously close to collusion. I'm not sure the owners want to travel that path again.

RedsManRick
03-07-2006, 05:14 PM
I believe he did.

So that's why my baseball game has Reggie Stocker instead of Bonds...

The real ground of this discussion should not take place around violation of MLB rules, rather potential violation of federal laws regarding steroid use. Obviously, MLB did not have rules in place to punish users beyond their use of illegal substances. That will have to be the angle of pursuit.

Chip R
03-07-2006, 05:18 PM
So that's why my baseball game has Reggie Stocker instead of Bonds...

The real ground of this discussion should not take place around violation of MLB rules, rather potential violation of federal laws regarding steroid use. Obviously, MLB did not have rules in place to punish users beyond their use of illegal substances. That will have to be the angle of pursuit.

Didn't he get immunity to testify in front of the grand jury? If so, the only thing the feds could get him for would be perjury - if he actually did perjure himself.

M2
03-07-2006, 05:20 PM
Something like that would border dangerously close to collusion. I'm not sure the owners want to travel that path again.

As long as the league doesn't put out an edict against signing Bonds I think it's safe. My guess is he'd just go the way of Palmeiro, where everyone independently decided against signing him.

The only team that might try to ink him would be the Yankees if Steinbrenner got desperate.

traderumor
03-07-2006, 05:20 PM
I checked barrybonds.com earlier, no statement yet ;)

Sea Ray
03-07-2006, 05:21 PM
We'll see what the fan reaction is, but I'm guessing Bonds gets heckled constantly during ST while public outcry for him to leave becomes so loud that the Giants and MLB feel compelled to act upon it.

I hope you are right but I don't think Bonds cares. He's been heckled before. If he's physically able (a big if) , he'll play this year. I look for him to break Ruth's 714 and fall short of 755 while playing in about 80-100 games

registerthis
03-07-2006, 05:21 PM
As MWM noted, he's not a member of the MLBPA.

FWIW, I think you've hit the nail on the head about the payoff. My guess is the league agrees to pay off Bonds' contract, the Giants release him and no one ever makes a phone call to the guy after that.

Either that, or the Giants would just tell him to stay home and not play him. I don't see Bonds playing another game after this, honestly. The spectacle would simply be too great.

vaticanplum
03-07-2006, 05:21 PM
A dose of paranoia and huge chip on his shoulder is what drives Bonds, he is not going to walk away. Being blackballed is the only thing that would end his career.

I dunno...I definitely see your point given the man he is, but I think this may overpower even his paranoia. All along the big thing backing it up was "NO EVIDENCE!!" and this is pretty damning evidence. I admit that my belief that he's done now is colored by my own viewpoint; I can't even imagine giving up what little dignity I had left my stepping onto a baseball field at this point when it seems almost worthless to do so. what's he going to prove now? But admittedly Bonds and I probably don't think smililarly.

Griffey looks better to me than ever. If he ever were to be accused of something like this I would cry for days.

westofyou
03-07-2006, 05:21 PM
Something like that would border dangerously close to collusion. I'm not sure the owners want to travel that path again.

Washington Nationals are operating under a similar umbrella.

registerthis
03-07-2006, 05:22 PM
I hope you are right but I don't think Bonds cares. He's been heckled before. If he's physically able (a big if) , he'll play this year. I look for him to break Ruth's 714 and fall short of 755 while playing in about 80-100 games

Bonds may not care--and honestly probably doesn't. But the Giants care. if they think the Barry Bonds show has been a circus in the past, they couldn't possibly be prepared for what would come if Barry keeps playing this year and manages to threaten Aaron's record.

Sea Ray
03-07-2006, 05:25 PM
As MWM noted, he's not a member of the MLBPA.

FWIW, I think you've hit the nail on the head about the payoff. My guess is the league agrees to pay off Bonds' contract, the Giants release him and no one ever makes a phone call to the guy after that.

Has that ever happened before?

Reds Nd2
03-07-2006, 05:29 PM
As long as the league doesn't put out an edict against signing Bonds I think it's safe. My guess is he'd just go the way of Palmeiro, where everyone independently decided against signing him.

The only team that might try to ink him would be the Yankees if Steinbrenner got desperate.


That's a good example and it might work. Although, I think someone would at least offer him a job. Maybe only a minor league contract but I think someone would be willing/desperate enough, to take a chance on him.

BrooklynRedz
03-07-2006, 05:29 PM
First, Bonds is a member of MLBPA, however, he is not a part of their merchandise contract.

Second, I'd be surprised if Bonds' health permitted him to play this season. His knees are shot. If he plays at all, I don't think he'll be travelling to opposing parks. The Giants are going to milk the Bonds circus until that cow has gone dry. Maybe it already has, but I'm sure the idea of a controversial Bonds spurring big ticket sales is music to that club's ears.

Reds Nd2
03-07-2006, 05:31 PM
If he's physically able (a big if) , he'll play this year. I look for him to break Ruth's 714 and fall short of 755 while playing in about 80-100 games

Yep. That's my opinion as well. If he's able to take the field he will play this season.

Chip R
03-07-2006, 05:39 PM
You know what the crazy thing about Bonds is is that if he were more personable, none of this would be happening right now.

RedsBaron
03-07-2006, 05:45 PM
Bonds may not care--and honestly probably doesn't. But the Giants care. if they think the Barry Bonds show has been a circus in the past, they couldn't possibly be prepared for what would come if Barry keeps playing this year and manages to threaten Aaron's record.
Should Bonds ever "break" Aaron's career HR mark, I hope Hammering Hank is nowhere near the ballpark when the record falls and that he ignores Bonds.

RFS62
03-07-2006, 05:59 PM
Wow, this is huge.

And Barry has a contract for his reality show on ESPN. Wonder how it's all going to play out.

I can't imagine SI going to press with this unless they're sure of their sources.

pedro
03-07-2006, 06:00 PM
Should Bonds ever "break" Aaron's career HR mark, I hope Hammering Hank is nowhere near the ballpark when the record falls and that he ignores Bonds.

Not that it really matters but I wonder if Hank ever did an "greenies" as they were so prevelant during the years he was in the league.

I'm not trying to denegrate Hank. I'm just thinking that with a lot of stuff that has come over the years it's pretty evident that a large percentage, maybe even a majority, of players over the years dabbled in something or other during their careers.

paintmered
03-07-2006, 06:10 PM
If this book is true, then even the player's union won't dare support the guy.

And didn't Bonds quit the players' union?


I think the player's association will support him through thick and thin. He's part of the reason why average players are making as much as they are.

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 06:26 PM
Not that it really matters but I wonder if Hank ever did an "greenies" as they were so prevelant during the years he was in the league.

I'm not trying to denegrate Hank. I'm just thinking that with a lot of stuff that has come over the years it's pretty evident that a large percentage, maybe even a majority, of players over the years dabbled in something or other during their careers.

That's been my point for years, literally. For the past 40-50 years, players have been taking whatever they could to gain an edge, be it HGH or something else. If it wasn't against baseball's rules, they took/did it. And sometimes if it was against baseball's rules, they still did it (see Ford, Whitey and Perry, Gaylord).

And before that? It was an all-white league.

People put all these records into a sacred land, but still fail to see the conditions during which they were accomplished. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs ... and not one of them came against a black pitcher. There is no asterik next to Ruth's name, and there won't be one next to Bonds' name, regardless of whether he took anything or not.

Gaylord Perry cheated, wrote a book about it and laughed about it. He's in the Hall of Fame. If Barry Bonds took steroids, then he can stand in line right next to Gaylord Perry. The writers put Perry in, and they'll also put Bonds in. This isn't Pete Rose and betting on the game, which is significantly worse than anything Bonds, Giambi, McGwire, etc. have done.

pedro
03-07-2006, 06:29 PM
Good points Cyclone.

Gainesville Red
03-07-2006, 06:43 PM
About the reality show. How do those type of contracts work? Was he getting filmed when he heard about this? Did he tear someone's head off with his bear hands? How much will he have to pay to not have that aired?

Or is Bonds's reactions to this type of thing too valuable to ESPN that it's priceless?

BCubb2003
03-07-2006, 06:51 PM
About the reality show. How do those type of contracts work? Was he getting filmed when he heard about this? Did he tear someone's head off with his bear hands? How much will he have to pay to not have that aired?

Or is Bonds's reactions to this type of thing too valuable to ESPN that it's priceless?


I have a hunch that this kind of reality show, especially with Bonds, is not a 24-hours-a-day with Barry Bonds deal but more of a let's follow Barry Bonds for a couple of hours while he does this game show thing in a Paula Abul wig, then a couple of weeks later they schedule another stunt to film.

RedsBaron
03-07-2006, 06:56 PM
I respectfully, but utterly and absolutely disagree with Cyclone. "Greenies" give a player more energy--so does strong coffee. I am all in favor of banning "greenies," but I do not believe that "greenies" enabled Hank Aaron to break Babe Ruth's career HR mark. I do believe that steroids and other designer drugs enabled Barry Bonds to hit 73 HRs in one season and to slug .863 that same season.
When baseball becomes a "sport" in which the determination of the best player comes down to who has the best druggist or chemist and the most imaginative ability to chemically alter one's body, I'll move on to something else. The game, at least at the professional level, will no longer be worth my time.

vaticanplum
03-07-2006, 06:59 PM
That's been my point for years, literally. For the past 40-50 years, players have been taking whatever they could to gain an edge, be it HGH or something else. If it wasn't against baseball's rules, they took/did it. And sometimes if it was against baseball's rules, they still did it (see Ford, Whitey and Perry, Gaylord).

And before that? It was an all-white league.

People put all these records into a sacred land, but still fail to see the conditions during which they were accomplished. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs ... and not one of them came against a black pitcher. There is no asterik next to Ruth's name, and there won't be one next to Bonds' name, regardless of whether he took anything or not.

Gaylord Perry cheated, wrote a book about it and laughed about it. He's in the Hall of Fame. If Barry Bonds took steroids, then he can stand in line right next to Gaylord Perry. The writers put Perry in, and they'll also put Bonds in. This isn't Pete Rose and betting on the game, which is significantly worse than anything Bonds, Giambi, McGwire, etc. have done.

Cyclone, these are good points, but until we all move into a vacuum, extenuating circumstances are a part of every situation in life. What you say about Babe Ruth never having had to face black pitchers is true. It's also true, according to a study done by WEEI radio in Boston, that if we allowed for the conditions of his time, such as season length, field size, and pitching stats, Ruth would have had something like 1140 homers in the current system. It's all kind of moot really, because things happened when they did in the circumstances under which they did. Every single record does and unfortunately they just can't evolve in the same way the sport itself does. As long as we want record books to celebrate the achievements of the sport's great players -- and it's a noble thing to do, I think -- the allowances for the changes in time and the acceptance of the way things were in the past just have to be made. I do agree that sometimes the Hall of Fame and the record books and things of that nature are taken too far in being used as a basis for comparison, when I think they should stand as more of simply a celebration of accomplishment under the circumstances in which they took place.

But one thing you say is "If it wasn't against baseball rules, they took it." And that's the problem in this situation as I see it. Steroids ARE against the rules in today's game. Bang, that paritcular extenuating circumstance is shot down. We can examine why steroids weren't illegal many decades ago, whether they existed, if so how strong they were...it doesn't matter. We can't change the fact that they weren't illegal and we can't know how a change in this rule might have affected the players or the game. But Barry Bonds knew they were illegal and he knew how they affected the game. I don't see this as another argument of steroids vs. gambling. They're both against the rules in the game as it stands today and anyone who breaks those rules under our current system should be punished for it.

Sea Ray
03-07-2006, 07:15 PM
That's been my point for years, literally. For the past 40-50 years, players have been taking whatever they could to gain an edge, be it HGH or something else. If it wasn't against baseball's rules, they took/did it. And sometimes if it was against baseball's rules, they still did it (see Ford, Whitey and Perry, Gaylord).

And before that? It was an all-white league.

People put all these records into a sacred land, but still fail to see the conditions during which they were accomplished. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs ... and not one of them came against a black pitcher. There is no asterik next to Ruth's name, and there won't be one next to Bonds' name, regardless of whether he took anything or not.

Gaylord Perry cheated, wrote a book about it and laughed about it. He's in the Hall of Fame. If Barry Bonds took steroids, then he can stand in line right next to Gaylord Perry. The writers put Perry in, and they'll also put Bonds in. This isn't Pete Rose and betting on the game, which is significantly worse than anything Bonds, Giambi, McGwire, etc. have done.

I'm not for putting an * next to anyone's name in the record book but I respect Roger Maris' record more than anyone who broke it while on the juice. Nothing enhanced performances of power hitters more than anabolic steroids and it can be easily seen by checking the recordbook. For 100 years two players touched the 60 HR mark. All of a sudden in the steroid age guys were hitting it twice in a year. That's a pretty obvious cause and effect. Now that baseball is checking for steroid use players can't hit 50.

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 07:17 PM
I respectfully, but utterly and absolutely disagree with Cyclone. "Greenies" give a player more energy--so does strong coffee. I am all in favor of banning "greenies," but I do not believe that "greenies" enabled Hank Aaron to break Babe Ruth's career HR mark. I do believe that steroids and other designer drugs enabled Barry Bonds to hit 73 HRs in one season and to slug .863 that same season.
When baseball becomes a "sport" in which the determination of the best player comes down to who has the best druggist or chemist and the most imaginative ability to chemically alter one's body, I'll move on to something else. The game, at least at the professional level, will no longer be worth my time.

There's anecdotal evidence that players were using steroids even 40 years ago. Not greenies, but steroids. Even Bouton's book exposed plenty negatives about the game, and when people read it today they laugh and joke about it.

It makes no sense to me.

Doctoring a baseball is cheating, is against the rules and provides a significant advantage to any pitcher who actually does it. The proof is within league run scoring and ERA marks when the game outlawed the activity. Why do people think it's funny and hilarious when a pitcher cheats in that fashion?

It makes no sense to me.

I have to question the people who are very ready to throw out the legitimacy of Bonds' records, but hold the records of anybody who played prior to 1947 close to their heart. What's more impressive, 700 home runs in an all-white league or 700 home runs while on steroids? Why do people think 700 home runs in an all-white league is sacred territory, but then argue that a guy who apparently used steroids should be erased from the books?

It makes no sense to me.

Cap Anson is a large reason why the game became segregated, yet he's a celebrated member of the Hall of Fame. Charles Comiskey covered up a scandal in which his players fixed World Series games, but he's also a celebrated member of the Hall of Fame. Not saying you are, RB, but I shake my head at anybody who will argue that using steroids is a bigger or equal disgrace than either of those two activities.

That definitely makes no sense to me.

People can campaign against Bonds, his Hall of Fame legitimacy and his records all they want ... but if so, then I'm going to ask them to go out and campaign to purify the Hall entirely. It wouldn't surprise me if the number of people willing to do all that can be counted on one hand.

And yes, that makes no sense to me.

Sea Ray
03-07-2006, 07:32 PM
People can campaign against Bonds, his Hall of Fame legitimacy and his records all they want ... but if so, then I'm going to ask them to go out and campaign to purify the Hall entirely. It wouldn't surprise me if the number of people willing to do all that can be counted on one hand.

And yes, that makes no sense to me.

Put me in the category of questioning Bonds' HOF legitimacy. The cause and effect of his steroid use beginning in the late 199os is just too great. The other issues you bring up are totally different issues and must be considered on their own merits. As for Bonds' merits, it will be interesting come time for HOF voting time how many feel like you do and how many feel like I do.

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 07:38 PM
It's all kind of moot really, because things happened when they did in the circumstances under which they did. Every single record does and unfortunately they just can't evolve in the same way the sport itself does. As long as we want record books to celebrate the achievements of the sport's great players -- and it's a noble thing to do, I think -- the allowances for the changes in time and the acceptance of the way things were in the past just have to be made. I do agree that sometimes the Hall of Fame and the record books and things of that nature are taken too far in being used as a basis for comparison, when I think they should stand as more of simply a celebration of accomplishment under the circumstances in which they took place.

What you say above is my point. The sport evolved, or the players in the sport evolved before the sport outlawed whatever disgrace the players participated in.


But one thing you say is "If it wasn't against baseball rules, they took it." And that's the problem in this situation as I see it. Steroids ARE against the rules in today's game. Bang, that paritcular extenuating circumstance is shot down. We can examine why steroids weren't illegal many decades ago, whether they existed, if so how strong they were...it doesn't matter. We can't change the fact that they weren't illegal and we can't know how a change in this rule might have affected the players or the game. But Barry Bonds knew they were illegal and he knew how they affected the game. I don't see this as another argument of steroids vs. gambling. They're both against the rules in the game as it stands today and anyone who breaks those rules under our current system should be punished for it.

The key is they are against the rules today. I believe it's been pointed out by someone else, but if not ... were they against the rules at the time Bonds used them?

That is the key right there. Barry Bonds could have used all the steroids he wanted in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 etc ... but if the game didn't outlaw them, then how did he do anything wrong? He did not break any rule within the game, which is why the game will not do anything to punish him even if everything in the book is proven to be absolutely true (the lone exception is if that proof includes information that he fixed the steroid tests).

This is where the whole illegal argument comes into play, and I understand that.

Assume you're walking down the street and I throw a 99mph fastball at your head with the intent to injure you. Chances are, I'm getting arrested, prosecuted, you name it. If I'm on the mound and do that, do I get prosecuted? Very doubtful. I might not even get thrown out of the game (so in effect, I could throw at your head with an intent to injure you again!) It's the same way in hockey; on the ice I can skate up to you and essentially assault you, but if I did the same thing on a street sidewalk then I'm likely to be charged with assault.

The sport will police itself, and in some cases that extends beyond the reach of the law policing some illegal activities that occur on the field of play. The most important aspect of this is it's the job of law enforcement officials to police illegal steroid use in society, not the law of baseball officials. Baseball officials are only responsible for policing their own laws within the game itself.

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 07:41 PM
Put me in the category of questioning Bonds' HOF legitimacy. The cause and effect of his steroid use beginning in the late 199os is just too great. The other issues you bring up are totally different issues and must be considered on their own merits. As for Bonds' merits, it will be interesting come time for HOF voting time how many feel like you do and how many feel like I do.

Well, that all begs several questions:

1) Do you believe Cap Anson should be in the Hall of Fame?
2) Do you believe Kenesaw Mountain Landis should be in the Hall of Fame?
3) Do you believe Ty Cobb should be in the Hall of Fame?
4) Do you believe Charles Comiskey should be in the Hall of Fame?

I can list several more, but you probably get the point.

westofyou
03-07-2006, 07:43 PM
The cause and effect of his steroid use beginning in the late 199os is just too great. According to the SI article it began in 1998, Barry was the best player in the game before that.

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 07:49 PM
According to the SI article it began in 1998, Barry was the best player in the game before that.

Yep, his 1993 season is one of the greatest single seasons of all-time, but few people will recognize it as such.

In 80 years after everyone posting and viewing this thread is gone, people will be comparing Barry Bonds to Ted Williams as an offensive machine. Both players will be in the Hall of Fame, and people will be comparing the greatness of Bonds to the greatness of Williams. Nobody will care about steroids.

Joe Jackson and Pete Rose, on the other hand, will still be in the same place that they're in right now.

westofyou
03-07-2006, 08:02 PM
Yep, his 1993 season is one of the greatest single seasons of all-time, but few people will recognize it as such.
Man oh man, that was a great season of baseball, I was front row until the end... too bad the Giants lost that year.

Cedric
03-07-2006, 08:06 PM
Yep, his 1993 season is one of the greatest single seasons of all-time, but few people will recognize it as such.

In 80 years after everyone posting and viewing this thread is gone, people will be comparing Barry Bonds to Ted Williams as an offensive machine. Both players will be in the Hall of Fame, and people will be comparing the greatness of Bonds to the greatness of Williams. Nobody will care about steroids.

Joe Jackson and Pete Rose, on the other hand, will still be in the same place that they're in right now.

Poor Barry. Who cares about baseball at this point? If you are that willing to put your life at risk and ruin your family you aren't much of a human anyway. I'm sick and tired of the Barry apologists.

So because other people cheated in the past we are supposed to all be ok with Barry Bonds? Explain what you want us to do?

Dom Heffner
03-07-2006, 08:31 PM
According to the SI article it began in 1998, Barry was the best player in the game before that.

Yes, and because of steroids, he remained the best player in the game- and even better than before- for longer than he should have.

Anamoly my tail.

red-in-la
03-07-2006, 08:55 PM
That's been my point for years, literally. For the past 40-50 years, players have been taking whatever they could to gain an edge, be it HGH or something else. If it wasn't against baseball's rules, they took/did it. And sometimes if it was against baseball's rules, they still did it (see Ford, Whitey and Perry, Gaylord).

And before that? It was an all-white league.

People put all these records into a sacred land, but still fail to see the conditions during which they were accomplished. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs ... and not one of them came against a black pitcher. There is no asterik next to Ruth's name, and there won't be one next to Bonds' name, regardless of whether he took anything or not.

Gaylord Perry cheated, wrote a book about it and laughed about it. He's in the Hall of Fame. If Barry Bonds took steroids, then he can stand in line right next to Gaylord Perry. The writers put Perry in, and they'll also put Bonds in. This isn't Pete Rose and betting on the game, which is significantly worse than anything Bonds, Giambi, McGwire, etc. have done.

If this book is accurate, and unless I misread what has been put up here. Bonds lied to a grand jury AND he used illegal prescriptions. Both are FEDERAL offenses. Am I wrong about what he supposedly did?

If he did these two things, not only should he not be in the Hall, he should be banned....just like that other guy they got on tax evasion....pete somebody....

KronoRed
03-07-2006, 08:55 PM
I wonder why 1998, I don't see a performance drop around that time.

Wonder what made him do it.

Cedric
03-07-2006, 08:55 PM
Cyclone- You are really in total denial if you think Barry Bonds legacy is in tow. I think this arguement is almost personal for you. You took a stand for Bonds awhile ago and you aren't going to back down. No matter how absurd the stand is.

Redsfaithful
03-07-2006, 09:04 PM
It's also true, according to a study done by WEEI radio in Boston, that if we allowed for the conditions of his time, such as season length, field size, and pitching stats, Ruth would have had something like 1140 homers in the current system.

Babe Ruth would have been a thoroughly average player if he were playing today. Pitchers didn't throw as hard, they didn't throw so many different pitches, and pitchers weren't well coached or conditioned in Ruth's time.

Barry Bonds would have hit a ridiculous number of home runs hitting against the pitchers Ruth hit against.

Cyclone, excellent post.

Why do we draw the limits where we draw them? Why is Creatine ok but Winstrol isn't? They're both performance enhancers.

Why aren't greenies as despised as steroids? They absolutely did have game changing effects on players. Pete Rose popped them like they were candy. Surely he wouldn't have had the same energy level without them.

What Bonds did was wrong. But it's going to be tough to choke down the outrage coming from all directions in the coming weeks, because its hypocritical, and because some of it is so clearly racially tinged.

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 09:05 PM
If this book is accurate, and unless I misread what has been put up here. Bonds lied to a grand jury AND he used illegal prescriptions. Both are FEDERAL offenses. Am I wrong about what he supposedly did?

If he did these two things, not only should he not be in the Hall, he should be banned....just like that other guy they got on tax evasion....pete somebody....

Pete Rose is banned for betting on baseball, not tax evasion. He went to prison for tax evasion, not betting on baseball.

If Bonds lied to a grand jury and used illegal prescriptions, then it's the job of law enforcement to penalize him, not baseball's job. People are calling for him to be banned for baseball, but those offenses are crimes to society, not crimes against baseball.

Baseball only polices itself, not society.

Cedric
03-07-2006, 09:07 PM
Babe Ruth would have been a thoroughly average player if he were playing today. Pitchers didn't throw as hard, they didn't throw so many different pitches, and pitchers weren't well coached or conditioned in Ruth's time.

Barry Bonds would have hit a ridiculous number of home runs hitting against the pitchers Ruth hit against.

Cyclone, excellent post.

Why do we draw the limits where we draw them? Why is Creatine ok but Winstrol isn't? They're both performance enhancers.

Why aren't greenies as despised as steroids? They absolutely did have game changing effects on players. Pete Rose popped them like they were candy. Surely he wouldn't have had the same energy level without them.

What Bonds did was wrong. But it's going to be tough to choke down the outrage coming from all directions in the coming weeks, because its hypocritical, and because some of it is so clearly racially tinged.

Yeah, people sure let McGwire off easy. Don't just throw out the race card when you have no idea what you are talking about. MANY people dislike Bonds and want his records gone for valid reasons. It's pretty arrogant and judgemental of you to call people racist.

Redsland
03-07-2006, 09:08 PM
I wonder why 1998, I don't see a performance drop around that time.

Wonder what made him do it.
The article blames it on Bonds' jealousy over the McGwire/Sosa thing. Bonds hit 47 that year, to very little acclaim.

MWM
03-07-2006, 09:13 PM
I have no problem at all using rational judgment in determining that certain levels of cheating are greater than others. I don't buy the argument that because other levels of cheating exist, then we have to measure them equally.

Honestly, I couldn't care less if Bonds' makes the hall of fame or if is career stats remain intact along with his records. My only concern is in the lagacy of his accomplishments and how they rack and stack up against his peers. Barry was one of the allt-timegreats prior to 1999 and should be recognized as such. But when having conversations about the all-time greats, THAT'S the Barry that should be considered without the accomplishements of 2001-2004.

But I'd at least like to see his defenders at least admit that the massive increase in his numbers in those years are the result of doping and not super human ability (above what he shoed throughout the 90s).

Redsfaithful
03-07-2006, 09:14 PM
Yeah, people sure let McGwire off easy. Don't just throw out the race card when you have no idea what you are talking about. MANY people dislike Bonds and want his records gone for valid reasons. It's pretty arrogant and judgemental of you to call people racist.

Compared to Bonds McGwire definitely has gotten off easy.

I don't think I called everyone who's mad at Bonds a racist, but some? Yeah, definitely.

vaticanplum
03-07-2006, 09:15 PM
Babe Ruth would have been a thoroughly average player if he were playing today. Pitchers didn't throw as hard, they didn't throw so many different pitches, and pitchers weren't well coached or conditioned in Ruth's time.

I was using that research as evidence that we can use any number of statistics as guesswork regarding what might have happened with players in the past had they been playing today and we can never really know for sure what a player might have done elsewhere. I don't think there's any more proof that Babe Ruth would have been an average player than there is that he would have hit 1140 home runs. As a present-day hitter, he surely would be better coached or conditioned or even juiced as well. He might have remained a pitcher. Heck, he might have been a great football player or a crappy shortstop. There's no way we can know any of this and my point is that achievements can stand only in the time in which they happened.

MWM
03-07-2006, 09:17 PM
RF, I'm more than willing to call out racism when it exists, but I honestly don't think it's the case here. It's possible in a very small minority, but I think it was almost entirely Barry's attitude vs. McGwire's. If Barry was more of a likeable public guy and the reception was similar, then I think it would be clear. But in Barry's case, it's difficult to say it's racially driven because he has such an ornery public image.

And if McGwire still played, he would be cut to pieces by the fans and media.

Cedric
03-07-2006, 09:18 PM
Compared to Bonds McGwire definitely has gotten off easy.

I don't think I called everyone who's mad at Bonds a racist, but some? Yeah, definitely.

One is still playing and chasing the best record in the sport. Please explain how you can compare such vastly different situations? Of course there is more outrage for the guy going after the record, not the record that is already done.

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 09:25 PM
Cyclone- You are really in total denial if you think Barry Bonds legacy is in tow. I think this arguement is almost personal for you. You took a stand for Bonds awhile ago and you aren't going to back down. No matter how absurd the stand is.

Cedric and everyone else who probably thinks this is personal for me ...

It's not, and not in the least bit. It has absolutely nothing to do with my previous stance on Bonds and nothing to do with what I think Bonds' legacy should be.

It has everything to do with putting steroid use, including Bonds' steroid use, in its proper context within the overall history of the game.

There are posters reading this, and have posted in this thread, that understand this issue the same as I do. They've even stated it in this thread and other threads on the board.

I really do wish it would be possible to time travel, first back to the fall of 1920, and second to the year ... say ... 2100.

I guarantee you that what baseball experienced by Hugh Fullerton blowing the fuse on the Black Sox scandal is much more damning to the game than this report on Barry Bonds and anything else steroids related. Maybe then all those people who think Pete Rose should be reinstated would realize how fatal gambling is within the world of sports.

There are people reading this who believe Pete Rose should be reinstated while Barry Bonds should be banned. That's utterly ridiculous.

I also guarantee you that when everyone alive today is dead, and when people 100 years from now will be arguing over the merits of this player and that player, nobody will give a rats tail about steroids, Barry Bonds' use of steroids, Mark McGwire's use of steroids, etc. etc. etc. Barry Bonds in 2100 will be seen in the same light as Gaylord Perry in 2100. Heck, perhaps Bonds will even be seen under a less damning light, because afterall, Perry did break baseball rules while Bonds did not.

Unless there's evidence within the book that Bonds used steroids after baseball instituted its steroids policy and/or messed around in ways that allowed him to pass steroid tests that he'd otherwise fail, then Barry Bonds did not break any baseball rule. It is as simple as that. Those who say Barry Bonds broke a law in society, well that's great ... take a step back and let society's law enforcement officers step in and penalize Bonds. It is not baseball's job to enforce a societal law.

People want Barry Bonds banned for breaking a baseball rule that did not exist. People want Barry Bonds' records to be wiped out for breaking a baseball rule that did not exist. Many of those same people also want Pete Rose reinstated.

Well, sorry to say, none of those three will ever happen while we're all alive, and none of those three should ever happen. Baseball will not wipe those records out. Baseball will not ban Barry Bonds. And no, baseball will not reinstate Pete Rose. That's just the way it will be, and just the way it should be.

RedsBaron
03-07-2006, 09:30 PM
There is a rainbow coalition of players who have used steroids and other chemical enhancements, including Mark McGwire (white), Barry Bonds (black) and Rafael Palmiero (Hispanic), and I'm an equal opportunity fan--I wouldn't vote for any of them as Hall of Famers. If Jason Giambi and Ken Caminiti (both white) had career numbers that caused people to consider them for the HOF I wouldn't support them either.

Cedric
03-07-2006, 09:38 PM
Cedric and everyone else who probably thinks this is personal for me ...

It's not, and not in the least bit. It has absolutely nothing to do with my previous stance on Bonds and nothing to do with what I think Bonds' legacy should be.

It has everything to do with putting steroid use, including Bonds' steroid use, in its proper context within the overall history of the game.

There are posters reading this, and have posted in this thread, that understand this issue the same as I do. They've even stated it in this thread and other threads on the board.

I really do wish it would be possible to time travel, first back to the fall of 1920, and second to the year ... say ... 2100.

I guarantee you that what baseball experienced by Hugh Fullerton blowing the fuse on the Black Sox scandal is much more damning to the game than this report on Barry Bonds and anything else steroids related. Maybe then all those people who think Pete Rose should be reinstated would realize how fatal gambling is within the world of sports.

There are people reading this who believe Pete Rose should be reinstated while Barry Bonds should be banned. That's utterly ridiculous.

I also guarantee you that when everyone alive today is dead, and when people 100 years from now will be arguing over the merits of this player and that player, nobody will give a rats tail about steroids, Barry Bonds' use of steroids, Mark McGwire's use of steroids, etc. etc. etc. Barry Bonds in 2100 will be seen in the same light as Gaylord Perry in 2100. Heck, perhaps Bonds will even be seen under a less damning light, because afterall, Perry did break baseball rules while Bonds did not.

Unless there's evidence within the book that Bonds used steroids after baseball instituted its steroids policy and/or messed around in ways that allowed him to pass steroid tests that he'd otherwise fail, then Barry Bonds did not break any baseball rule. It is as simple as that. Those who say Barry Bonds broke a law in society, well that's great ... take a step back and let society's law enforcement officers step in and penalize Bonds. It is not baseball's job to enforce a societal law.

People want Barry Bonds banned for breaking a baseball rule that did not exist. People want Barry Bonds' records to be wiped out for breaking a baseball rule that did not exist. Many of those same people also want Pete Rose reinstated.

Well, sorry to say, none of those three will ever happen while we're all alive, and none of those three should ever happen. Baseball will not wipe those records out. Baseball will not ban Barry Bonds. And no, baseball will not reinstate Pete Rose. That's just the way it will be, and just the way it should be.


Are you really saying that you don't have enough common sense to gauge the levels of cheating? You have shown yourself from your time here to be a very smart person on this website, I don't believe you really think all indiscretions are the same. Basically you make that same point over and over again and it doesn't fly.

Redsfaithful
03-07-2006, 09:39 PM
RF, I'm more than willing to call out racism when it exists, but I honestly don't think it's the case here. It's possible in a very small minority, but I think it was almost entirely Barry's attitude vs. McGwire's. If Barry was more of a likeable public guy and the reception was similar, then I think it would be clear. But in Barry's case, it's difficult to say it's racially driven because he has such an ornery public image.

Would he have that image if he was white? It's a matter of debate, but I'm guessing no, at least not to the degree that it is now.

Redsfaithful
03-07-2006, 09:40 PM
Are you really saying that you don't have enough common sense to gauge the levels of cheating? You have shown yourself from your time here to be a very smart person on this website, I don't believe you really think all indiscretions are the same. Basically you make that same point over and over again and it doesn't fly.

Why are you taking disagreement so personally? Calm down.

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 09:40 PM
There is a rainbow coalition of players who have used steroids and other chemical enhancements, including Mark McGwire (white), Barry Bonds (black) and Rafael Palmiero (Hispanic), and I'm an equal opportunity fan--I wouldn't vote for any of them as Hall of Famers. If Jason Giambi and Ken Caminiti (both white) had career numbers that caused people to consider them for the HOF I wouldn't support them either.

But ...

1) Do you support Cap Anson for the HOF?
2) Do you support Kenesaw Mountain Landis for the HOF?
3) Do you support Charles Comiskey for the HOF?
4) Do you support Ty Cobb for the HOF?
5) Do you support Tris Speaker for the HOF?
6) Do you support Joe Jackson for the HOF?
7) Do you support Pete Rose for the HOF?
8) Do you support Gaylord Perry for the HOF?
9) Do you support Whitey Ford for the HOF?

This is all about historical perspective for me, RB.

The first two are largely responsible for shutting blacks out of the game. Heck, we could maybe even throw Ban Johnson and all those other racist executives in the pile with Anson and Landis. I don't know, people can call me crazy, but I'd say shutting out entire races of people in your sport for over a half century is a far worse crime than using steroids.

Charles Comiskey covered up a World Series fix. There's strong evidence that Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were involved in fixing games. You know what Joe Jackson and Pete Rose are banned for. All are worse crimes than using steroids.

I really am curious as to your stance on all nine of the above guys. Because if you're shutting the door to steroid users, then I have to imagine you should be up in arms about wanting to shut the door to Jackson/Rose and also shut out the rest.

And for the record, RB, I'm not going to ask you those questions without also being willing to give you my answers. In order, my answers are no, no, no, yes, yes, currently undecided (Carney's book may help me decide on that), no, yes and yes.

Cedric
03-07-2006, 09:42 PM
Why are you taking disagreement so personally? Calm down.

How am I taking it personally? I guess you can read intent of everything and everybody now?

Cyclone is a great poster and one I respect alot. Don't talk down to me or tell me what to do.

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 09:46 PM
Are you really saying that you don't have enough common sense to gauge the levels of cheating? You have shown yourself from your time here to be a very smart person on this website, I don't believe you really think all indiscretions are the same. Basically you make that same point over and over again and it doesn't fly.

The same questions apply, Cedric ...

1) Do you support Cap Anson for the HOF?
2) Do you support Kenesaw Mountain Landis for the HOF?
3) Do you support Charles Comiskey for the HOF?
4) Do you support Ty Cobb for the HOF?
5) Do you support Tris Speaker for the HOF?
6) Do you support Joe Jackson for the HOF?
7) Do you support Pete Rose for the HOF?
8) Do you support Gaylord Perry for the HOF?
9) Do you support Whitey Ford for the HOF?

It's all about historical perspective and where steroids really fit within that perspective. From much of the response here, it seems that people think steroids are far worse than any of the crimes the nine men above committed.

Cedric
03-07-2006, 09:48 PM
I can understand that question. I would have to look further into the details of each case. I think each situation should be judged completely seperate from each other.

RedsBaron
03-07-2006, 09:48 PM
I do not advocate wiping statistics off the books, but we also do not have to simply look at a set of numbers and salute either.
Ross Barnes once hit .429 in a National League season and hit .359 for his major league career. That doesn't mean that I will or should conclude that he was a better hitter than Ted Williams. I do not regard a .429 average in 1876, at the very dawn of the sport as a professional activity, baseball to be as impressive an achievement as a .406 average attained once the game had matured.
Old Hoss Radbourne once won 59 games in a single season, but I don't regard him to be a greater pitcher than Bob Gibson, who never won even half that many in a single season.
Yes, Chuck Klein put together some impressive batting numbers, but that doesn't mean that I must ignore the conditions he played in or how he benefitted from having a bandbox as a home park.
Barry Bonds's complied batting numbers from 2001 through 2004 that, on the surface, are the greatest performance by a major league hitter, ever. There is overwhelming evidence that he did so in part because he was able to buy chemical enhancements to allow him to put together a string of seasons after age 36 that he incapable of achieving on his own physical ability alone. Excuse me if I don't salute.
If in some future season bionics allow a hitter to hit 100 HRs in a season or to pitch a 500 mph fastball, that doesn't mean that I'm going to say, well Bud Selig never got around to banning bionics so the bionic man is now the greatest player of all time, or at least until the Terminator arrives from the future.
I find honest human athletic achievement to be of interest. I have little interest in better baseball through chemistry.

Cedric
03-07-2006, 09:49 PM
I was thinking the same thing RedBaron. Just because some eye doctor in the future could come up with super human vision contacts, I don't think you can expect fans to just except 100 homers a year and not complain about the numbers in the past.

Yachtzee
03-07-2006, 09:57 PM
But you see Cyclone, baseball is full of instances of ex post facto rule making. The Black Sox were made permanently ineligible ex post facto by Kennesaw Mountain Landis. Even though Pete Rose was banned from baseball itself based on a rule that was on the books, he was removed from Hall of Fame eligibility ex post facto. Baseball can ban Bonds, McGwire, Palmiero or anyone else ex post facto because MLB's conduct is not governed by the US Constitution.

But maybe steroids were banned by baseball back then. When Barry Bonds was allegedly taking steroids (or McGwire, Canseco, and Palmiero for that matter), there was no explicit rule banning steroids in the MLB rule book. However, steroids were considered a controlled substance by US law, illegal without a doctor's prescription. What was the rule on taking illegal drugs at that time? They had to have some rule on the books, because they were able to suspend Steve Howe, Darryll Strawberry and a number of other guys for using cocaine. Did that rule prohibit cocaine specifically, or was it a blanket prohibition on all illegal drugs? If it was a blanket prohibition, then taking steroids without a prescription would have been prohibited by MLB, even if it didn't explicitly list it as a banned substance. Of course "Greenies" would probably fall under that prohibition too, which would open up another can of worms.

In any case, MLB and the Commissioner have broad powers to discipline players, even if it might be practically limited by the bargaining power of the Players' Association. If they wish to, they may decide that Bonds' steroid use has called the integrity fo the game into question and they may choose to ban Bonds or anyone else who has used steroids.

RedsBaron
03-07-2006, 10:07 PM
The same questions apply, Cedric ...

1) Do you support Cap Anson for the HOF?
2) Do you support Kenesaw Mountain Landis for the HOF?
3) Do you support Charles Comiskey for the HOF?
4) Do you support Ty Cobb for the HOF?
5) Do you support Tris Speaker for the HOF?
6) Do you support Joe Jackson for the HOF?
7) Do you support Pete Rose for the HOF?
8) Do you support Gaylord Perry for the HOF?
9) Do you support Whitey Ford for the HOF?

It's all about historical perspective and where steroids really fit within that perspective. From much of the response here, it seems that people think steroids are far worse than any of the crimes the nine men above committed.
Anson and Landis were racists, as was Cobb. That is a worse moral sin IMO than using steroids or gambling on the game, but yes, I would vote for Anson and Cobb. Their repugnant racism does not mean that they were not HOF quality players. As for Landis, he may have been as rotten a person as has ever been associated with the game, but he also did clean up the sport after the Black Sox and other scandals.
Comiskey-no. Rare is the owner who ever deserves induction in the HOF, and Comiskey helped bring on the Black Sox. I'd support kicking him out of the HOF.
As for the allegations against Cobb and Speaker for alleging fixing games, from what little I've read the evidence is inconclusive. They otherwise clearly belong in the HOF. If there is ever conclusive evidence that they fixed games, then no, but for now, yes.
Jackson-no.
Rose-no.
Perry and Ford-yes and yes, although I do mentally discount their all time ranking because of their use of illegal substances on a baseball..
Do I believe that using steroids is worse than doctoring a baseball? Yes. George Brett violated the rules by using too much pine tar on his bat, but I have no problem with him being in the HOF. If all that Pete Rose ever did was use a corked bat in his old age, I'd say let him in the HOF.
Steroid use is different for me. We do not have baseball players dying at a young age because they corked their bat or used sandpaper on a baseball. Ray Chapman's death in 1920 helped to clean up the use of foreign substances on the ball. People have died because of steroid use, and the use of chemical enhancements has presented otherwise honest players with a stark choice: stay clean and perhaps be unable to successfully compete against players on the juice, or partake of chemicals too, even if it leads to an early death and corrupts the game. I want a clean game.

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 10:26 PM
But you see Cyclone, baseball is full of instances of ex post facto rule making. The Black Sox were made permanently ineligible ex post facto by Kennesaw Mountain Landis. Even though Pete Rose was banned from baseball itself based on a rule that was on the books, he was removed from Hall of Fame eligibility ex post facto. Baseball can ban Bonds, McGwire, Palmiero or anyone else ex post facto because MLB's conduct is not governed by the US Constitution.

Right, baseball's conduct isn't governed by the US Constitution, but there was already a significant precedent set prior to the Black Sox Scandal for penalties of fixing games.

Bill Craver
Jim Devlin
George Hall
Al Nichols
Richard Higham
Joseph Creamer
Horace Fogel

All were banned prior to the Black Sox Scandal for allegedly participating in plots to fix games, ranging from 1876-1912.

Baseball's ruling in 1989 rendering anybody on the ineligible list also ineligible for the Hall of Fame was to prevent the writers from being idiots and electing Pete Rose anyway. Even today we always see the argument of "Well he didn't bet to lose ... " The only other time a HOF caliber player was banned was Joe Jackson, but the HOF didn't even exist until 15 years after the fact. In any event, it's also likely the new ruling was more of a formality than anything else.


But maybe steroids were banned by baseball back then. When Barry Bonds was allegedly taking steroids (or McGwire, Canseco, and Palmiero for that matter), there was no explicit rule banning steroids in the MLB rule book. However, steroids were considered a controlled substance by US law, illegal without a doctor's prescription. What was the rule on taking illegal drugs at that time? They had to have some rule on the books, because they were able to suspend Steve Howe, Darryll Strawberry and a number of other guys for using cocaine. Did that rule prohibit cocaine specifically, or was it a blanket prohibition on all illegal drugs? If it was a blanket prohibition, then taking steroids without a prescription would have been prohibited by MLB, even if it didn't explicitly list it as a banned substance. Of course "Greenies" would probably fall under that prohibition too, which would open up another can of worms.

In any case, MLB and the Commissioner have broad powers to discipline players, even if it might be practically limited by the bargaining power of the Players' Association. If they wish to, they may decide that Bonds' steroid use has called the integrity fo the game into question and they may choose to ban Bonds or anyone else who has used steroids.

Yep, I'd have to imagine greenies would fall under the same cloud as steroids in the scenario that you outlined, during which the vast majority of all the players ever to don a uniform in the last 40 years would be guilty.

But will Bonds be banned? Certainly not under the current penalty system. One cannot say they'd have caught Bonds three times had they actually had a testing policy in place during the years he allegedly used steroids. Just earlier this spring training Selig was quoted as saying that Bonds has never failed a steroids test during the entire time MLB has had testing in place.

That will be what baseball falls back on: Bonds has never tested positive during the years with which the game had a policy in place.

Hoosier Red
03-07-2006, 10:31 PM
You know what the crazy thing about Bonds is is that if he were more personable, none of this would be happening right now.

Like a certain cyclist? That's another discussion obviously, but is that what you were thinking?

GriffeyFan
03-07-2006, 10:44 PM
Wow, I just spent a half hour and read that entire article. If you haven't read it, I would recommend doing so. It's EXTREMELY detailed.

I already thought Barry was guilty of doing steroids. Now, I KNOW he is.

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 10:57 PM
Anson and Landis were racists, as was Cobb. That is a worse moral sin IMO than using steroids or gambling on the game, but yes, I would vote for Anson and Cobb. Their repugnant racism does not mean that they were not HOF quality players. As for Landis, he may have been as rotten a person as has ever been associated with the game, but he also did clean up the sport after the Black Sox and other scandals.
Comiskey-no. Rare is the owner who ever deserves induction in the HOF, and Comiskey helped bring on the Black Sox. I'd support kicking him out of the HOF.
As for the allegations against Cobb and Speaker for alleging fixing games, from what little I've read the evidence is inconclusive. They otherwise clearly belong in the HOF. If there is ever conclusive evidence that they fixed games, then no, but for now, yes.
Jackson-no.
Rose-no.
Perry and Ford-yes and yes, although I do mentally discount their all time ranking because of their use of illegal substances on a baseball..
Do I believe that using steroids is worse than doctoring a baseball? Yes. George Brett violated the rules by using too much pine tar on his bat, but I have no problem with him being in the HOF. If all that Pete Rose ever did was use a corked bat in his old age, I'd say let him in the HOF.
Steroid use is different for me. We do not have baseball players dying at a young age because they corked their bat or used sandpaper on a baseball. Ray Chapman's death in 1920 helped to clean up the use of foreign substances on the ball. People have died because of steroid use, and the use of chemical enhancements has presented otherwise honest players with a stark choice: stay clean and perhaps be unable to successfully compete against players on the juice, or partake of chemicals too, even if it leads to an early death and corrupts the game. I want a clean game.

RB, I definitely agree with you in that I want a clean game as much as you do, though I do believe the health ramifications of steroid use is why people want it banned, not necessarily the factors of it being a performance enhancer. There are other performance enhancers allowed in the game that are healthy ...

As for the others, who knows how responsible Cap Anson was for segregating the game, but he was a highly popular player at the time and his refusal to take the field against black players essentially rushed segregation to the game. I can't put a guy like that in the Hall.

Landis: I see a parallel between him and Rose. Rose is a HOF caliber player obviously, but a series of mistakes all tied to gambling sealed his fate. Landis cleaned up the game, and did so necessarily, but at the same time he kept the door shut on blacks during his entire reign as commissioner. For as long as he was living, blacks were not going to play in the Majors. That's a serious black eye, and I can't put a guy like that in.

Comiskey: Glad to see we agree :)

Cobb/Speaker: A friend of mine, Bill Burgess, is perhaps the most well-informed Cobb historian I've ever corresponded with, and it's in his belief that Cobb's guilty. Bill has stated he has copies of Ritter's tapes from The Glory of Their Times and there's a substantial amount of information in the Joe Wood interview on those tapes that didn't make the book, including stuff about the Cobb/Speaker/Wood scandal. In those tapes, Joe Wood states they all bet on the game.

Jackson: Waiting to read Carney's book that came out today.

Rose: Agree with you, not at all does he go in.

Perry and Ford: While I agree that they should be in the HOF, where I'm going to disagree with you is their form of cheating vs. the form of using steroids. They are different, but IMO they aren't so much as different that one is so much more worse than the other.

I've analyzed how the game shifted from the Dead Ball Era to the era of extreme high offense in the 1920s/30s and the shift lies primarily with cleaning up the ball. This tells me there is a significant advantage to be gained when you doctor a baseball. If run scoring didn't spike up immediately, I wouldn't hold that viewpoint ... but the run scoring spike correlates far too well with outlawing doctored pitches and cleaning up the ball. Offense just exploded way too much to not consider how much doctoring the ball suppressed offense when it was legal.

Both forms of cheating, steroids and doctoring pitches, gives the player an advantage. How much of an advantage is impossible to quantify, but I'm convinced doctoring baseballs gives pitchers much more of an advantage than people think. The league-wide run scoring data is plainly there to see. Which form of cheating gives a bigger advantage? I have no idea, but they definitely are not as far apart as people believe.

oneupper
03-07-2006, 11:14 PM
Both forms of cheating, steroids and doctoring pitches, gives the player an advantage. How much of an advantage is impossible to quantify, but I'm convinced doctoring baseballs gives pitchers much more of an advantage than people think. The league-wide run scoring data is plainly there to see. Which form of cheating gives a bigger advantage? I have no idea, but they definitely are not as far apart as people believe.

Cyc....there...that's it. It's CHEATING! This isn't about who is a bigger liar or cheater, gambler or thief. Steriods IS CHEATING!

That's the issue. It's not about Gaylord Perry or Pete Rose, greenies or andro vs. creatine (or whatever) or how much steriods boost performance. It's about Barry Bonds. HE CHEATED! The worst offense in ANY GAME!

You can't let present day offenders off the hook because past offenders beat the rap. If that were the case, why try anyone else for murder after OJ got off?

Barry Bonds is GUILTY and its sad that baseball didn't have the GUTS to do the dilligence that these reporters did. Shame on Selig and MLB!

If we agree on the crime (CHEATING) and the perp (Bonds) the only thing left to argue about is the sanctions (sentence).

IMHO MLB should NOT let Barry get away scot-free because someone else got away with it before. It is the ultimate sports crime (CHEATING) and should be punished as such.

Gainesville Red
03-07-2006, 11:32 PM
When do the article and book come out?

Cyclone792
03-07-2006, 11:41 PM
Cyc....there...that's it. It's CHEATING! This isn't about who is a bigger liar or cheater, gambler or thief. Steriods IS CHEATING!

That's the issue. It's not about Gaylord Perry or Pete Rose, greenies or andro vs. creatine (or whatever) or how much steriods boost performance. It's about Barry Bonds. HE CHEATED! The worst offense in ANY GAME!

You can't let present day offenders off the hook because past offenders beat the rap. If that were the case, why try anyone else for murder after OJ got off?

Barry Bonds is GUILTY and its sad that baseball didn't have the GUTS to do the dilligence that these reporters did. Shame on Selig and MLB!

If we agree on the crime (CHEATING) and the perp (Bonds) the only thing left to argue about is the sanctions (sentence).

IMHO MLB should NOT let Barry get away scot-free because someone else got away with it before. It is the ultimate sports crime (CHEATING) and should be punished as such.

Players cheated before Barry Bonds, and players will cheat after Barry Bonds. None of that is new. This is why you have to put the form of cheating in a proper perspective as well as cheating itself in a proper perspective, which is all I'm doing.

Where people are disagreeing with me is where the crime of cheating and using steroids to cheat falls in place within the entire spectrum. People believe steroids are the worst thing to happen to the game. It's not. People believe it's funny that a guy can doctor a baseball his entire career and get away with it. It's not.

To be honest, this is just another Pete Rose argument, with the only differences being the player in question and the crime committed. The people who believe Pete Rose should be reinstated fail miserably to put in a proper perspective the crime he committed, believing it to be far less serious than it actually was, hence believing he should be reinstated.

Let's change that around to Barry Bonds. The people who believe Barry Bonds should be banned fail miserably to put in a proper perspective the crimes he committed, believing them to be far more serious than they actually were, hence calling for the ban.

What's this tell us? That the proper historical perspective of the crime committed is vital.

FWIW, gambling is the ultimate sports crime and is far far worse than any form of cheating, including steroids. But again, that's just recognizing the proper perspective of gambling and cheating within a sport.

Cedric
03-08-2006, 12:00 AM
Players cheated before Barry Bonds, and players will cheat after Barry Bonds. None of that is new. This is why you have to put the form of cheating in a proper perspective as well as cheating itself in a proper perspective, which is all I'm doing.

Where people are disagreeing with me is where the crime of cheating and using steroids to cheat falls in place within the entire spectrum. People believe steroids are the worst thing to happen to the game. It's not. People believe it's funny that a guy can doctor a baseball his entire career and get away with it. It's not.

To be honest, this is just another Pete Rose argument, with the only differences being the player in question and the crime committed. The people who believe Pete Rose should be reinstated fail miserably to put in a proper perspective the crime he committed, believing it to be far less serious than it actually was, hence believing he should be reinstated.

Let's change that around to Barry Bonds. The people who believe Barry Bonds should be banned fail miserably to put in a proper perspective the crimes he committed, believing them to be far more serious than they actually were, hence calling for the ban.

What's this tell us? That the proper historical perspective of the crime committed is vital.

FWIW, gambling is the ultimate sports crime and is far far worse than any form of cheating, including steroids. But again, that's just recognizing the proper perspective of gambling and cheating within a sport.

I respectfully disagree. Betting on your own team is not worse than altering the outcome of games. Barry Bonds altered baseball games and it's almost 100% proven. Pete Rose has never been shown to alter ONE baseball game. Not to mention the message kids see with people like Barry Bonds getting away with killing himself.

I understand the arguement about Pete Rose and the bullpen. But even that doesn't alter the game as much as someone at age 38 hitting 73 homers.

westofyou
03-08-2006, 12:55 AM
Before and After


[BARRY BONDS

1993-1997

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
1993 Giants 28 159 539 129 181 38 4 46 8.53 123 126 79 29 12 .336 .677 .458 1.136
1994 Giants 29 112 391 89 122 18 1 37 9.46 81 74 43 29 9 .312 .647 .426 1.073
1995 Giants 30 144 506 109 149 30 7 33 6.52 104 120 83 31 10 .294 .577 .431 1.009
1996 Giants 31 158 517 122 159 27 3 42 8.12 129 151 76 40 7 .308 .615 .461 1.076
1997 Giants 32 159 532 123 155 26 5 40 7.52 101 145 87 37 8 .291 .585 .446 1.031
TOTALS 732 2485 572 766 139 20 198 7.97 538 616 368 166 46 .308 .619 .446 1.065
LG AVERAGE 2369 331 642 120 16 69 2.90 310 236 421 57 25 .271 .422 .340 .761
POS AVERAGE 2378 361 648 122 17 87 3.68 349 262 455 68 30 .272 .448 .347 .795

YEAR TEAM RC RCAA RCAP OWP RC/G TB EBH ISO SEC BPA IBB HBP SAC SF GIDP OUTS PA POS
1993 Giants 172 108 99 .856 11.97 365 88 .341 .629 .740 43 2 0 7 11 388 674 LF
1994 Giants 115 62 57 .799 10.93 253 56 .335 .598 .738 18 6 0 3 3 284 474 LF
1995 Giants 133 66 59 .772 9.38 292 70 .283 .581 .671 22 5 0 4 12 383 635 LF
1996 Giants 162 90 80 .813 11.45 318 72 .308 .677 .729 30 1 0 6 11 382 675 LF
1997 Giants 151 77 76 .782 10.12 311 71 .293 .635 .696 34 8 0 5 13 403 690 LF
TOTALS 733 403 371 .807 10.76 1539 357 .311 .626 .714 147 22 0 25 50 1840 3148
LG AVERAGE 344 0 0 .500 5.05 999 204 .151 .274 .467 23 21 15 20 52 1840 2662
POS AVERAGE 377 32 0 .535 5.53 1066 226 .176 .314 .498 28 19 8 21 50 1840 2689




ARRY BONDS

1998-2004

YEAR TEAM AGE G AB R H 2B 3B HR HR% RBI BB SO SB CS AVG SLG OBA OPS
1998 Giants 33 156 552 120 167 44 7 37 6.70 122 130 92 28 12 .303 .609 .438 1.047
1999 Giants 34 102 355 91 93 20 2 34 9.58 83 73 62 15 2 .262 .617 .389 1.006
2000 Giants 35 143 480 129 147 28 4 49 10.21 106 117 77 11 3 .306 .688 .440 1.127
2001 Giants 36 153 476 129 156 32 2 73 15.34 137 177 93 13 3 .328 .863 .515 1.379
2002 Giants 37 143 403 117 149 31 2 46 11.41 110 198 47 9 2 .370 .799 .582 1.381
2003 Giants 38 130 390 111 133 22 1 45 11.54 90 148 58 7 0 .341 .749 .529 1.278
2004 Giants 39 147 373 129 135 27 3 45 12.06 101 232 41 6 1 .362 .812 .609 1.422
TOTALS 974 3029 826 980 204 21 329 10.86 749 1075 470 89 23 .324 .731 .504 1.234
LG AVERAGE 2765 395 747 148 16 92 3.32 376 291 513 51 23 .270 .435 .343 .778
POS AVERAGE 2792 430 763 159 17 118 4.21 420 341 552 53 23 .273 .469 .356 .825

YEAR TEAM RC RCAA RCAP OWP RC/G TB EBH ISO SEC BPA IBB HBP SAC SF GIDP OUTS PA POS
1998 Giants 152 77 77 .779 9.79 336 88 .306 .592 .682 29 8 1 6 15 419 697 LF
1999 Giants 91 40 34 .739 9.00 219 56 .355 .603 .696 9 3 0 3 6 273 434 LF
2000 Giants 154 88 83 .821 11.91 330 81 .381 .648 .745 22 3 0 7 6 349 607 LF
2001 Giants 228 169 153 .922 18.65 411 107 .536 .935 .907 35 9 0 2 5 330 664 LF
2002 Giants 206 161 150 .942 21.23 322 79 .429 .943 .869 68 9 0 2 4 262 612 LF
2003 Giants 165 115 112 .897 16.75 292 68 .408 .805 .818 61 10 0 2 7 266 550 LF
2004 Giants 202 152 147 .929 22.08 303 75 .450 1.088 .882 120 9 0 3 5 247 617 LF
TOTALS 1198 802 756 .882 15.07 2213 554 .407 .791 .803 344 51 1 25 48 2146 4181
LG AVERAGE 420 0 0 .500 5.28 1203 256 .165 .289 .478 26 29 18 23 63 2146 3126
POS AVERAGE 479 58 0 .556 6.03 1309 293 .196 .337 .518 38 29 11 23 60 2146 3196

oneupper
03-08-2006, 12:57 AM
Players cheated before Barry Bonds, and players will cheat after Barry Bonds. None of that is new. This is why you have to put the form of cheating in a proper perspective as well as cheating itself in a proper perspective, which is all I'm doing.

Sorry, don't agree. Cheating is cheating. Murder is murder. Sure, killing 20 people may be worse than killing 2, but we can't sentence a murderer to death more than once and 20 life sentences is kind of overkill.




Where people are disagreeing with me is where the crime of cheating and using steroids to cheat falls in place within the entire spectrum. People believe steroids are the worst thing to happen to the game. It's not. People believe it's funny that a guy can doctor a baseball his entire career and get away with it. It's not.

We debated Gambling vs. Steriods in another thread. There were a lot of good arguments on both sides. We can debate about Gaylord Perry in another one if you want. I frankly agree with your point on Perry (it's not funny). This thread is about Bonds and his steriod use.



To be honest, this is just another Pete Rose argument, with the only differences being the player in question and the crime committed. The people who believe Pete Rose should be reinstated fail miserably to put in a proper perspective the crime he committed, believing it to be far less serious than it actually was, hence believing he should be reinstated.


This being a REDS site, Rose was bound to come up. Don't think its relevant. Kind of like Ted Bundy vs. Charles Manson.



Let's change that around to Barry Bonds. The people who believe Barry Bonds should be banned fail miserably to put in a proper perspective the crimes he committed, believing them to be far more serious than they actually were, hence calling for the ban.


Here's why a lot of people are disagreeing with you. IMO there is no difference -none whatsoever- between doing steriods for performance enhancement (a specifically banned illegal substance) and drugging opposing players. If a player spiked the water supply of the rest of the league so he could be the best, it has the same effect. Its cheating.




What's this tell us? That the proper historical perspective of the crime committed is vital.


Vital? To whom? For the discussion, perhaps (and I have my doubts). For determining Bonds fate, see my OJ comments above. I don't think past criminal acts should exonerate current criminals. But that's me.
For some people, looting a store during a riot is not as bad as stealing or shoplifting. Everyone was doing it. I don't think that way.

In any case, what the past has told us is that exemplary and perhaps even excessively harsh punishment is what can produce a change in habits and behavour when such behavour is widespread and out of control.





FWIW, gambling is the ultimate sports crime and is far far worse than any form of cheating, including steroids. But again, that's just recognizing the proper perspective of gambling and cheating within a sport.

We had this discussion before. I'd like to add that THROWING GAMES is cheating. Gambling is very bad for a sport because it leads to CHEATING.
It's CHEATING we are trying to avoid, not gambling.
If there were some horse racing aficionados around, maybe they could give us some insight as to how a sport can function within a gambling context. I really don't know.

Krusty
03-08-2006, 01:33 AM
And we thought we saw a circus back in 1989 when Bart Giamatti suspended Pete Rose? This season will make the Giants' clubhouse look like a zoo.

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 01:35 AM
Sorry, don't agree. Cheating is cheating. Murder is murder. Sure, killing 20 people may be worse than killing 2, but we can't sentence a murderer to death more than once and 20 life sentences is kind of overkill.

We debated Gambling vs. Steriods in another thread. There were a lot of good arguments on both sides. We can debate about Gaylord Perry in another one if you want. I frankly agree with your point on Perry (it's not funny). This thread is about Bonds and his steriod use.

This being a REDS site, Rose was bound to come up. Don't think its relevant. Kind of like Ted Bundy vs. Charles Manson.

Here's why a lot of people are disagreeing with you. IMO there is no difference -none whatsoever- between doing steriods for performance enhancement (a specifically banned illegal substance) and drugging opposing players. If a player spiked the water supply of the rest of the league so he could be the best, it has the same effect. Its cheating.

Vital? To whom? For the discussion, perhaps (and I have my doubts). For determining Bonds fate, see my OJ comments above. I don't think past criminal acts should exonerate current criminals. But that's me.
For some people, looting a store during a riot is not as bad as stealing or shoplifting. Everyone was doing it. I don't think that way.

In any case, what the past has told us is that exemplary and perhaps even excessively harsh punishment is what can produce a change in habits and behavour when such behavour is widespread and out of control.

We had this discussion before. I'd like to add that THROWING GAMES is cheating. Gambling is very bad for a sport because it leads to CHEATING.
It's CHEATING we are trying to avoid, not gambling.
If there were some horse racing aficionados around, maybe they could give us some insight as to how a sport can function within a gambling context. I really don't know.

You're making this far too complicated than it really is.

Think of a ladder of all baseball crimes. The worse a crime is to baseball, the higher up the ladder it sits and the harsher the penalty for committing that crime. There are a wealth of crimes in baseball, from fixing games to using steroids to doctoring baseballs to running out of a basepath. Some crimes are major and sit high on the ladder while others are minor and sit low on the ladder.

All I'm saying is that steroids sit far lower on that ladder than many people believe. It's all about historical perspective and the proper context.

Everything I stated in post 129 is how baseball will rightfully view steroids, Barry Bonds and everything related. They will put steroid use and Bonds' steroid use in perspective with the entire arsenal of baseball crimes that can be committed. At that point, he may or may not be penalized. I'll tell ya this much, he sure as heck won't be banned or anything remotely close.

Baseball knows where steroids sit on that ladder, and it's much closer to where I'm claiming they sit than where everyone else believes it sits.

Disagree and think I'm wrong? Sure ok. Pepper Selig's office with letters and stop supporting the game - most notably financially - until they treat steroid users with the penalties you believe they should hand down. If enough of the anti-Bonds, ban-all-the-players-that-use-steroids crowd does that, then I'll be proven wrong because then the game will crumble due to loss of faith by the public.

Gambling nearly ruined the game in the first two decades of the 20th century, because ultimately gambling undermines and eats at the public's faith in the game to the point that the public stops supporting it. That's how the game crumbles. When people rail against steroid users, then still attend a dozen games per year, the game isn't crumbling.

vaticanplum
03-08-2006, 01:50 AM
When do the article and book come out?

The book is out on March 27. I believe the sports Illustrated issue should be out now.

vaticanplum
03-08-2006, 02:21 AM
You're making this far too complicated than it really is.

Think of a ladder of all baseball crimes. The worse a crime is to baseball, the higher up the ladder it sits and the harsher the penalty for committing that crime. There are a wealth of crimes in baseball, from fixing games to using steroids to doctoring baseballs to running out of a basepath. Some crimes are major and sit high on the ladder while others are minor and sit low on the ladder.

All I'm saying is that steroids sit far lower on that ladder than many people believe. It's all about historical perspective and the proper context.

I think this is a matter of opinion. Morals are subjective and that ladder is not set in stone. People may believe that those rungs are in different places and there's no quantifer to prove any of them wrong.


Everything I stated in post 129 is how baseball will rightfully view steroids, Barry Bonds and everything related. They will put steroid use and Bonds' steroid use in perspective with the entire arsenal of baseball crimes that can be committed. At that point, he may or may not be penalized. I'll tell ya this much, he sure as heck won't be banned or anything remotely close.

Baseball knows where steroids sit on that ladder, and it's much closer to where I'm claiming they sit than where everyone else believes it sits.

Again, this is all opinion. I'm assuming that when you say "baseball knows..." you mean the powers that be, the ones running the game. Yes, there are many who agree with you. There are also quite a few who do not, and are fighting for very harsh punishments against steroids in baseball. The debate of how bad steroids are rages there as much as it does on these boards.


Disagree and think I'm wrong? Sure ok. Pepper Selig's office with letters and stop supporting the game - most notably financially - until they treat steroid users with the penalties you believe they should hand down. If enough of the anti-Bonds, ban-all-the-players-that-use-steroids crowd does that, then I'll be proven wrong because then the game will crumble due to loss of faith by the public.

Gambling nearly ruined the game in the first two decades of the 20th century, because ultimately gambling undermines and eats at the public's faith in the game to the point that the public stops supporting it. That's how the game crumbles. When people rail against steroid users, then still attend a dozen games per year, the game isn't crumbling.

I do happen to know people who have stopped supporting baseball since the steroid controversy heated up. I know people who left the sport during the strike, were brought back by 1998, and have since left again in part because of steroids. Some of this isn't due to steroids alone, probably; some of it is probably due to prices and contracts and Kenny Rogers and what-have-you. Fans are fickle and always will be, and most of them generally don't carry with them the "historical perspective" you're talking about on a daily basis when they go to the ticket office. I know one man who grew up a die-hard baseball fan and looked forward his whole life to sharing it with his kids when he had them. His kids are little now and he has not bothered to introduce them to baseball, because he's concerned about the role models they should have. I don't necessarily agree with the whole role model thing, but that's not the point...my point is that it is turning people away. And the bigger the stars, the harder they fall, the more this effect willl take place. Barry Bonds is a huge star and this will have ramifications and it will turn people away. Or will it? I can't say for sure, because sadly I do not have a time machine. A lot of what you say about how this will be viewed in the future and in the greater context of the sport is interesting and educated and I think you may well be right, but it's a weak argument because there's no way to back up an opinion using arguments of things that haven't happened yet.

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 03:04 AM
I think this is a matter of opinion. Morals are subjective and that ladder is not set in stone. People may believe that those rungs are in different places and there's no quantifer to prove any of them wrong.

Attendance records speak loudly.


I do happen to know people who have stopped supporting baseball since the steroid controversy heated up. I know people who left the sport during the strike, were brought back by 1998, and have since left again in part because of steroids. Some of this isn't due to steroids alone, probably; some of it is probably due to prices and contracts and Kenny Rogers and what-have-you. Fans are fickle and always will be, and most of them generally don't carry with them the "historical perspective" you're talking about on a daily basis when they go to the ticket office. I know one man who grew up a die-hard baseball fan and looked forward his whole life to sharing it with his kids when he had them. His kids are little now and he has not bothered to introduce them to baseball, because he's concerned about the role models they should have. I don't necessarily agree with the whole role model thing, but that's not the point...my point is that it is turning people away. And the bigger the stars, the harder they fall, the more this effect willl take place. Barry Bonds is a huge star and this will have ramifications and it will turn people away. Or will it? I can't say for sure, because sadly I do not have a time machine. A lot of what you say about how this will be viewed in the future and in the greater context of the sport is interesting and educated and I think you may well be right, but it's a weak argument because there's no way to back up an opinion using arguments of things that haven't happened yet.

If steroids are turning people away, then that must be why the average team brought in 350,000 more fans in 2005 than it did in 1990. The last expansion season was 1998, in which the game drew 70 million fans. In 2005, the game drew over 74 million. Ticket prices continually going up? Must be that supply and demand at work for increased interest in attending ballgames.

It's all well and good that there's a handful of people here and there that have given up on the game, but all the attendance records show is that baseball is booming. The 1994 strike irritated people, and it showed up in the attendance records immediately in 1995. Steroids are apparently irritating people, but it's not showing up in the attendance records. In fact, attendance records are setting record highs. McGwire was getting pounded by the press for steroids when he was still playing, and he's been out of the game for four years now.

By comparision, in 1908, the average team attendance per season was 445,000. By 1917, that figure had dropped to 326,000. It's amazing what happens when the public realizes that Prince Hal and his boys are running the show through their bookies.

WVRedsFan
03-08-2006, 03:54 AM
I'm not going to get into a philosophical discussion. That's pointless in this context. Cheating is cheating, whether you take steroids or doctor the ball. In our society, we give lip service to being honest or "doing the right thing," but rarely follow either path.

I don't like Barry Bonds as a player. He's rude, arrogant, and paranoid. Not the kind of things I value in a person. His whole drive in breaking this homerun record has been racist from the beginning--wanting to break Babe Ruth's record but maybe fall short of Hank Aaron's record. I have been amazed at what he has done as a baseball player after 35 and I was always impressed, but not anymore. I was 35 once and in pretty good shape and couldn't understand why he was able to do these things. Now I know.

To support Barry Bonds is simply, at his point, typical of the American fan who unfortunately believes that winning is the only thing no matter how you do it and honest competition is for losers.

Should he be in the Hall? I'll leave that up to those that have a vote. Should he continue to play with this coming out (and I believe as one poster said all the t's are crossed and the i's dotted)? No. It should be over for Barry Bonds because he did something illegal to gain an advantage. Will it? I seriously doubt it. I know I'll be one hacked off fan if they allow Bonds to continue in baseball while banning Rose for betting. Neither is something to be proud of, but both are illegal and both should receive the same treatment.

And for those who consider drinking a strong cup of coffee to enhance performance the same as taking steriods, I am amazed. Surely, you can see the difference.

The quicker MLB cleans this up the better.

SteelSD
03-08-2006, 05:00 AM
Attendance records speak loudly.

Spitball pitchers cheated.

Yet baseball was on our minds.

Free Agency ruined our innocence.

We continued to watch baseball.

Steve Howe is an addict. Innocence lost.

But I was still going to games.

Pete Rose gambled and stole my innocence.

The games went on and so did I.

Corked bats ruined my innocence.

I still watched baseball.

Collusion sapped me of my illusions of fair play.

Hello, baseball. I like you.

The player strike(s) ruined my innocence.

Yet, baseball was on my telly even before McGwire v Sosa brought it back.

Then andro and cork-gate ruined my innocence all over again.

But I still love the smell of a rosin bag.

The Yankees spent 200M on their team. It's all broken, says I!!

And still I do not shun.

Giambi doped and Palmeiro lied. I just can't take it!

Rarely ever have I enjoyed baseball as much.

Barry Bonds took steroids.

Well, that's IT! Might as well kill HIM...

---

At some point, outrage becomes nothing more than self-indulgent and that point falls somewhere after we can no longer consider ourselves "innocent". And that point is long past. Players cheat. Sometimes they cheat little. Sometimes they cheat big. Sometimes they do dumb things. Sometimes the owners are corrupt.

When we watched Mark McGwire chase Maris, we knew. We KNEW. We knew, at minimum, by then that baseball was imperfect because the human beings that took the field were imperfect. We knew. And yes, I find it exceptionally ironic that folks are now claiming they know people who were brought back by a couple of cheaters but then left again because of the cheating.

At what point did we, as fans, become so screwed up that we allow our own moral needs to supercede the reality of imperfection? When was it that we became so unreasonable as to not understand the difference between shining up a ball, corking a bat, swallowing amphetamines, shooting steroids, and betting on baseball games? Never. We know the difference. Absolutely we know the difference.

The fan who doesn't know the difference doesn't care one iota about Barry Bonds and steroids. Why? Because the fan that doesn't know the difference is gone LONG before Barry Bonds shot a needle into his leg or rubbed "clear" or "cream" on himself. If cheating is cheating is cheating and any and all cheating is cause to walk away, those walks should have already been taken.

Instead, we hear this:

"Y'know, these 'roided up freaks are ruining the game. They need to flat out ban those cheaters before people stop coming out to the park. Oh, honey...I'm going to the concession stand after the inning. There was a huge line last time because the game is a sellout so you better let me know now if you want another hot dog."

Personally, I don't care whether Bonds gets into the Hall of Fame or not. Doesn't matter to me. I don't wonder whether or not he took steroids. Heck, if this were an episode of Law and Order, they'd need to find another story to fill up the last 50 minutes of the hour. But when Barry Bonds walks to the plate I'm watching if it's on the tube. And I'm not wondering or even caring whether he's all 'roided up right now any more than I wondered or cared how many Home Runs he's hit off pitchers who were doping at the time.

Moral consistency is more than black-and-white. It's contextual. And in this case, I'm way past the illusion that anything about baseball has been fair and just for the better part of my life. Strike that. Rewind. I'm way past the illusion that baseball has been fair and just ever.

That doesn't mean baseball isn't played on a level field though. Pitchers shine baseball up and throw them. Hitters cork bats. Teams pay ungodly sums of money to their players while others who live off scraps get smarter and compete. Hitters take peformance enhancing substances. Pitchers take performance enhancing substances. Doesn't make it right. But it also doesn't mean that it's unbalancing anything because baseball is a dynamic organic system that adjusts to that which threatens its stability. Sometimes that adjustment is positive. Sometimes it's negative. Way it goes.

That is, of course, the reason gambling is rightly the death of a baseball career. It unbalances the playing field in a way that cannot be counteracted by a natural action/reaction within the game itself.

But in the end, baseball goes through phases while it lives and breathes. Sometimes it's sick. But it gets better naturally. The one constant is that it carries grumpy disillusioned fans with it every step of the way. And you can see them sitting next to you at your local MLB ballpark.

Jpup
03-08-2006, 07:02 AM
Well, here is my initial reaction to the article. First of all, as many of you may know, I have somewhat supported Bonds' in the past. I have have felt since, at least, 2000 that Bonds' was a steroid user. I did not understand the extent of the use until much later and maybe it was today, I can't be sure really. I kind of feel like I lost something today. I always held out that hope that it was the media blowing this all out of proportion when it came to Bonds. I am sure that it's still possible, but I think the proof has been laid out for the case against Barry Lamar Bonds. Also remember that we don't put people on trial through the media in this country and we don't let ex-girlfriends sit on the jury(thank goodness).

With that being said, I take issue with these people that act like Bonds is the worse human being on the planet, but sit and cheered for Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa as they chased 61. It was painfully obvious that those 2 were on steriods, McGwire has been on the juice since his days in Oakland with his buddy Canseco. Like someone else said, now go get the ones of really started it all, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. I really do think that Barry and his actions toward the media earlier in his career sealed his fate. If he smiled and smacked his chest when he lied, the media would love him. If he "brought baseball back" then the media would love him. Believe it or not, I do think that his race comes into play with many people. Both Bonds and the media can be blamed for that. Blame Bonds for playing the race card and the media for using it.

Bonds will not walk away before passing "The Babe." That is who he has been after, all along.

I am not going to say that I don't hate what any of these guys did, but I can't say that we didn't all know it for several years. The only reason that this is such a big deal today is that all of those people that said that Bonds was on the "juice" can beat their chest and say they were right. "I told you so." Well, no joke!

RedsBaron
03-08-2006, 07:51 AM
Why is "gambling" a worse "baseball sin" than the illegal use of steroids? I didn't say "fixing a game"; I said "gambling."
If a player bets on a major league game in which he does not participate, how has he affected the outcome of the game?
If a player bets on his own team to win, has he not actually given himself a greater incentive to help his team win, which is his job in the first place?
"Fixing a game" is the ultimate baseball sin IMO and by matters of degree a far worse transgression than simply gambling on the game.
I mean no defense of gambling on the game. Players who do so should be, and obviously have been, suspended and banned from the game. I'm simply asking why is "mere" gambling a far worse offense than using steroids and other chemicals?
For that matter, if Bonds and McGwire and Palmiero and Caminiti and Giambi were doing nothing worse than what Gaylord Perry did when he doctored a baseball, why have they evaded questions and lied and hid? There were never federal grand juries considering whether or not a pitcher put vaseline on a baseball.
I also respectfully find it somewhat presumptuous to assert that 80 or 100 years from now no one will care if Bonds, et al took steroids. None of us know what will concern people then. For all I know fans will thrill to the exploits of cyborgs and androids.
I would note though that people here seem to be concerned about what went on 80 or 100 years ago. It has been more than 80 years since Babe Ruth's greatest seasons, it has been more than 100 years since Ty Cobb's rookie season, and it has been more than a century since Cap Anson played his last major league game, but the fact they played in a whites only league is still brought up in discussions regarding their accomplishments.

traderumor
03-08-2006, 08:43 AM
Personally, I don't care whether Bonds gets into the Hall of Fame or not. Doesn't matter to me. I don't wonder whether or not he took steroids. Heck, if this were an episode of Law and Order, they'd need to find another story to fill up the last 50 minutes of the hour. But when Barry Bonds walks to the plate I'm watching if it's on the tube. And I'm not wondering or even caring whether he's all 'roided up right now any more than I wondered or cared how many Home Runs he's hit off pitchers who were doping at the time. Regardless of whether or not that is the prevailing honesty, the fact that 'roids are so obviously directly responsible for the McGwire/Sosa chase and Bonds 73 greatly reduces the significance of those accomplishments. Which is exactly why there was no astonishment at those feats, even though I witnessed them. There was no awe at the remarkableness of the human endeavors because one knew they were not truly human endeavors, anymore than a guy lifting up a truck by its bumper while high on PCP is a remarkable human endeavor. They were and are articifical endeavors. I don't like Splenda, and I don't admire athletes who are providing us with sham performances and then explaining it away with "well, you couldn't do this on 'roids, so I'm still special."

OnBaseMachine
03-08-2006, 09:07 AM
This is fantastic news. I dislike Bonds with a strong passion. I hope he just gives it up and retires. We all know you did it Barry, give it up.

New accusations leveled
Book links Bonds to steroids use

By David Wharton and Tim Brown
Los Angeles Times

Barry Bonds told reporters Tuesday that "there's no need to" look at a book which claims the slugger used a vast array of drugs, including steroids and human growth hormone, for at least five seasons.

For at least five seasons during which he emerged as one of baseball's greatest home-run hitters, Barry Bonds was using steroids, human growth hormone and other performance-enhancing drugs, according to an upcoming book by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters.

Bonds began using Winstrol, a commonly known steroid, after the 1998 season and gradually advanced to a weekly regimen of more-sophisticated and less-detectable substances, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams write in "Game of Shadows," an excerpt of which appears in this week's Sports Illustrated.

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig had been apprised of the book but declined to comment Tuesday, a spokesman saying he had yet to read the excerpt.

While the San Francisco Giants played an exhibition game against the San Diego Padres in Peoria, Ariz., Bonds remained at the team's spring training site in nearby Scottsdale.

"I won't even look at it," Bonds told reporters. "There's no reason to."

The book's release, scheduled for this month, comes at a time when baseball is struggling to rebuild an image that has been tarnished by widespread reports of steroid use that led to recent Congressional hearings.

The situation could worsen if Bonds, 41, makes good on his plans to play this season. With 708 home runs, he is nearing Babe Ruth's total of 714 and has a shot at Hank Aaron's all-time record of 755.

"Barry is going to be under constant scrutiny," Atlanta Braves third baseman Chipper Jones said. "For the last 15 to 20 years, he's been the face of baseball."

Dick Pound, head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, cautioned Major League Baseball against ignoring the Bonds controversy.

"I think the integrity of the game and the responsibility to the fans is far more important than what he's done," Pound said.

It remained unclear what action - if any - baseball can take. The league is tied to a strict collective bargaining agreement with the players' union, and Bonds has never tested positive for steroids.

In "Game of Shadows," Fainaru-Wada and Williams draw upon what they say are thousands of pages of documents and interviews with more than 200 people to describe Bonds' alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs.

According to the authors, Bonds had avoided steroids for much of his career but reconsidered during the 1998 season when St. Louis Cardinal slugger Mark McGwire set a record with 70 home runs in a season.

Describing Bonds as "one of the most prideful stars in baseball," they write that he was "astounded and aggrieved by the outpouring of hero worship for McGwire, a hitter whom he regarded as obviously inferior to himself."

At that point, they write, Bonds met personal trainer Greg Anderson, who called himself "the Weight Guru" and was a longtime steroid user and dealer.

Anderson started Bonds on Winstrol after the 1998 season, providing the steroids and syringes and injecting Bonds in the buttocks, the excerpt says. But after an injury-plagued 1999 season in which Bonds played only 102 games, a change was made.

The authors claim that Anderson started Bonds on another steroid, Deca-Durabolin, and human growth hormone. They also write that the Giants had unofficial background checks done and learned that Bonds' gym, the World Gym in nearby Burlingame, was known as a place to buy steroids and that Anderson was rumored to be a dealer.

But baseball would not begin testing for performance-enhancing drugs until 2003, and Bonds' personal trainer was allowed into the clubhouse at the new Pac Bell Park.

Bonds' girlfriend and later mistress, Kimberly Bell, began to notice changes in the ballplayer's appearance and behavior, the authors write. His hair fell out and acne broke out across his back. He became more temperamental, if not abusive.

At the same time, however, his on-field performance soared. In 2000, he finished with a .306 batting average, 106 runs batted in and a then-career-high 49 homers. The following season, he broke McGwire's record with 73 homers.

By then, the authors write, Bonds had been introduced to Victor Conte, who ran a small nutritional supplement company called BALCO that dealt in exotic and largely undetectable performance-enhancing drugs on the side.

The authors write Bonds was taking as many as 20 pills at a time. They cite doping calendars kept by Conte and Anderson, suggesting that his regimen included insulin, fast-acting steroids known as "Mexican beans" and another steroid called trenbolone, created to improve the muscle quality of beef cattle.

"When his power started to decline he would tell Anderson to start him on another drug cycle, according to a source familiar with Bonds," the Sports Illustrated excerpt reads. "Anderson kept the calendar that tracked his cycles. If he told Bonds he didn't need a cycle, Bonds would just tell him ... I'll do it myself."

In 2002, Fainaru-Wada and Williams write, Bonds began injecting human growth hormone every other day, alternating that substance with newer, undetectable steroids known as "the clear" and "the cream." He also took Clomid, an infertility drug for women, because Conte thought it helped restore the body's natural ability to produce testosterone, a process that can wane with steroids use.

The excerpt also quotes a recording of Anderson talking to an acquaintance who was secretly wearing a wire: "The whole thing is, everything I've been doing, it's all undetectable, see, like Marion Jones and them - it's the same stuff they went to the Olympics with and they test them every week. So that's why I know it works, so that's why I know we're not in trouble."

Soon after, in September 2003, law enforcement agents raided BALCO's headquarters and Anderson's condominium, seizing records, cash and performance-enhancing drugs.

In the months that followed, Bonds was among a number of high-profile athletes - including sprinter Jones and several NFL players - called before a grand jury. According to the authors, Bonds testified that he did not know the substances Anderson gave him were steroids.

"All I want is the pain relief, you know?" Bonds is quoted as saying in the excerpt. "I never asked Greg. When he said it was flaxseed oil, I just said, 'Whatever.' "

The athletes were granted immunity for their testimony, but the immunity did not extend to perjury.

Conte, Anderson and two other men connected with BALCO were indicted on federal charges.

Conte eventually pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute steroids and a second count of laundering a portion of a check and was sentenced to eight months confinement. Anderson was sentenced to six months' confinement after pleading guilty to similar charges.

Now the question is: How might the federal prosecution affect baseball's actions?

Having been criticized for ignoring steroids use in the 1990s, Major League Baseball officials are expected study the book and gauge its sourcing before choosing a course. Several officials wondered why federal prosecutors had not charged Bonds with perjury.

Nevertheless, a baseball inquiry of some type is likely.

http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060308/SPT0501/603080306/1027

membengal
03-08-2006, 09:14 AM
The only opinion that is ultimately going to matter here is the judgment of the court of public opinion. And, really, that judgement will be reflected in the votes of the writers in 5-10 years about all of the players tainted by this era.

For my part, I would not let Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro or Bonds into the hall (yes, not even Bonds, even acknowledging his credentials pre-human pharmacy).

No one will ever be able to convince Cyclone that his opinon on this is wrong, or convince me that mine is, I suspect. More illuminating might be a poll on the Hall worthiness of Bonds or Sosa or McGwire or Palmeiro. That will ultimately be where the consequences of their actions are realized, or not.

Cheaters all four of them. Regardless of race or background.

OnBaseMachine
03-08-2006, 09:24 AM
Sadly, I think Bonds will be dead 5 to 7 years from now. As much as I dislike the guy, I would still never wish death on him, but I just don't see him living a full life after injecting all those substances into his body. Look at all the wrestlers who have died early to steroids, same with Ken Caminiti - cardiac hypertrophy (an enlarged heart) was a contributing factor in his death.

oneupper
03-08-2006, 09:35 AM
Attendance records speak loudly.



Cyc...you can do better than this.
The Coliseum was standing-room only when the Christians took on the Lions.

Many enjoyed the steriod freak show. I watched myself.
How does this change things? Does it make us ALL guilty? I sure don't feel that way.

RedsBaron
03-08-2006, 09:46 AM
Cyc...you can do better than this.
The Coliseum was standing-room only when the Christians took on the Lions.

Many enjoyed the steriod freak show. I watched myself.
How does this change things? Does it make us ALL guilty? I sure don't feel that way.
I was naive back in 1998. I did enjoy the exploits of McGwire and Sosa. Now if I happen to turn onto a re-broadcast on ESPN Classic of a HR-fest during the 1998 season I change the channel.

Roy Tucker
03-08-2006, 09:59 AM
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

For this season, it appears that Bonds intends to play it out. Whether or not he does so in the face of the media fire storm that surrounds this story has yet to be seen.

I don't think this story will go away any time soon. This book and its supporting facts are a big deal. What will be the telling factor is the treatment Bonds gets when he appears in games, both home and away, from the fans and the press. If the public doesn't really care and continues to turn out in droves, then I think the immediacy of this will go away and the media pressure will lessen. But if Bonds is mercilessly booed both home and away, it will be interesting to see what Bonds does. He has always been a jerk before, but I think for him to withstand and repel the pressure that will be brought upon him, his jerk factor will have to get ratcheted up big-time. Which is a frightful concept.

I can't see any legal action coming out of this, be it suspensions or asterisks in the record books. MLB pretty well has its hands tied in ambiguity and its previous tolerance. Any court action MLB might take would be mired down for years in hearings and appeals. And I don't think Bud and the owners have the stomach nor the will for the fight.

Me? I think its sad. Bonds was an all-time HoF player before steroids and HGH. I think steroids and HGH enabled him to turbo-charge his career post-35 yrs. and I think that's wrong. It would be difficult to convince me that he could have accomplished these things without chemical enhancements. I think history *will* remember this and I think it *will* put a big-time stain on his career.

Chip R
03-08-2006, 10:22 AM
Like a certain cyclist? That's another discussion obviously, but is that what you were thinking?

Actually, no. I believe Armstrong is clean. What I was getting at is that if Bonds had a personality more along the lines of a Rose, a Sosa or even McGwire who was pretty surly for the better part of the 98 season until he lightened up then I don't believe Bonds would have the problems that he is having now. You take care of the media and they usually take care of you. When Pete went down, most people were saddened by what was going on and they had some sympathy for him even if they did believe he deserved what he got. Most of the stuff you read about Bonds is gleeful. Something along the lines of he's getting what is coming to him. That's not to say he might not be in some hot water now if he was a nicer person but I'm guessing that there wouldn't be as many investigations and media cries to "get Bonds" if he were nicer. And those reporters who wrote the book were SF reporters. Maybe Bonds blew them off one time or cussed them out or just generally treated them badly. Maybe if he had treated them better they wouldn't have investigated him like they did.

paulrichjr
03-08-2006, 10:24 AM
How ironic that Bonds did this out of jealosy but if he had abstained he would have probably gone down as one of the top 10 players of all time anyway. As someone posted in another thread...Thanks Griffey. In 10 years Grif will still be loved by the fans (more so than even now). Bonds will probably be even more despised.

MWM
03-08-2006, 10:28 AM
I agree with those who say that this will have no overall impact on the game. But I think it's illogical to assume increased attendance was due to the home run and steroids. I don't see the connection.

membengal
03-08-2006, 10:37 AM
By the way, to the extent that McGwire has gotten off "easy" in the court of public opinion, well, he went away. When he did surface, he was savaged (rightly so) for his act at the Congressional hearings. Bonds gets it worse than McGwire right now, simply because he is still around, and this stuff is still fresh.

I excuse neither of them and hold them in similar disdain.

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 10:48 AM
Cyc...you can do better than this.
The Coliseum was standing-room only when the Christians took on the Lions.

Many enjoyed the steriod freak show. I watched myself.
How does this change things? Does it make us ALL guilty? I sure don't feel that way.

Many enjoyed the freak show, and many watched. And that's the hypocritical nature of the fans.

Big offense brings a big gate. Just ask Babe Ruth. Then Mark McGwire. And finally, yep, Barry Bonds.

Now you know why baseball didn't care to do anything, why it took pressure from Congress to adopt a policy. If you're watching, then your trust in the game apparently isn't shaken enough to cause you to stop watching. People watched players drug up in 1970. People watched them drug up in 1985. People watched them drug up in 2000. People will continue watching them drug up for as long as the game continues.

I'm being labeled as a Bonds supporter, which is totally inaccurate. If everything that's coming out is true, then Barry Bonds is a complete idiot. If what he did to his body takes 10 or 20 years off his life, then he royally screwed himself up. My viewpoint at Bonds the person goes down. Does it alter my viewpoint of his playing accomplishments? Sure, slightly, but I know where Bonds sits in a proper historical context within the fabric of the game, and it's much closer to Gaylord Perry than it is to Pete Rose. Of course, when I say Barry Bonds can stand in line next to Gaylord Perry (as baseball will say), then by default I must be a Bonds supporter in the minds of ban-all-the-players-who-use-steroids crowd.

The gambling man ... he's different. The gambling man has an entirely different goal than the goal of a baseball team or a player. When the player becomes the gambling man, his goals suddenly and drastically change, and the opportunity for corruption is increased exponentially.

The ladder of crimes against baseball is tall, but gambling and steroids sit far apart on the ladder. If you disagree with me and believe that steroids are the evil sin, then why do you watch? If steroids corrupt the game so much, then why in the world do you invest so much time, money and emotion into the game?

I'd encourage you to go back and read Steel's post, not once, but at least twice. Really take a long, hard look at what he's stating, because it's all true.

registerthis
03-08-2006, 10:53 AM
Great discussion, all of you. I fall somewhere in the middle of the two sides--I don't agree with Cyclone that "all cheating is cheating", but nor do I think steroid use is the worst thing to happen to the game.

I honestly don't know if there have been a sizeable number of fans so put off by it that they'll stop following baseball, but what I want to avoid is MLB turning into the WWE circus freakshow. For years, baseball turned a blind eye to rampant steroid use among its players, preferring to see HR records fall and TV ratings rise. IMHO, they are as equally complicit in this whole affair as the players themselves. But, if baseball continues to tread lightly around the steroid issue, and doesn't appropriately deal with Bonds or others caught in the steroid net, I do believe there is a risk of long term harm to the game. Not necessarily in attendance or TV ratings--people fill arenas across the country for professional wrestling, after all, and they'll likely keep turning out for baseball as well--but in the way the sport is perceived. Regardless of whether or not they're speaking with their wallets, the fans are paying attention to the steroid debacle, and it won't so easily be forgotten. It's causing otherwise clean and innocent players to have their achievements called under suspicion, and a rather indifferent reaction to the breaking of long-held records.

The difference between this era's players and players like Perry is that, for the latter, his individual results may be called into question, but the impact of his actions on the league as a whole were minimal. Unless there is some available research on the topic I am not aware of, Perry's behavior wasn't symptomatic of the game as a whole--we don't question whether EVERY pitcher was doctoring the ball simply because Perry did. However, the use of steroids--performance enhancers that turned otherwise exceptional athletes into superhuman mega-athletes--has cast a pall over every facet of the game. Henceforth, any player who exhibits a measureable spike in performance will be looked at with a suspicious eye. Any player who manages to remain productive in his later years will be viewed with skepticism. Any records broken in the forseeable future will be prefaced in discussion with a "yeah, but..."

Thus, on an individual level, you could perhaps make the argument that perry's sins were as great as Bonds, or McGwire, but you could not, I don't believe, make the argument that Perry's actions were as damaging to the overall integrity of the game as the players we're discussing today. And this is not even to mention, as others have, the significantly detrimental effects steroid use has on an individual's health--an argument that would not apply to ball doctoring or bat corking.

But, regardless of where one stands on the severity of the steroid issue, I think everyone agrees that it's something that baseball needs to deal with appropriately. I'm not sure what an acceptable reaction to Bonds' situation would be, honestly. Banishment from the game? Long suspension? Banishment from the Hall? Perhaps no immediate punishment is warranted? I don't know, but what I do know is that the longer baseball allows the steroid cloud to hang over the game, the longer they allow the accomplishments of all players to be called into question, they longer they send signals to high school (and younger) players that steroid use will be rewarded and accepted, if clandestinely, the more damage the sport will sustain. Perhaps not economically, which may be the only thing the Powers That Be in MLB are concerned about, but in the perception of the game. Do they want to be the overseers of a sport viewed by the public to be the domain of the chemically-altered athlete, where both records and steroid use rise every season, and the accomplishments of the game's players are viewed as impressive but not particularly real. That's not the sport I want baseball to be. The next time a player threatens one of baseball's long-established records, I want to feel good about it. I want to be able to cheer the athlete on, and celebrate his phenomenal achievement. I don't want to feel apathetic about it, which is how I feel now. And that is the true harm that steroids have brought to this game.

westofyou
03-08-2006, 11:04 AM
If it came down to a decision more people would pay to see Barry Bonds play baseball than Hal Chase.

Even with depleated nads and man breasts.

registerthis
03-08-2006, 11:05 AM
If it came down to a decision more people would pay to see Barry Bonds play baseball than Hal Chase.

Even with depleated nads and man breasts.

I don't doubt that. I've paid to see a few wrasslin' shows in my time, too.

Puffy
03-08-2006, 11:11 AM
That's been my point for years, literally. For the past 40-50 years, players have been taking whatever they could to gain an edge, be it HGH or something else. If it wasn't against baseball's rules, they took/did it. And sometimes if it was against baseball's rules, they still did it (see Ford, Whitey and Perry, Gaylord).

And before that? It was an all-white league.

People put all these records into a sacred land, but still fail to see the conditions during which they were accomplished. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs ... and not one of them came against a black pitcher. There is no asterik next to Ruth's name, and there won't be one next to Bonds' name, regardless of whether he took anything or not.

Gaylord Perry cheated, wrote a book about it and laughed about it. He's in the Hall of Fame. If Barry Bonds took steroids, then he can stand in line right next to Gaylord Perry. The writers put Perry in, and they'll also put Bonds in. This isn't Pete Rose and betting on the game, which is significantly worse than anything Bonds, Giambi, McGwire, etc. have done.

:notworthy

RedsBaron
03-08-2006, 11:12 AM
Great discussion, all of you. I fall somewhere in the middle of the two sides--I don't agree with Cyclone that "all cheating is cheating", but nor do I think steroid use is the worst thing to happen to the game.

I honestly don't know if there have been a sizeable number of fans so put off by it that they'll stop following baseball, but what I want to avoid is MLB turning into the WWE circus freakshow. For years, baseball turned a blind eye to rampant steroid use among its players, preferring to see HR records fall and TV ratings rise. IMHO, they are as equally complicit in this whole affair as the players themselves. But, if baseball continues to tread lightly around the steroid issue, and doesn't appropriately deal with Bonds or others caught in the steroid net, I do believe there is a risk of long term harm to the game. Not necessarily in attendance or TV ratings--people fill arenas across the country for professional wrestling, after all, and they'll likely keep turning out for baseball as well--but in the way the sport is perceived. Regardless of whether or not they're speaking with their wallets, the fans are paying attention to the steroid debacle, and it won't so easily be forgotten. It's causing otherwise clean and innocent players to have their achievements called under suspicion, and a rather indifferent reaction to the breaking of long-held records.

The difference between this era's players and players like Perry is that, for the latter, his individual results may be called into question, but the impact of his actions on the league as a whole were minimal. Unless there is some available research on the topic I am not aware of, Perry's behavior wasn't symptomatic of the game as a whole--we don't question whether EVERY pitcher was doctoring the ball simply because Perry did. However, the use of steroids--performance enhancers that turned otherwise exceptional athletes into superhuman mega-athletes--has cast a pall over every facet of the game. Henceforth, any player who exhibits a measureable spike in performance will be looked at with a suspicious eye. Any player who manages to remain productive in his later years will be viewed with skepticism. Any records broken in the forseeable future will be prefaced in discussion with a "yeah, but..."

Thus, on an individual level, you could perhaps make the argument that perry's sins were as great as Bonds, or McGwire, but you could not, I don't believe, make the argument that Perry's actions were as damaging to the overall integrity of the game as the players we're discussing today. And this is not even to mention, as others have, the significantly detrimental effects steroid use has on an individual's health--an argument that would not apply to ball doctoring or bat corking.

But, regardless of where one stands on the severity of the steroid issue, I think everyone agrees that it's something that baseball needs to deal with appropriately. I'm not sure what an acceptable reaction to Bonds' situation would be, honestly. Banishment from the game? Long suspension? Banishment from the Hall? Perhaps no immediate punishment is warranted? I don't know, but what I do know is that the longer baseball allows the steroid cloud to hang over the game, the longer they allow the accomplishments of all players to be called into question, they longer they send signals to high school (and younger) players that steroid use will be rewarded and accepted, if clandestinely, the more damage the sport will sustain. Perhaps not economically, which may be the only thing the Powers That Be in MLB are concerned about, but in the perception of the game. Do they want to be the overseers of a sport viewed by the public to be the domain of the chemically-altered athlete, where both records and steroid use rise every season, and the accomplishments of the game's players are viewed as impressive but not particularly real. That's not the sport I want baseball to be. The next time a player threatens one of baseball's long-established records, I want to feel good about it. I want to be able to cheer the athlete on, and celebrate his phenomenal achievement. I don't want to feel apathetic about it, which is how I feel now. And that is the true harm that steroids have brought to this game.
:clap: :thumbup:

oneupper
03-08-2006, 11:24 AM
If you disagree with me and believe that steroids are the evil sin, then why do you watch? If steroids corrupt the game so much, then why in the world do you invest so much time, money and emotion into the game?


I watch because I like to. It's a great game. It's entertaining. Why should I have to deprive myself of that pleasure because there is a flaw in it (steriods) which can and should be corrected?

I would like it fixed, thank you, so our kids and grandkids can play it and maybe, if they're good and dedicated enough, make a career out of without having to jeopardize their lives.

MWM
03-08-2006, 11:27 AM
I'll also toss in that I agree with those saying gambling on the sport is exponentially worse than steroids. So I'll agree with Cyclone that Bonds is closer to Perry than to Rose.

registerthis
03-08-2006, 11:29 AM
I'll also toss in that I agree with those saying gambling on the sport is exponentially worse than steroids. So I'll agree with Cyclone that Bonds is closer to Perry than to Rose.

Yes, I would agree with that as well. The fixing of games is the cardinal sin in all of professional sports, nothing else approaches it.

RedsBaron
03-08-2006, 11:36 AM
I am in no way defending gambling, but there is a difference between gambling and fixing games. A player could bet on his own team and simply use that as an increased incentive to try to win.
On the list of potential baseball sins, fixing a game is at the top (or bottom?)--whatever--it is the worst.
"Mere" gambling, i.e., betting on one's own team to win, is still grounds for being suspended and permanently banned, as one Peter Edward Rose illustrates, but it is a lesser offense IMO.

vaticanplum
03-08-2006, 11:51 AM
The ladder of crimes against baseball is tall, but gambling and steroids sit far apart on the ladder. If you disagree with me and believe that steroids are the evil sin, then why do you watch? If steroids corrupt the game so much, then why in the world do you invest so much time, money and emotion into the game?

Because I am a freak and an addict. Because until steroids are allowed in the game across the board, I can still hold out hope that I am watching a game in which players are winning honestly and on their own merits. So when it turns out that one of the sports' greatest players didn't do so, I find it very, very wrong. Wrong of its own accord, regardless of where it may stand in the baseball pantheon of wrongness.

And if baseball made steroids legal for everyone, I would stop watching.

There are people in the world who would pay to watch any number of illegal things that even they purport to be morally wrong. Their "attendance" is not enough to convince me that it's ok or a lesser crime than something that people won't pay to see.

If I'm not mistaken (and honestly please correct me if I am, because there's a lot to read through here and I'm not sure I've digested all of it), one of your major points, Cyclone, is that steroids won't kill baseball as an organization, that they won't threaten its survival as a money-making family activity and whatnot. Frankly that's not my concern. That's why I don't work for the organization of Major League Baseball; I leave that up to other people. And if those people decide that the public has become immune enough to something -- something that affects fundamentally the way the game is played -- for it not to affect ticket sales, I don't necessarily think this is a good thing. My concern isn't business; it is the game itself, and I don't like what steroids do to the game.

traderumor
03-08-2006, 11:59 AM
Bonds also raked in millions of dollars, as have many others, on the basis of steroid-induced power, many of which are still sitting in bank accounts waiting to be spent.

I don't think it is all money that made baseball turn a blind eye. I think it was moreso a bigger animal than they were willing to tackle and took a back seat to other financial problems the game was having to deal with. A near strike, contraction, revenue sharing, etc. have all been on the table during the 'roid era. Somewhere down on the list was the priority of drug testing and having to deal with the negative publicity they knew it would create. It seems that if it was primarily financially motivated, they would have recognized that even bad publicity is publicity.

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 12:45 PM
Because I am a freak and an addict. Because until steroids are allowed in the game across the board, I can still hold out hope that I am watching a game in which players are winning honestly and on their own merits. So when it turns out that one of the sports' greatest players didn't do so, I find it very, very wrong. Wrong of its own accord, regardless of where it may stand in the baseball pantheon of wrongness.

And if baseball made steroids legal for everyone, I would stop watching.

There are people in the world who would pay to watch any number of illegal things that even they purport to be morally wrong. Their "attendance" is not enough to convince me that it's ok or a lesser crime than something that people won't pay to see.

If I'm not mistaken (and honestly please correct me if I am, because there's a lot to read through here and I'm not sure I've digested all of it), one of your major points, Cyclone, is that steroids won't kill baseball as an organization, that they won't threaten its survival as a money-making family activity and whatnot. Frankly that's not my concern. That's why I don't work for the organization of Major League Baseball; I leave that up to other people. And if those people decide that the public has become immune enough to something -- something that affects fundamentally the way the game is played -- for it not to affect ticket sales, I don't necessarily think this is a good thing. My concern isn't business; it is the game itself, and I don't like what steroids do to the game.

You're still watching, and that's what the game cares about. It's making money off you. It's thriving off you. Steroid use was legal five years ago within the game, and it was known about (otherwise it wouldn't be legal now), but yet I'm guessing you were watching then.

You've stated your concern is for watching honest players play the game on their own merit. Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that cheating has been rampant in the game ever since the beginning of its existence. Believing its been clean up until the 1990s is just refusing to believe reality. If you really would stop watching due to rampant cheating, then you should have never started watching in the first place.

Your pain lies in the fact that you believe you were duped. Well, you've always been duped, whether it's been steroids or some other fashion of cheating. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.

traderumor
03-08-2006, 01:15 PM
You've stated your concern is for watching honest players play the game on their own merit. Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that cheating has been rampant in the game ever since the beginning of its existence. Believing its been clean up until the 1990s is just refusing to believe reality. If you really would stop watching due to rampant cheating, then you should have never started watching in the first place.

Your pain lies in the fact that you believe you were duped. Well, you've always been duped, whether it's been steroids or some other fashion of cheating. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.You seem to wink at this on the premise that "everyone's doing it and has been doing it." I still got a spanking from my mommy when I used this logic to explain away what I had done wrong.

And VP did not say his "concern is for watching honest players," but desired an honest contest, which generally speaking baseball is. A player can have horrible personal character and lie 400 times a day and not have that affect the outcome of a baseball game. A guy bragging about throwing a spitter or a hitter divulging he used cork during a season doesn't change those as being the exception rather than the rule. Nor do they excuse the current brand of cheating and allow us to tell people to sit down and shut up because they still love the game despite occasional episodes attacking the game's integrity.

registerthis
03-08-2006, 01:16 PM
Your pain lies in the fact that you believe you were duped. Well, you've always been duped, whether it's been steroids or some other fashion of cheating. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.

This would be more acceptable if steroid use wasn't so prevalent in the game. Maybe I'm wrong here--maybe steroid use is/was limited to only a few megastars and a few simply trying to catch on with a ML club. Maybe half the pitchers in the 1950s were tossing spitballs and using sandpaper. Maybe a majority of the batters in the 60s were juicing up and corking their bat.

But I don't think so.

This steroid issue, as it were, isn't a case of a couple of guys looking to beat the system. I think steroid use had become practically a way of life for many ML players, I think it was rampant throughout the league. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so--and that's the biggest difference between the cheaters of today, and the cheaters of yesteryear. A majority of the league wasn't throwing spitballs, and I don't think you could say the same about today's players. There has not yet been a scandal that I am aware of that throws an entire generation's worth of records and statistics into question as the steroid scandal has done. So, perhaps what my ultimate argument is is that the actual issue of using steroids isn't such an unpardonable sin, but its prevalency is.

oneupper
03-08-2006, 01:24 PM
. Steroid use was legal five years ago within the game, and it was known about (otherwise it wouldn't be legal now)....

This MY FRIEND...Is NOT true.

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 01:34 PM
This would be more acceptable if steroid use wasn't so prevalent in the game. Maybe I'm wrong here--maybe steroid use is/was limited to only a few megastars and a few simply trying to catch on with a ML club. Maybe half the pitchers in the 1950s were tossing spitballs and using sandpaper. Maybe a majority of the batters in the 60s were juicing up and corking their bat.

But I don't think so.

This steroid issue, as it were, isn't a case of a couple of guys looking to beat the system. I think steroid use had become practically a way of life for many ML players, I think it was rampant throughout the league. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so--and that's the biggest difference between the cheaters of today, and the cheaters of yesteryear. A majority of the league wasn't throwing spitballs, and I don't think you could say the same about today's players. There has not yet been a scandal that I am aware of that throws an entire generation's worth of records and statistics into question as the steroid scandal has done. So, perhaps what my ultimate argument is is that the actual issue of using steroids isn't such an unpardonable sin, but its prevalency is.

Cheating has been a way of life in the game for as long as it's existed. No, that does not make it right in any form, but it's absolutely stunning how people are only now coming out of the woodwork to yell about one kind of specific cheating during one specific time period, yet they still fail to recognize that it's been prevalent throughout the game's history.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/03/SPGSTCJ0SK1.DTL


Tom House was a modestly built left-handed relief pitcher with a below-average fastball. He also used steroids.

In a vivid illustration of the long history of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball -- and how they tempted more than hulking power hitters --

House acknowledged trying steroids for "a couple of seasons" during his playing days. He was drafted by Atlanta in 1967 and spent eight years (1971- 78) in the majors.

House, later an accomplished pitching coach with Texas and now co-founder of the National Pitching Association near San Diego, said performance- enhancing drugs were widespread in baseball in the 1960s and '70s. He and his teammates laughed and rationalized losses by saying, "We didn't get beat, we got out-milligrammed. And when you found out what they were taking, you started taking them."

House described the dynamic as similar to the majors in recent years: Players knew their competition had chemical help and felt compelled to keep pace. He said he and several teammates used amphetamines (known as "greenies"), human growth hormone and "whatever steroid" they could find.

"I pretty much popped everything cold turkey," House said in a phone interview. "We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses. That was the '60s, when nobody knew. The good thing is, we know now. There's a lot more research and understanding. ...

"I'd like to say we were smart, but we didn't know what was going on. We were at the tail end of a generation that wasn't afraid to ingest anything. As research showed up, guys stopped."

House was listed at 5-foot-11 and 190 pounds, and he ballooned to 215 or 220 while on steroids. He blamed the increased weight for putting additional wear and tear on his knees; he had five surgeries on his right knee and two on his left.

House estimated that six or seven pitchers on every staff were "fiddling" with steroids or growth hormone. He said the drugs and devoted conditioning improved his recovery, but his velocity didn't budge.

"I tried everything known to man to improve my fastball and it still didn't go faster than 82 miles per hour," House said. "I was a failed experiment."

House, now 58, might be best known for catching Hank Aaron's 715th home run on April 8, 1974, in the Braves' bullpen at old Fulton County Stadium. He later pitched for Boston and Seattle, finishing his career at 29-23 with a 3. 79 ERA.

He stopped using steroids, he said, because he went to school every offseason and learned about their potentially damaging long-term effects. House became nervous about shortening his life, not his career.

Now he passes along these lessons to the young pitchers he tutors.

"As an instructor, I'm about as anti-steroid as you can be, not through research but through first-hand knowledge," House said. "I try to aim people toward research and make it clear it's an unacceptable choice. It's OK to ask questions, but it's not OK to experiment."

He worries about high school kids with little or no understanding of the risks involved. His concern is especially acute because he lives and works near San Diego, only a short drive from the accessible pharmacies of Tijuana.

"The risk-reward isn't worth it," House said. "You may get lucky in the short term, but the medium- and long-term effects are if not life threatening, then close to life threatening."

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 01:34 PM
This MY FRIEND...Is NOT true.

Baseball had no rules banning steroids five years ago.

savafan
03-08-2006, 01:41 PM
Pete Rose was one man. Baseball didn't suffer greatly for Pete Rose's transgressions. Pete Rose did.

Steroids have made me question now the integrity of just about every baseball game I've seen since I've been on this earth in my 28 years. How many Giants wins by a Barry Bonds homerun wouldn't have been won without steroids? How many Cardinal wins by a Mark McGwire homerun wouldn't have been won without steroids? How many Cubs wins by a Sammy Sosa homerun wouldn't have been won without steroids? What makes me question the 1996 seasons of Brady Anderson and Barry Larkin, and so many other players? I don't know if the sport that I've loved all these years has been a great display of human athletic achievement of a farce, and for that I blame steroids. To me personally, gambling didn't hurt my perspective of the sport, but steroids did, so in the court of my personal opinion, steroids are far worse than gambling.

One more question. Will anyone ever break Roger Maris' single season homerun record of 61?

westofyou
03-08-2006, 01:46 PM
One more question. Will anyone ever break Roger Maris' single season homerun record of 61?Roger Maris made me question the effect of expansion, extreme hitters parks and batting behind Mickey Mantle type of players.

registerthis
03-08-2006, 01:48 PM
Cheating has been a way of life in the game for as long as it's existed. No, that does not make it right in any form, but it's absolutely stunning how people are only now coming out of the woodwork to yell about one kind of specific cheating during one specific time period, yet they still fail to recognize that it's been prevalent throughout the game's history.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/03/SPGSTCJ0SK1.DTL

And how disappointing it would be if it was discovered that cheating was as prevalent throughout the game in decades past as it is now. Like I said, maybe it was...I've seen nothing but supposition to suggest so, but these things are not frequently spoken of. But the prevalency of cheating--at a level that is causing records to fall and establishing new norms for production--appears to be at an all-time high right now. I can live with Gaylord Perry or Whitey Ford throwing a spitter, I can live with Sammy Sosa corking his bat, I can live with George Brett using too much pine tar...but havig a majority of the players on the Juice is much less palatable, at least to me.

registerthis
03-08-2006, 01:49 PM
Roger Maris made me question the effect of expansion, extreme hitters parks and batting behind Mickey Mantle type of players.

And some people score higher on standardized tests because they had better teachers. Such is life.

savafan
03-08-2006, 02:04 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714227/page/2/

The only way out of this hideous embarrassment is for Bonds to quit. Now. I’m not going to stay up waiting for him to do so. It would take a man of honor and integrity to take such a step, and we’ve already seen time and again that those are qualities foreign to him.

Too bad you can’t administer them in a syringe.

RedsBaron
03-08-2006, 02:08 PM
Roger Maris made me question the effect of expansion, extreme hitters parks and batting behind Mickey Mantle type of players.
As far as I know, Maris broke no laws by playing baseball after expansion, or by batting behind Mantle-actually, didn't he hit in front of Mickey part of 1961? I would think there might be more of an advantage in having Mantle being the guy on deck while you were at bat rather than having him bat in front of you. As for playing in an "extreme hitters park"-well, he didn't. Check Maris's home and road HR totals for 1961 (Maris hit 30 HRs at home and 31 HRs on the road, if I recall correctly). Compare the parks he hit in with the parks of the 1930s or 1990s.

savafan
03-08-2006, 02:25 PM
http://www.1919blacksox.com/steroids.htm

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 02:31 PM
And how disappointing it would be if it was discovered that cheating was as prevalent throughout the game in decades past as it is now. Like I said, maybe it was...I've seen nothing but supposition to suggest so, but these things are not frequently spoken of. But the prevalency of cheating--at a level that is causing records to fall and establishing new norms for production--appears to be at an all-time high right now. I can live with Gaylord Perry or Whitey Ford throwing a spitter, I can live with Sammy Sosa corking his bat, I can live with George Brett using too much pine tar...but havig a majority of the players on the Juice is much less palatable, at least to me.

Willie Mays and Willie Stargell
The 1910 St. Louis Browns and Nap Lajoie
Shibe Park groundskeepers when Ashburn was playing
Preacher Roe
Eddie Stanky and the late 1960s White Sox
Bobby Richardson and the 1959 batting title
Tommy John and Don Sutton
Norm Cash
Babe Ruth

Just a few more to chew on. They're all over the place.

savafan
03-08-2006, 02:40 PM
STATEMENT BY MICHAEL RAINS, LAWYER FOR BARRY BONDS

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/08/MNGAKHKF2B1.DTL&feed=rss.giants

My client, Barry Bonds, has not read the Sports Illustrated article and does not intend to. Furthermore, he does not intend to read the book from which the article is excerpted.

Barry regards this as an unfortunate distraction to his friends and teammates at the San Francisco Giants, and to the good name and the great players in Major League Baseball.

The San Francisco Chronicle, after announcing that it had (illegally) obtained Barry's grand jury testimony, previously published questions asked of him while under oath, and his answers. Many of the assertions raised in this article were also previously mentioned. To that extent, this is simply a duplication of previously reported information.

Although most of the authors' supposed 200 or so "sources" for this book remain anonymous, we know and understand that one of the most prominent sources is a woman who previously attempted to extort Barry for money, and who, after that failed, told Geraldo Rivera that she never saw Barry take illegal or performance-enhancing drugs, but explained that her source of knowledge supposedly came from conversations she had with him -- conversations she intended to report in her soon-to-be published (and yet to be published) book.

Some of the other prominent but "anonymous sources" surfaced during the BALCO investigation, and we understand that reporting their identity would also expose their lack of credibility.

The exploitation of Barry's good name and these attempts to eviscerate his sensational accomplishments in all phases of the game of baseball (throughout high school and college, as well as 20 years playing professionally) may make those responsible wealthy, but in the end, they need to live with themselves. Beyond this -- Barry has no further comment now nor in the foreseeable future. His focus remains on staying healthy, playing baseball and doing everything he can to help the Giants play in the World Series seven months from now.

-----------------------------------------------

Exploitation of Barry's good name? :confused:

registerthis
03-08-2006, 02:47 PM
Willie Mays and Willie Stargell
The 1910 St. Louis Browns and Nap Lajoie
Shibe Park groundskeepers when Ashburn was playing
Preacher Roe
Eddie Stanky and the late 1960s White Sox
Bobby Richardson and the 1959 batting title
Tommy John and Don Sutton
Norm Cash
Babe Ruth

Just a few more to chew on. They're all over the place.

These are still all individuals, Cyclone, spread out over 50-60 years--hardly what could be considered "typical" or "wodespread." I'm not seeing any evidence that would lead me to view the statistics put up between 1910-1970 with the same suspicion I view the statistics from the past 20 years. So, I'm still not convinced.

And again, to reiterate, my position isn't that steroids in and of themselves are necessarily worse than other forms of cheating--but I believe their use had become so prevalent and so commonplace in the game that it was causing the statistics for the game as a whole to be skewed. There isn't a HR title iachieved in the last ten years that hasn't been viewed with some level of skepticism by the public. I don't see that same level of scrutiny beling applied to the decades the players you listed above played in.

westofyou
03-08-2006, 02:54 PM
Compare the parks he hit in with the parks of the 1930s or 1990sMuch smaller than the ones in the 30's,

As far as I know, Maris broke no laws by playing baseball after expansion, or by batting behind Mantle-actually, didn't he hit in front of Mickey part of 1961? That's right,strike what I said and reverse it.. that was my intention, having Mantle behind him was an advantage, as far as laws none broken.

I was just sayng that the performance by a guy who nver hit more than 39 before or after peaked my interest of why it happened, as does Bond's situation. I believe that he juiced, but I'm certainly also open to the other aspects causing a change as well.

Maris also feasted at the following hitters parks in 61.

Tiger Stadium .297/.381/.784 5 HR's 37 ab's
Fenway .257/.395/.600 5 HR's
LA .333/.537/.630 1 HR

But at CHI he killed and that was a slight pitchers park

.359/.390/.846 5 HR's 39 ab's, but the WS staff was way worse at home than on the road, mostly in the slg% (plus .040)

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 02:57 PM
These are still all individuals, Cyclone, spread out over 50-60 years--hardly what could be considered "typical" or "wodespread." I'm not seeing any evidence that would lead me to view the statistics put up between 1910-1970 with the same suspicion I view the statistics from the past 20 years. So, I'm still not convinced.

And again, to reiterate, my position isn't that steroids in and of themselves are necessarily worse than other forms of cheating--but I believe their use had become so prevalent and so commonplace in the game that it was causing the statistics for the game as a whole to be skewed. There isn't a HR title iachieved in the last ten years that hasn't been viewed with some level of skepticism by the public. I don't see that same level of scrutiny beling applied to the decades the players you listed above played in.

There's evidence that steroid and greenie use started over 40 years ago. Not surprisingly, that generation of players tripled the 500 home run club.

Coincidental? I think not.

Unless you have some other explanation for why the 500 home run club tripled in size during one of the greatest pitching eras of our time. It is hypocritical to believe that the last 10 years are stained while also not calling into question the records that were set 40 years ago when the same drug use was running wild throughout the game.

But people will blindly defend Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and their contemporaries no matter what.

RedFanAlways1966
03-08-2006, 03:06 PM
But people will blindly defend Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and their contemporaries no matter what.

Yep. Probably b/c greenies vs. steroids (and other drugs that are given to animals) are not comparable to a lot of those people. You? You think greenies are equivalent to steroids and other animal drugs. Such is your right... as it is the rights of those who think different than yoruself.

So the 60+ HRs/Yr. club gets entered multiple times in 5 years. Only twice before in MLB history. Guess that greenie thing is only good for the long-term (career) thing.

Got a problem with Hank or Willie? Fine. Don't have a problem with them? Fine. Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire... they are a different group. They did different drugs. Public perceptions change. I choose not to compare anyone in today's game with those who have been retired for a long time. I will not defend a drug user and cheater b/c others before him may have done it. Want to defend Barry? Fine. But do not drag the names of others through Barry's mud while doing it. That is not an argument... that is an excuse.

savafan
03-08-2006, 03:10 PM
ESPN is reporting that Bonds has left the Giants spring training camp to attend to personal matters.

traderumor
03-08-2006, 03:11 PM
Yep. Probably b/c greenies vs. steroids (and other drugs that are given to animals) are not comparable to a lot of those people. You? You think greenies are equivalent to steroids and other animal drugs. Such is your right... as it is the rights of those who think different than yoruself.

So the 60+ HRs/Yr. club gets entered multiple times in 5 years. Only twice before in MLB history. Guess that greenie thing is only good for the long-term (career) thing.

Got a problem with Hank or Willie? Fine. Don't have a problem with them? Fine. Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire... they are a different group. They did different drugs. Public perceptions change. I choose not to compare anyone in today's game with those who have been retired for a long time. I will not defend a drug user and cheater b/c others before him may have done it. Want to defend Barry? Fine. But do not drag the names of others through Barry's mud while doing it. That is not an argument... that is an excuse.
It's just the exploitation of Barry's good name, RFA ;)

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 03:16 PM
Yep. Probably b/c greenies vs. steroids (and other drugs that are given to animals) are not comparable to a lot of those people. You? You think greenies are equivalent to steroids and other animal drugs. Such is your right... as it is the rights of those who think different than yoruself.

So the 60+ HRs/Yr. club gets entered multiple times in 5 years. Only twice before in MLB history. Guess that greenie thing is only good for the long-term (career) thing.

Got a problem with Hank or Willie? Fine. Don't have a problem with them? Fine. Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire... they are a different group. They did different drugs. Public perceptions change. I choose not to compare anyone in today's game with those who have been retired for a long time. I will not defend a drug user and cheater b/c others before him may have done it. Want to defend Barry? Fine. But do not drag the names of others through Barry's mud while doing it. That is not an argument... that is an excuse.

Greenies and steroids = legal in baseball when they were used
Greenies and steroids = illegal in society when they were used

Where's the difference? Is it because one is more of a PED than the other? Greenies are PEDs, same as steroids. You're picking and choosing which drug is "bad" and which drug isn't, when they are both clearly performance enhancers. I'm sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.

registerthis
03-08-2006, 03:16 PM
Unless you have some other explanation for why the 500 home run club tripled in size during one of the greatest pitching eras of our time. It is hypocritical to believe that the last 10 years are stained while also not calling into question the records that were set 40 years ago when the same drug use was running wild throughout the game.

But people will blindly defend Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and their contemporaries no matter what.

Yep, that's me, blindly defending Mays and Aaron. :rolleyes:

Cyclone, go back and read my post on the previous page. I'm defending no one and no behavior. That's your own concoction. But your position on this topic seems, to me at least, a bit unreasonable. You present a list of players who doctored balls, corked bats, threw spitters and did other unsavory things. You post an article describing the use of amphetamines in MLB, and present speculative evidence that steroid use was rampant in the 60s and 70s because more home runs were hit then.

Since when does past behavior and prior consequences dictate what can and cannot be said/done/believed about a particular individual? You act as if no one here has a right to be angry at people like McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro and (likely) many more for calling into question the integrity of the statistics they have put up, simply because we do not spew the same vitriol at Whitey Ford. I make no apoligies for my feelings on this issue, nor should anyone else. Whether everyone you have listed was juicing, whether every player in the history of the sport has been a rampant cheater whose records are fraudulent--I'm talking about the game today, and what should be done about it. So what if Mays juiced up, Jackson smeared stuff on his rear, and Aaron gave himself shots of fish tranquilizer? I wasn't alive during the era of the people you have mentioned and described, but I would like to think that an exposure of mass cheating in the majors during that time would have raised my ire as much as reports of the same do today. So knock off the hypocrite talk.

Like I wrote in my previous post, I have no interest in watching a game if the contest becomes who is capable of concocting the most inventive steroid formula. I want to see every effort made to ensure a clean game, from all participants. I'm not willing to grant leniancy or a free pass simply because players have knowingly gotten away with it in the past. Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro et al. used steroids, those steroids helped them achieve record-breaking numbers and statistics, and I have no respect for them because of that. Enough said.

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 03:57 PM
Yep, that's me, blindly defending Mays and Aaron. :rolleyes:

Cyclone, go back and read my post on the previous page. I'm defending no one and no behavior. That's your own concoction. But your position on this topic seems, to me at least, a bit unreasonable. You present a list of players who doctored balls, corked bats, threw spitters and did other unsavory things. You post an article describing the use of amphetamines in MLB, and present speculative evidence that steroid use was rampant in the 60s and 70s because more home runs were hit then.

Since when does past behavior and prior consequences dictate what can and cannot be said/done/believed about a particular individual? You act as if no one here has a right to be angry at people like McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro and (likely) many more for calling into question the integrity of the statistics they have put up, simply because we do not spew the same vitriol at Whitey Ford. I make no apoligies for my feelings on this issue, nor should anyone else. Whether everyone you have listed was juicing, whether every player in the history of the sport has been a rampant cheater whose records are fraudulent--I'm talking about the game today, and what should be done about it. So what if Mays juiced up, Jackson smeared stuff on his rear, and Aaron gave himself shots of fish tranquilizer? I wasn't alive during the era of the people you have mentioned and described, but I would like to think that an exposure of mass cheating in the majors during that time would have raised my ire as much as reports of the same do today. So knock off the hypocrite talk.

Like I wrote in my previous post, I have no interest in watching a game if the contest becomes who is capable of concocting the most inventive steroid formula. I want to see every effort made to ensure a clean game, from all participants. I'm not willing to grant leniancy or a free pass simply because players have knowingly gotten away with it in the past. Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro et al. used steroids, those steroids helped them achieve record-breaking numbers and statistics, and I have no respect for them because of that. Enough said.

The game today has a steroid problem, and baseball is rightfully working on it. And yep, it needs to be resolved. All this I agree with you on.

I just find it absolutely stunning that seemingly nobody cares at all about the drug use that occurred in previous generations. Nobody cares about the past? Right, that must be why nobody wants any steroid user of today to break a record from the past.

Greenies are now banned by MLB. Why are people not at all calling into question the statistical records of the players who used them? If the drugs aren't "bad" then why did MLB ban them?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2357037

There's an article about a list of approved substances coming out. Greenies aren't on it; they're banned.

Willie Mays used greenies, and those drugs likely helped him achieve his record breaking numbers and statistics. The players of today used steroids and those steroids helped them achieve record breaking numbers and statistics. I sense a connection. You've been stating that the steroids are bad, which I agree with, but that the greenies, possible steroid use in the 1960s and earlier records apparently do not matter, which I fully disagree with.

If your answer is you don't care because you weren't alive, that's fine. Roll with it then, but if you don't care how the game duped earlier fans in previous generations then that's sort of laughing in those fans' faces. I'm certainly not going to do that, and neither will baseball ... otherwise guys such as Eddie Cicotte, Lefty Williams, et al would have been reinstated upon their death. Likewise, understand that 100 years from now fans taking your same view will not care about Barry Bonds using steroids. They'll want to put him in the Hall if he's not already there, and they won't care one iota how you believe steroids tarnished the game.

If you don't give a darn how a few men "played with the faith of fifty million people," as F. Scott Fitzgerald phrased it, then you'll never understand baseball's hierarchy of crimes.

vaticanplum
03-08-2006, 04:08 PM
I just find it absolutely stunning that seemingly nobody cares at all about the drug use that occurred in previous generations. Nobody cares about the past? Right, that must be why nobody wants any steroid user of today to break a record from the past.

It's not that nobody cares, but what can we do about it? There's no way to run drug testing on a corpse. If somehow it was proven -- heck, even if not -- then we can talk about the Hall of Fame and the record books, but that's a separate debate. Right now we are talking about a man still playing baseball, in a climate in which more is known by the general public about steroids and thus people are rightfully more wary of them than they were in decades past. I have no problem with standards being raised as decades roll by and we learn more about previously mysterious, under-the-table things. That's a sign of evolution and progress. It's certainly better to me than the alternative, ie. holding everybody to the same standard, even if it has been proven to be a bad one, just to be used as a basis for comparison with people who are dead. That is no way to live.


If you don't give a darn how a few men "played with the faith of fifty million people," as F. Scott Fitzgerald phrased it, then you'll never understand baseball's hierarchy of crimes.

Again, a totally separate conversation. Has it been revealed that Barry Bonds gambled on baseball? String him up. Right now we're talking about a transgression that there is strong evidence he committed, and that's the use of steroids.

westofyou
03-08-2006, 04:14 PM
Is this "cheating" What would Mantle say?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4832


The Sox have few injury problems coming into camp, a refreshing change from the past. Curt Schilling looks healthy and has some velocity back. David Wells is doing well with his knee and his weight seems relatively under control. The team is a little worried about Keith Foulke, though even this is minor. Foulke had surgery on both knees in the past year and is now taking Synvisc injections in at least one of them. These are the same type of lubricating injections that have helped Randy Johnson over the last couple years (and I suspect a few others are using it, too). The Sox are also cautious about Dustin Pedroia. The prospect injured his left (non-throwing) shoulder on a swing, immediately recalling the injury to J.J. Hardy just a few years ago, one of the more painful injuries I’ve seen. Pedroia’s doesn’t appear nearly as serious and he's expected to miss just a couple weeks. He’ll have an extremely conservative timetable, making it less likely he’ll break camp to go quite as far north. Pawtucket’s nice this time of year, right?

BCubb2003
03-08-2006, 04:17 PM
Likewise, understand that 100 years from now fans taking your same view will not care about Barry Bonds using steroids. They'll want to put him in the Hall if he's not already there, and they won't care one iota how you believe steroids tarnished the game.



It's going on 85 years, and people still remember why Shoeless Joe Jackson is not in the Hall of Fame. Even if there's no asterisk, even if Bonds makes it into the hall, people will argue over whether he belongs.

registerthis
03-08-2006, 04:21 PM
If your answer is you don't care because you weren't alive, that's fine. Roll with it then, but if you don't care how the game duped earlier fans in previous generations then that's sort of laughing in those fans' faces. I'm certainly not going to do that, and neither will baseball ... otherwise guys such as Eddie Cicotte, Lefty Williams, et al would have been reinstated upon their death. Likewise, understand that 100 years from now fans taking your same view will not care about Barry Bonds using steroids. They'll want to put him in the Hall if he's not already there, and they won't care one iota how you believe steroids tarnished the game.

If you don't give a darn how a few men "played with the faith of fifty million people," as F. Scott Fitzgerald phrased it, then you'll never understand baseball's hierarchy of crimes.

Two quick things: One, I've never said I don't care about what happened in the past, or how past cheaters were treated, but like VP says--what are we to do about it? I'm not sure what you're goal is here...to acknowledge that there have always been cheaters in baseball? I've done that. To acknowledge that cheating may have been as pervasive then as it appears to be now? I've allowed for that possibility. That Bonds should not/cannot be penalized by MLB for taking something not specifically banned? I've agreed with that too. But I am still angry about the situation, and like I said, for that i make no apologies.

I'm simply not sure what your argument is, or what you're looking for in the way of a concession. Should I be incensed that Gaylord Perry threw a spitball? That Willie Mays took greenies? That Babe Ruth drank? That's as senseless as saying that someone who disagrees with President Bush has no right to be angry if they do not also acknowledge--and show sufficient anger at--the policies of the Woodrow Wilson administration. I'm sure baseball has had its share of cheats, I'm sure some records were broken because the player used supplemants. But what is to be done now? Bonds is an active player, and the issue of dealing with steroids is a very real--and current--problem. I, personally, view Bonds as a cheat and a liar, and no amount of harping about the sins of Whitey Ford is going to change that.

Second, with regards to Bond's stature 100 years from now, I would not underestimate the power of the media in forming and shaping society's views and perceptions. If Willie Mays had played under the media micriscope that bonds has played under, and if his sins were as thoroughly broadcasted and discussed as Bonds has been, I find it entirely possible that he would be viewed in a substantially different light than we do today. Like I mention in the Redslive forum, Bonds' election to the HoF is far from a sure thing at this point--we have yet to know how this will play out.

Matt700wlw
03-08-2006, 04:28 PM
I wonder if this cause the man to step down.....


It'll probably cause him to give a big (fill in the blank) to the league and drive him to beat Hank Aaron's record.


What a shame.

IslandRed
03-08-2006, 04:35 PM
Without getting too deep into the chemistry of it, I just don't put greenies on the same shelf with steroids. I think amphetamines of that ilk should be banned -- but not because they're a performance enhancer in the sense that steroids are. It's because high-power amphetamines are easily abused and as such are a health risk.

When you get right down to it, the effects of a greenie can be duplicated with perfectly legal substances. I could drink a 12-pack of Coke or chug a couple of Red Bulls and be as alert as all get-out. But no matter how awake and alert and energized I am, my baseline level of performance hasn't changed. The edge I get is about being at my best that day; it does not change what my best is. Is it really that different from a guy who gobbles Advils so he can play without pain?

But steroids are all about changing the baseline, upgrading your best to better.

To repeat, I'm perfectly OK with banning substances that are true performance enhancers, or health hazards, or subject to abuse. But that doesn't put them all on the same plane in my mind. We live in a pharmaceutical age, and the lines aren't always clear.

Chip R
03-08-2006, 04:45 PM
When you get right down to it, the effects of a "greenie" can be duplicated with perfectly legal substances. I could drink a 12-pack of Coke or chug a couple of Red Bulls and be as alert as all get-out. But no matter how awake and alert and "energized" I am, my baseline level of performance hasn't changed. The "edge" I get is about being at my best that day; it does not change what my best is. Is it really that different from a guy who gobbles Advils so he can play without pain?


It's going to be interesting what players replace greenies with. I'm guessing the sales of Red Bull and other such drinks are going to skyrocket amongst MLB teams.

I'm no expert on the effect of amphetimines but the difference between those and coffee or Coke or Red Bull is that the latter all are highly caffinated. One of the effects of caffiene is that you have to pee a lot. You're standing out in the field and all of a sudden you gotta go. If you're on the bench and not due up, it's no big deal but if you're on the basepaths or in the field it could be rather uncomfortable after a while. I don't know, maybe it'll make them hustle a little more. ;)

registerthis
03-08-2006, 04:49 PM
It's going to be interesting what players replace greenies with. I'm guessing the sales of Red Bull and other such drinks are going to skyrocket amongst MLB teams.

I'm no expert on the effect of amphetimines but the difference between those and coffee or Coke or Red Bull is that the latter all are highly caffinated. One of the effects of caffiene is that you have to pee a lot. You're standing out in the field and all of a sudden you gotta go. If you're on the bench and not due up, it's no big deal but if you're on the basepaths or in the field it could be rather uncomfortable after a while. I don't know, maybe it'll make them hustle a little more. ;)

I was headed down to a reds game once, and on my way down I began developing a migraine headache. The ones I get are typically so menacing that I have a prescription to stave them off, only I didn't have it with me at the time. So I pulled off into a gas station and bought two cans of red bull and a bottle of Moutain Dew, and chugged them. I managed to head off the migraine for the most part, but my hands were shaking and my heart raced for the next hour or so. In other words, NOT recommended...(but still better than the migraine.)

Sea Ray
03-08-2006, 04:51 PM
Well, that all begs several questions:

1) Do you believe Cap Anson should be in the Hall of Fame?
2) Do you believe Kenesaw Mountain Landis should be in the Hall of Fame?
3) Do you believe Ty Cobb should be in the Hall of Fame?
4) Do you believe Charles Comiskey should be in the Hall of Fame?

I can list several more, but you probably get the point.

No, it doesn't beg any questions. Barry Bonds had nothing, zilch, to do with the folks above. Whether Barry Bonds gets in should not change the status of those already in. If you want to compare Barry with other potential Hall of Famers who allegedly took steroids, OK.

Sea Ray
03-08-2006, 04:52 PM
According to the SI article it began in 1998, Barry was the best player in the game before that.

That's a valid point and if he were to get my vote it would be based on exactly that, pre 1998.

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 04:54 PM
Two quick things: One, I've never said I don't care about what happened in the past, or how past cheaters were treated, but like VP says--what are we to do about it?

I'm not sure what you're goal is here...to acknowledge that there have always been cheaters in baseball? I've done that. To acknowledge that cheating may have been as pervasive then as it appears to be now? I've allowed for that possibility. That Bonds should not/cannot be penalized by MLB for taking something not specifically banned? I've agreed with that too. But I am still angry about the situation, and like I said, for that i make no apologies.

I'm simply not sure what your argument is, or what you're looking for in the way of a concession. Should I be incensed that Gaylord Perry threw a spitball? That Willie Mays took greenies? That Babe Ruth drank? That's as senseless as saying that someone who disagrees with President Bush has no right to be angry if they do not also acknowledge--and show sufficient anger at--the policies of the Woodrow Wilson administration. I'm sure baseball has had its share of cheats, I'm sure some records were broken because the player used supplemants. But what is to be done now? Bonds is an active player, and the issue of dealing with steroids is a very real--and current--problem. I, personally, view Bonds as a cheat and a liar, and no amount of harping about the sins of Whitey Ford is going to change that.

Second, with regards to Bond's stature 100 years from now, I would not underestimate the power of the media in forming and shaping society's views and perceptions. If Willie Mays had played under the media micriscope that bonds has played under, and if his sins were as thoroughly broadcasted and discussed as Bonds has been, I find it entirely possible that he would be viewed in a substantially different light than we do today. Like I mention in the Redslive forum, Bonds' election to the HoF is far from a sure thing at this point--we have yet to know how this will play out.

Eh, you stated, "So what if Mays juiced up, Jackson smeared stuff on his rear, and Aaron gave himself shots of fish tranquilizer?" Well if Mays juiced up, get him out! :)

Of course you're angry about the situation, as is everyone else, myself included. But no matter the emotional charge in getting aggravated with the situation, what Barry Bonds did on the list of sins is much closer to the countless other cheaters in the game's history than it is to the crimes committed by those players who are banned. When people say that Bonds should be banned or Bonds should never reach Cooperstown, they are inaccurately portraying the crime that Bonds actually did commit.

Players who fixed games were banned, and none are in the Hall. Pete Rose bet on baseball, is banned and is not in the Hall. That pile of players on the ineligible list are in one group.

Gaylord Perry, White Ford, et al cheated in baseball through a variety of means, but they are in the Hall. That pile of players is in another group.

This is all the way it should be.

Barry Bonds? The "moral" crime he committed - steroids were legal in the game at the time so it wasn't even a baseball crime - does not come close to reaching the magnitude of the crime that Pete Rose committed. He does not belong in the same group as Pete Rose and those who gambled on the game. Bonds' crime falls much more in line with the types of crimes committed by Ford, Perry, et al. He loosely belongs in that group.

I'm assuming, hoping, that you agree with me on this. If not, then you're treading shaky ground in claiming that one form of cheating is so significantly worse than another form that one requires the same penalty as a gambling crime while the other requires a slap on the wrist. There are different levels of cheating, some worse than others. I may agree that using steroids is a slightly worse offense than doctoring baseballs, but they are not so incredibly different that using steroids deserves an immediate banishment while doctoring baseballs deserves a celebration of gamesmanship.

M2
03-08-2006, 05:14 PM
Just found out my friend did the cover for the book. He wanted to make Bonds look like an "Operation" game with some bovine growth hormone here and some Clear there, but he couldn't get that approved so they went with a shot of Bonds standing next to Giambi at first base instead.

I'd have gone for collage art with hypodermic needles substituting for his arms and legs.

registerthis
03-08-2006, 05:35 PM
Eh, you stated, "So what if Mays juiced up, Jackson smeared stuff on his rear, and Aaron gave himself shots of fish tranquilizer?" Well if Mays juiced up, get him out! :)

Get him out of what? I've never advocated kicking anyone out of the Hall, if that's what you're referring to. I'm advocating for sportswriters to not elect Bonds, but that's the extent of it.


Of course you're angry about the situation, as is everyone else, myself included. But no matter the emotional charge in getting aggravated with the situation, what Barry Bonds did on the list of sins is much closer to the countless other cheaters in the game's history than it is to the crimes committed by those players who are banned. When people say that Bonds should be banned or Bonds should never reach Cooperstown, they are inaccurately portraying the crime that Bonds actually did commit.

The sportwriters are free to elect--or not elect--whomever they please. If they feel that Bonds' records were ill-gotten, they're perfectly within their rights to not elect him. You talk of this ladder of offenses in baseball as if there is some hard and fast hierarchy of sins, along with an appropriate level of punishment for each. And I don't know what the countless other cheaters in history have to do with this discussion. Again, past leniancy for various offenses does not necessitate leniancy now.


This is all the way it should be.

According to whom? If you're arguing that the sportswriters should elect Bonds--that's fine, we simply disagree. But if you're arguing that the sportswriters canNOT not elect him based on his steroid usage, that is another entirely different stroy. Like I said, I would never vote for Bonds based solely on the steroid issue. I say that because I believe I can fairly and justifiably attribute Bonds' record-breaking stats solely to steroid use. You're not going to convince me otherwise, Cyclone, regardless of how much you trumpet the sins of the players of yore. Again, I wasn't around then, I can't comment firsthand on any of their alleged offenses, and nothing that has been done with respect to them can be undone. Those players are a moot point with regards to this discussion.


Barry Bonds? The "moral" crime he committed - steroids were legal in the game at the time so it wasn't even a baseball crime - does not come close to reaching the magnitude of the crime that Pete Rose committed. He does not belong in the same group as Pete Rose and those who gambled on the game. Bonds' crime falls much more in line with the types of crimes committed by Ford, Perry, et al. He loosely belongs in that group.

You keep bringing up Rose as if I have been constantly comparing the two. I haven't--I've said nothing of the sort. I've consistently maintained that gambling is a more serious offense related to the sport. I've explained my reasons--time and again--for why I wouldn't vote Bonds into the Hall. Feel free to disagree, but enough with this posturing about what people "can" and "cannot" think or do about something. Bonds is a cheat and a liar, and his numbers are ill-gotten. Period.


I'm assuming, hoping, that you agree with me on this. If not, then you're treading shaky ground in claiming that one form of cheating is so significantly worse than another form that one requires the same penalty as a gambling crime while the other requires a slap on the wrist. There are different levels of cheating, some worse than others. I may agree that using steroids is a slightly worse offense than doctoring baseballs, but they are not so incredibly different that using steroids deserves an immediate banishment while doctoring baseballs deserves a celebration of gamesmanship.

If, Cyclone, you were able to offer me evidence that Player X corked his bat for a significant portion of his career, and that doing so not only presented him with an advantage, but also by itself allowed him to break records and set absurdly-high offensive statistics that are highly unlikely to be broken by players using a non-corked bat, then I would have no problems refraining from voting Player X into the Hall as well. I would consider his accomplishments to be as ill-gotten as Bonds. But those are some pretty hefty qualifiers to meet there, I'm not sure how many would fall into that category.

RFS62
03-08-2006, 05:39 PM
Two quick things: One, I've never said I don't care about what happened in the past, or how past cheaters were treated, but like VP says--what are we to do about it? I'm not sure what you're goal is here...to acknowledge that there have always been cheaters in baseball? I've done that. To acknowledge that cheating may have been as pervasive then as it appears to be now? I've allowed for that possibility. That Bonds should not/cannot be penalized by MLB for taking something not specifically banned? I've agreed with that too. But I am still angry about the situation, and like I said, for that i make no apologies.

I'm simply not sure what your argument is, or what you're looking for in the way of a concession. Should I be incensed that Gaylord Perry threw a spitball? That Willie Mays took greenies? That Babe Ruth drank? That's as senseless as saying that someone who disagrees with President Bush has no right to be angry if they do not also acknowledge--and show sufficient anger at--the policies of the Woodrow Wilson administration. I'm sure baseball has had its share of cheats, I'm sure some records were broken because the player used supplemants. But what is to be done now? Bonds is an active player, and the issue of dealing with steroids is a very real--and current--problem. I, personally, view Bonds as a cheat and a liar, and no amount of harping about the sins of Whitey Ford is going to change that.

Second, with regards to Bond's stature 100 years from now, I would not underestimate the power of the media in forming and shaping society's views and perceptions. If Willie Mays had played under the media micriscope that bonds has played under, and if his sins were as thoroughly broadcasted and discussed as Bonds has been, I find it entirely possible that he would be viewed in a substantially different light than we do today. Like I mention in the Redslive forum, Bonds' election to the HoF is far from a sure thing at this point--we have yet to know how this will play out.




Very well said.

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 06:02 PM
Get him out of what? I've never advocated kicking anyone out of the Hall, if that's what you're referring to. I'm advocating for sportswriters to not elect Bonds, but that's the extent of it.

Why haven't you ever advocated kicking anybody out? Because you don't care what happened in the past?

If you've never advocated for kicking anybody out, but are advocating for Bonds to never make it, then by default you're trumping that Comiskey belongs and Bonds doesn't.


The sportwriters are free to elect--or not elect--whomever they please. If they feel that Bonds' records were ill-gotten, they're perfectly within their rights to not elect him. You talk of this ladder of offenses in baseball as if there is some hard and fast hierarchy of sins, along with an appropriate level of punishment for each. And I don't know what the countless other cheaters in history have to do with this discussion. Again, past leniancy for various offenses does not necessitate leniancy now.

Well, when last I checked, you get banned for life for gambling on baseball. You get suspended for x number of games for the first two steroid offenses. You get suspended for x number of games for other offenses, including doctoring baseballs and using corked bats. I'd say there's a hard and fast hierarchy of sins, combined with a level of punishment for each.


According to whom? If you're arguing that the sportswriters should elect Bonds--that's fine, we simply disagree. But if you're arguing that the sportswriters canNOT not elect him based on his steroid usage, that is another entirely different stroy. Like I said, I would never vote for Bonds based solely on the steroid issue. I say that because I believe I can fairly and justifiably attribute Bonds' record-breaking stats solely to steroid use. You're not going to convince me otherwise, Cyclone, regardless of how much you trumpet the sins of the players of yore. Again, I wasn't around then, I can't comment firsthand on any of their alleged offenses, and nothing that has been done with respect to them can be undone. Those players are a moot point with regards to this discussion.

You keep bringing up Rose as if I have been constantly comparing the two. I haven't--I've said nothing of the sort. I've consistently maintained that gambling is a more serious offense related to the sport. I've explained my reasons--time and again--for why I wouldn't vote Bonds into the Hall. Feel free to disagree, but enough with this posturing about what people "can" and "cannot" think or do about something. Bonds is a cheat and a liar, and his numbers are ill-gotten. Period.

I don't see any evidence that Barry Bonds used steroids prior to 1998 and I hope you're not claiming that Bonds pre-1998 is not a Hall of Fame caliber player. Frankly, I'd love to see a list of single seasons you'd take over Bonds' 1993 season.

Certain crimes have a penalty of a ban. Others do not. Even now, steroids rightfully do not have that until there's a third offense. Nevertheless, you must compare Bonds' crime to the other crimes of the past to come up with an appropriate penalty.

You're failing to compare Bonds' crime against other baseball crimes, which in turn causes you to trump a penalty that is far too harsh for the crime committed.


If, Cyclone, you were able to offer me evidence that Player X corked his bat for a significant portion of his career, and that doing so not only presented him with an advantage, but also by itself allowed him to break records and set absurdly-high offensive statistics that are highly unlikely to be broken by players using a non-corked bat, then I would have no problems refraining from voting Player X into the Hall as well. I would consider his accomplishments to be as ill-gotten as Bonds. But those are some pretty hefty qualifiers to meet there, I'm not sure how many would fall into that category.

Confessions of doctoring baseballs is pretty strong evidence of cheating. League-wide run scoring data when baseball outlawed doctoring baseballs is also evidence of the effect/advantage that pitching with a dirty ball provides.

Let's not forget safety reasons here. A large reason why steroids are so taboo is because they are unhealthy. A large reason why the game outlawed illegal pitches is because a player died on the field of play after getting beaned in the head.

traderumor
03-08-2006, 06:03 PM
With respect to an apologist for Bonds, even Pelagius had his supporters (sorry, he's fresh, was just studying him last night) ;)

Roy Tucker
03-08-2006, 06:05 PM
The "moral" crime he committed - steroids were legal in the game at the time so it wasn't even a baseball crime


To pick a nit, saying that steroids were legal in the baseball at the time is a darn gray area. Baseball simply did not address steroids in any of its bylaws, union agreements, etc. at that time. It was against federal/state/whatever law though.

Carrying through on this logic, murder, kidnapping, jaywalking, and getting a fish drunk are also all legal in baseball.

Cyclone792
03-08-2006, 06:13 PM
To pick a nit, saying that steroids were legal in the baseball at the time is a darn gray area. Baseball simply did not address steroids in any of its bylaws, union agreements, etc. at that time. It was against federal/state/whatever law though.

Carrying through on this logic, murder, kidnapping, jaywalking, and getting a fish drunk are also all legal in baseball.

Exactly, but the key is baseball does not enforce society's laws; law enforcement agencies do. If Barry Bonds broke federal and state laws by taking steroids, then those proper agencies should be going after him.

Cedric
03-08-2006, 06:14 PM
They don't suspend because of drug usage?

Dom Heffner
03-08-2006, 06:43 PM
we don't let ex-girlfriends sit on the jury(thank goodness).


But we can use them as a witness :)


With that being said, I take issue with these people that act like Bonds is the worse human being on the planet, but sit and cheered for Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa as they chased 61.

We cheered then and are embarassed for having done so now. The talk surrounding McGwire was Andro, and while that may say sound naive, that's what I thought- until McGwire pleaded the 5th.

Some may have suspected, but we are far beyond merely suspicion at this point.

I don't think they are the worst people on the planet, I just think their accomplishments are tainted.

When Bonds puts number #756 over the wall, are you going to cheer him on?

Dom Heffner
03-08-2006, 06:45 PM
To pick a nit, saying that steroids were legal in the baseball at the time is a darn gray area.

There was a time when it was legal to murder people. I guess the people who killed during that time were just swell because there were no laws against it.

You're wasting your time with this bunch, Roy. You're making too much sense.

It wasn't even a gray area. Baseball didn't think it was a problem so it wasn['t addressed. Doesn't mean they were going into locker rooms and telling people to do them or that they advocated it.

If it was so legal, and it was just hunky dorey to do, how come these guys just didn't come out and admit it?

It's almost as if the argument says that these guys don't know right from wrong unless baseball tells them- as long as there is no threat of punishment from baseball, they are free to do as they wish.

Maybe they can start putting rocket propelled engines in their bats to increase their bat speed- there's no rule against that right now.

ochre
03-08-2006, 08:24 PM
Baseball doesn't (that I'm aware of anyway) have any provisions for disciplining players for abusing their spouses, yet the Astros pretty much dropped Lugo like he was hot when that happened there. I know there a problems with comparisons like that, but that's what I think of when people try to say that the mlb didn't have a policy on it, so it must be ok.

Of course the real issue is that Lugo is no Bonds. Or McGuire. Or even Giambi, or Canseco. Sure there isn't a real comparison between the actual crimes, but there is a comparison in that there was not specific policy in place.

Again it comes back to incontrovertible evidence in my mind.

registerthis
03-08-2006, 08:54 PM
Why haven't you ever advocated kicking anybody out? Because you don't care what happened in the past?

If you've never advocated for kicking anybody out, but are advocating for Bonds to never make it, then by default you're trumping that Comiskey belongs and Bonds doesn't.

That's some nice faulty logic you're using there, Cyclone. Let me get this straight: because I don't want to go back and revisit every single potential past sin ever commited by a baseball player, and make a decision based on that information whether or not the player should be allowed to remain in the hall, I have no right to ever argue that a future player should be kept out? That's simply ridiculous, and if you truly believe that I think you're running out of arguments.

I don't advocate for kicking people out because I don't believe that baseball should be in the practice of revisiting and--by default--making remittances for perceived past wrongs. This is the very reason I say that your continued references to sins committed by players 50 and 60 years ago have no bearing on this discussion. I can't control what they did, I can't control what baseball did. This discussion deals with an active scandal today. This is something baseball CAN deal with, and I want them to deal with it correctly.


Well, when last I checked, you get banned for life for gambling on baseball. You get suspended for x number of games for the first two steroid offenses. You get suspended for x number of games for other offenses, including doctoring baseballs and using corked bats. I'd say there's a hard and fast hierarchy of sins, combined with a level of punishment for each.

Within the scope of the game, sure, I'll concede that. But i was referring more to the perceptions we place on a player, and the traits and characteristics HoF voters use to decide who and who not to elect to the Hall. If Barry had been caught corking his bat once or twice, or lathering up with too much pine tar, his HoF induction would be a no-brainer. 5 years of significant steroid use that had an evident impact on his statistics? Not so much.



I don't see any evidence that Barry Bonds used steroids prior to 1998 and I hope you're not claiming that Bonds pre-1998 is not a Hall of Fame caliber player. Frankly, I'd love to see a list of single seasons you'd take over Bonds' 1993 season.

No, Barry pre-1998 was, IMHO, a HoF-caliber player. Absolutely. But, also IMHO, his actions on the field, which helped create this pall over the game that we now see, trump his pre-1998 career. Feel free to disagree with me--certainly that's your right. But this double-standard hypocritical stuff you keep throwing out is pure baloney. Barry Bonds has harmed the game by his actions; my personal feelings that he should not be voted into the Hall because of that is my punishment.


Certain crimes have a penalty of a ban. Others do not. Even now, steroids rightfully do not have that until there's a third offense. Nevertheless, you must compare Bonds' crime to the other crimes of the past to come up with an appropriate penalty.

You're failing to compare Bonds' crime against other baseball crimes, which in turn causes you to trump a penalty that is far too harsh for the crime committed.

No, I'm not--and you can keep hammering this point and I'm just going to have to continue to disagree with you. Simply because other players--who may or may not have cheated as much or as grossly as Bonds did--have failed to be penalized for their behavior does not grant Barry carte blanche here. If 20 students cheat on a test, the first 19 get by with it but the 20th gets caught, does that mean that student shouldn't be penalized? Of course not. You want to compare Barry's crimes to other crimes, but the reality is there really isn't a comparison. And even if one did exist, there's no respect for precedent in baseball...if you could prove to me that Roger Maris ingested every anabolic steroid known to man throughout his entire career, baseball knew about it and did nothing, and Maris still was elected to the Hall--that wouldn't change my position one iota. I would disagree with how they handled Maris, and I would argue vehemently that the treatment for Bonds and others of similar ilk should be harsher. Either way, I would still maintain that an appropriate punishment for Bonds would be a rejection of his induction into the Hall.


Confessions of doctoring baseballs is pretty strong evidence of cheating. League-wide run scoring data when baseball outlawed doctoring baseballs is also evidence of the effect/advantage that pitching with a dirty ball provides.

Let's not forget safety reasons here. A large reason why steroids are so taboo is because they are unhealthy. A large reason why the game outlawed illegal pitches is because a player died on the field of play after getting beaned in the head.

To your first point, see my statement above.

To your second, I would say that bat corking, ball doctoring, and excessive pine tarring are examples of activities that are banned not out of any health concern, but because of the benefit they provide the executor of said action. Steroids are likely banned due to a combination of both.

GAC
03-08-2006, 09:38 PM
The MLB heirarchy knew this was going on years ago, and looked the other way. Why? Because guys like Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds, helped to re-invigorate baseball after the mid-90's strike.

Now that it is getting so much exposure and press, everyone is appalled at it? How can we expect the very people who condoned it to now punish the offenders? It'll never happen. MLB is first and foremost gonna cover their butts over this issue.

The image of these players has forever been tarnished in the eyes and hearts of those that really count - the fans. ;)

These players, IMO, couldn't stand up next to, nor be compared, to alot of the greats of the game.

What bothers me is that Pete Rose is banned from the HOF; but guys like this may be given future consideration. And all because of "technicalities" and vagueness over the rules concerning banned substances, which MLB refused for years to address (until they had to).

RedsBaron
03-08-2006, 10:28 PM
No player has an absolute right to be "honored" by selection to the HOF and I have no problem at all in seeing that honor denied to someone who has not respected the game, the fans or his fellow competitors. Bonds and McGwire and Palmiero have their statistics and their money; they do not deserve honors as well.

Yachtzee
03-08-2006, 11:21 PM
Yachtzee's Continuum of Baseball Evils

Offense Harm to Baseball Harm to Society
Throwing Games Integrity of the game Fraud upon the Public
|
|
The Designated Baseball Welfare Fraud upon the Public ;)
Hitter
|
|
|
Gambling Puts player/manager in Not to the level of actual fraud,
| a position where his but does raise red flags.
| motives may be questioned.
Steroids Calls individual records Pressures young players trying to
| into question "break in" to jam just about anything
| into their systems to "keep up with
| the Joneses"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doctored Ball/ More of a rule to make A traffic violation for
Corked Bat the game safer baseball players

Cyclone792
03-09-2006, 12:03 AM
That's some nice faulty logic you're using there, Cyclone. Let me get this straight: because I don't want to go back and revisit every single potential past sin ever commited by a baseball player, and make a decision based on that information whether or not the player should be allowed to remain in the hall, I have no right to ever argue that a future player should be kept out? That's simply ridiculous, and if you truly believe that I think you're running out of arguments.

I don't advocate for kicking people out because I don't believe that baseball should be in the practice of revisiting and--by default--making remittances for perceived past wrongs. This is the very reason I say that your continued references to sins committed by players 50 and 60 years ago have no bearing on this discussion. I can't control what they did, I can't control what baseball did. This discussion deals with an active scandal today. This is something baseball CAN deal with, and I want them to deal with it correctly.

1) Everything published about Barry Bonds is in the past, not current. These are reports stating that Bonds used steroids before there was actually steroid testing. Nowhere in those reports does it say that Bonds is still using steroids and faking his way around the current testing program. Baseball has already dealt with steroids and instituted a testing policy. Everything that happened before that testing policy was instituted is now in the past.

Seriously, what do you think the chances are that baseball punishes Bonds for what he did before the testing policy? Does anybody really believe they will punish him?

2) Baseball has set precedent in attempting to revisit history and make remittances for past wrongs by reinstating players long after they were banned. You don't believe they should do it, but they've already done it.


Within the scope of the game, sure, I'll concede that. But i was referring more to the perceptions we place on a player, and the traits and characteristics HoF voters use to decide who and who not to elect to the Hall. If Barry had been caught corking his bat once or twice, or lathering up with too much pine tar, his HoF induction would be a no-brainer. 5 years of significant steroid use that had an evident impact on his statistics? Not so much.

No, Barry pre-1998 was, IMHO, a HoF-caliber player. Absolutely. But, also IMHO, his actions on the field, which helped create this pall over the game that we now see, trump his pre-1998 career. Feel free to disagree with me--certainly that's your right. But this double-standard hypocritical stuff you keep throwing out is pure baloney. Barry Bonds has harmed the game by his actions; my personal feelings that he should not be voted into the Hall because of that is my punishment.

Reg, c'mon, man :)

I'm not throwing any double-standard hypocritical stuff at you. If you will not advocate removing a man from the Hall who committed a crime of covering up a conspiracy to throw World Series games, but yet then advocate keeping a player who used steroids out of the Hall, then I have to seriously question your standards on how severe each crime really is. I absolutely do not want to do that, but I have to. You stated that you would not support throwing anybody out of the Hall, including Charles Comiskey, but will support not voting Barry Bonds in.

I just don't understand that viewpoint.

The Hall of Fame is about historical perspective. It is not about what the pressing issue of today is, nor is it about what the pressing issue of yesterday is. It is about what the pressing issue of the crime committed fits historically. Participating in fixing games, conspiring to cover up fixed game scandals, betting on baseball, etc. are all much more severe crimes than using steroids. I know you have stated this already, but what I'm trying to stress is it does not matter if the fixing of the game occurred 80 years ago and steroid use occurred today. Fixing a game 80 years ago is exponentially worse than using steroids today. Likewise, it does not matter if steroid use occurred in 1965 and also occurred today. They are equally as bad.

In 100 years, people will be looking at each case in historical perspective and will see that conspiring to cover up fixed games far outweighs using steroids. They may even know 100 times the amount of information regarding steroids since their inception and their use in baseball. I don't know that information, nobody does, but I wish we all did.

Charles Comiskey? He should absolutely be thrown out of the Hall of Fame.

I'm on record as stating that already earlier in this thread. RedsBaron is also on record as saying that. Why you're not onboard confuses me. Think about it, why am I arguing with you over this and not RedsBaron? It's because he's already stated Comiskey should be out. I asked him, and he answered: Comiskey = out. RedsBaron knows what Comiskey did wrong, and he's in support of tossing the old man out. He also believes Bonds should not belong. Do I disagree with him on Bonds? Sure, but he also believes that Charles Comiskey has no more of a place in the Hall than Bonds. There's absolutely nothing hypocritical about that. It's a fundamental difference of opinion, and we leave it at that.

Listen, Reg, you seem to be taking this personal, but I really hope you're not (I'm not taking it personal), and I'm not singling you out on this issue. Heck, honestly I probably agree with you on just about every Reds-related topic you can think of and you're always making outstanding posts. You and I both know certain unnamed infielders have no place in the starting lineup, and we both know Eric Milton isn't the answer to needing a staff ace. But it is crucial to understand the importance of where each possible baseball crime fits in compared to one another. That said, it's also just as crucial to understand the history of all those other crimes and how they had a dire effect on the game.

The state of the game in 1921 after the uncovering of the Black Sox Scandal and the state of game right now after the uncovering of Steroidsgate are worlds apart. Most fans simply do not understand that. It is not their fault, but without an understanding of the state of the game in regards to gambling, they likely will not develop an understanding of where to properly place steroid abuse. I don't know how much you've read about the Black Sox Scandal, gambling within the game and how it all nearly tore the game to pieces. If you're not all that familiar with it, I would wholeheartedly encourage you to dig into it at your own pace. Again, I know you've stated that gambling is worse than steroids, but if you knew how much worse gambling was, then I don't think we'd be going back and forth like this.

Baseball was entirely crooked and had an integrity level far lower than most fans can imagine today. When woy makes a comment that more people would rather watch Barry Bonds than Hal Chase, he's absolutely correct. What Hal Chase did does not at all excuse what Barry Bonds has done. However, what Barry Bonds has done comes nowhere close to what Hal Chase did.

Here's the so-called hierarchy according to baseball that I've referenced:



Participating in the fixing of a World Series game
Being complicit in the fixing of a World Series game
Actively participating in the fixing of a regular season game







Placing bets on one's own team in baseball







Placing bets on any game within baseball in which you have no control






















Steroids
Doctored pitches
Corked bats
etc.


Everyone can disagree with that as much as they'd like, but that's how it's always been in baseball, how it currently is in baseball and how it always will be. It is exactly why Peter Edward Rose is on the ineligible list, will not be entering Cooperstown and why baseball will likely do nothing about Barry Bonds breaking a rule that did not exist at the time he broke it. Mark McGwire will be on the Hall ballot next season, but Pete Rose hasn't ever been on the ballot.


To your first point, see my statement above.

To your second, I would say that bat corking, ball doctoring, and excessive pine tarring are examples of activities that are banned not out of any health concern, but because of the benefit they provide the executor of said action. Steroids are likely banned due to a combination of both.

Sorry, but you're a bit mistaken on ball doctoring. It was banned primarily due to player safety concern after a player died on the field of play as a result of being beaned by a dirty ball.

Cyclone792
03-09-2006, 12:05 AM
Yachtzee's Continuum of Baseball Evils

Offense Harm to Baseball Harm to Society
Throwing Games Integrity of the game Fraud upon the Public
|
|
The Designated Baseball Welfare Fraud upon the Public ;)
Hitter
|
|
|
Gambling Puts player/manager in Not to the level of actual fraud,
| a position where his but does raise red flags.
| motives may be questioned.
Steroids Calls individual records Pressures young players trying to
| into question "break in" to jam just about anything
| into their systems to "keep up with
| the Joneses"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doctored Ball/ More of a rule to make A traffic violation for
Corked Bat the game safer baseball players


:laugh: about the DH ;)

In all seriousness, move steroids down a bit, and you've mirrored baseball's viewpoint.

pedro
03-09-2006, 12:21 AM
Nice work Yahtzee. I like visual aids. Maybe you could make a Powerpoint Presentation for the gathering.

MWM
03-09-2006, 01:57 AM
Cyclone, I don't understand how you can object so adamantly to those who disagree with you here when you yourself have admitted that there are different levels of cheating and that they shouldn't all be punished the same.


does not come close to reaching the magnitude of the crime that Pete Rose committed. He does not belong in the same group as Pete Rose and those who gambled on the game. Bonds' crime falls much more in line with the types of crimes committed by Ford, Perry, et al. He loosely belongs in that group

I think the above quote is the crux of your entire argument. That is a statement of personal judgment, not of fact. That means others are capable of forming their own personal judgments about the magnitude of the crime. What it all boils down to is how each individual feels about the magnitude of steroids, and your judgment isn't any more legit that anyone else's on the matter. And while I agree it's closer to Perry than Rose (and that's because Rose is in a category all by himself exceeded only by the black sox), I still think it's much more severe than most other forms of cheating you bring up. And after 11 pages of dialogue, that's all that really matters. Some people think steroids is a much greater transgression than you. You seem to think steroids and greenies are a good comp and others think it's apples and oranges.

And to reg's point, I'm not clear at all on what it is you're looking for here as far as a concession? Is this argument strictly about the HOF for you?

BrooklynRedz
03-09-2006, 02:04 AM
The MLB heirarchy knew this was going on years ago, and looked the other way. Why? Because guys like Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds, helped to re-invigorate baseball after the mid-90's strike.

Now that it is getting so much exposure and press, everyone is appalled at it? How can we expect the very people who condoned it to now punish the offenders? It'll never happen. MLB is first and foremost gonna cover their butts over this issue.

The image of these players has forever been tarnished in the eyes and hearts of those that really count - the fans. ;)

These players, IMO, couldn't stand up next to, nor be compared, to alot of the greats of the game.

What bothers me is that Pete Rose is banned from the HOF; but guys like this may be given future consideration. And all because of "technicalities" and vagueness over the rules concerning banned substances, which MLB refused for years to address (until they had to).

With all due respect GAC, that's not entirely true. Because of the collective bargaining agreement, MLB was and still is prohibited from making unilateral decisions such as this. Even if baseball had evidence of steroid use (not saying they did or didn't), they could not have forced the players union to accept mandatory testing. At least not on the Major League level. On the Minor League level, the league was free to implement any drug testing policy they so wished. And they did in 1996. Before Mac and Sosa.

Could they have acted faster? Absolutely. But considering the legal and financial implications for both the league and the players, I'm actually impressed anything close to the current plan was ever implemented.

And on a somewhat different note, all these conspiracy theories suggesting the league turned a blind eye to steroids for financial gain seem cut of the same cloth as the theory the CIA sponsored crack gangs in LA to help fund the Contras.

savafan
03-09-2006, 03:11 AM
Interesting statistic:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2795

Aaron produced plenty of late-career homer heroics after 1968. From ages 35 (1969) through 39, he smacked 203 dingers, and he added another 42 in his 40s, meaning that nearly a third of his homers (32.4 percent) came after age 35. The only batters other than Aaron to top 200 homers after 35 are Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro.

Cyclone792
03-09-2006, 03:37 AM
Cyclone, I don't understand how you can object so adamantly to those who disagree with you here when you yourself have admitted that there are different levels of cheating and that they shouldn't all be punished the same.

I think the above quote is the crux of your entire argument. That is a statement of personal judgment, not of fact. That means others are capable of forming their own personal judgments about the magnitude of the crime. What it all boils down to is how each individual feels about the magnitude of steroids, and your judgment isn't any more legit that anyone else's on the matter. And while I agree it's closer to Perry than Rose (and that's because Rose is in a category all by himself exceeded only by the black sox), I still think it's much more severe than most other forms of cheating you bring up. And after 11 pages of dialogue, that's all that really matters. Some people think steroids is a much greater transgression than you. You seem to think steroids and greenies are a good comp and others think it's apples and oranges.

And to reg's point, I'm not clear at all on what it is you're looking for here as far as a concession? Is this argument strictly about the HOF for you?

Mike, right it is a matter of personal judgement, however, for that judgement to be valid and hold some water, I believe it must also reflect reality to at least some degree. You understand what the Black Sox did and you understand what Pete Rose did, which is why you're able to construct reality and agree that Bonds is closer to Perry than he is to Rose. Baseball's viewpoint is reality, and that's how they will also view Bonds. Part of me has a suscipicion that a large sector of the fan base believes baseball should penalize Bonds, but I think that fan base will be in for a rude surprise when baseball does little to nothing. Many people believe what Pete Rose did is not a major crime because he bet to win, not lose. It's also a personal judgement to believe what Rose did was not that severe, but I don't think there's much validity in it since it does not come close to reflecting reality.

Ultimately, I think what everyone should attempt to do is get down to the basic aspects of why steroids are bad for baseball. Maybe you'll agree, maybe you won't, but I believe it can be ironed down to four basic points:

1) Steroids are unhealthy
2) Steroids are illegal within the United States
3) Steroids are banned in other sports
4) Steroids give the user an unnatural edge

IMO, all things eventually point to number one. Steroids are illegal within the United States predominantly because they are unhealthy. I think you'll agree on that. Steroids are banned in other sports because they are unhealthy and illegal in certain parts of the world. Again, I think you'll agree on that. I don't think there's anything controversial with any of those statements.

Number four is where we may differ because we have to ask ourselves what exactly constitutes an "unnatural" edge. A hitter can have offseason lasik eye surgery to improve his eyesight, thereby giving him serious potential to increase his productivity at the plate. IMO, that is also an unnatural edge that is gained (and also unavailable to players in earlier generations). Of course, I've never read all that much on lasik eye surgery being terribly unhealthy. I've never heard of it being illegal within the United States. I've also never seen it banned in other sports.

So we're still stuck asking ourselves what then constitutes an unnatural edge? Is it using modern medicine in a healthy fashion? Is it using everything that is banned? Well if it's banned, then it's likely banned because it's unhealthy. And if you're using something in a healthy fashion, well then it isn't unhealthy. When you think about it, is there anything banned that is absolutely healthy?

If people hang onto the unnatural edge factor as the prime reason why steroids are banned, then I must ask what is the difference between an unnatural steroid and an unnatural, healthy modern medical method. It always seems to come back to the same point that unnatural steroids are illegal, banned in other sports, etc ... which all comes full circle back to the health factor.

I think when people take a step back and truly analyze why certain substances are legal and others aren't, the key ingredient is a health factor. Anything deemed unhealthy is banned while everything deemed healthy is acceptable to use. When athletes resort to the unhealthy, banned substances, they are accused of cheating. When athletes resort to the healthy, good-for-ya substances, they are looked up to as hard working role models.

savafan
03-09-2006, 03:39 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/09/SELIG.TMP&feed=rss.giants

Phoenix -- Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig said he'll review material in a new book that describes in detail Barry Bonds' use of steroids beginning after the 1998 season.

"I will review all the material that's relative in every way," Selig said Wednesday at Chase Field before Team USA lost 8-6 to Canada in the World Baseball Classic. "Obviously, we've only seen parts of things. The book itself doesn't come out until the end of the month, but we'll review everything that there is to look at."

Asked to elaborate, Selig said, "I was very careful to say exactly what I said, and that's exactly what I mean."

The book, "Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports," written by The Chronicle's Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, will be released March 27.

Selig said four assistants will carry out the review: Bob DuPuy, Major League Baseball's president and chief operations officer; John McHale, executive vice president of administration; Rob Manfred, executive vice president of labor relations and human resources; and Jimmy Lee Solomon, executive vice president of baseball operations.

Selig did not rule out a meeting with Bonds, although he said nothing is pending. "Given everything that's come out, I can't sit here and tell you today, 'Well, that's fine,' " Selig said.

He made it clear his review won't be a Pete Rose-type investigation even though Rose, like Bonds, has made repeated denials of allegations against him. Reminded that baseball had initiated the Rose investigation leading to his lifetime ban for gambling on baseball, Selig said, "I don't want to get back into the Pete Rose thing, but there was enormous evidence that (former commissioners) Peter Ueberroth and Bart Giamatti had right from the beginning. That's what prompted them to do what they did."

Bonds is approaching the 2006 season with 708 career home runs, third behind Hank Aaron (755) and Babe Ruth (714). Selig suggested that the records for Bonds and other players linked to steroids should stand.

"We have no empirical data before 2003," said Selig, citing the absence of drug policies before then. "I've heard a lot of people make observations. I think I've even used the term 'McCarthyism' in some great regard about people who, without much evidence other than what they believe is anecdotal evidence, say, 'Well, this person did it, or that person did it.'

"I'm going to be very sensitive about all that because, after all, you're playing with people's lives and their reputations."

The Giants, mostly silent since Sports Illustrated released excerpts of the book on Tuesday, said in a statement that they'll cooperate with Selig: "The Giants fully support and will assist with Commissioner Bud Selig's review of the circumstances surrounding the recent published report about Barry Bonds."

Bonds left the Giants' training camp in Scottsdale, Ariz., for a child-custody hearing in Redwood City. On his way into the San Mateo County Hall of Justice, he did not respond when asked if he'll acknowledge or apologize for his steroids use. On his way out, he did not reply to a question about Selig's plan to review his situation in the light of the information in the book.

When a radio reporter told Bonds the station was receiving calls of support for him, Bonds said, "I love 'em." He had no further comment. Bonds' ex-wife, Sun, also had no comment.

Back in Phoenix, players and former players weighed in about whether Bonds, like Rose, deserved to be barred from the Hall of Fame.

Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt, in Phoenix to broadcast the WBC, said Bonds still deserves to be admitted.

"He's a fellow baseball player, and I've been to some degree in his world, too," Schmidt said. "I'll do anything I can to give him the benefit of the doubt. I never personally saw any of it happen. I don't have factual evidence. I don't have any admittance of guilt by him. All I know is what you know -- it's all denial. Visually, we might question a little bit. But who are we to say he didn't get that strong, that big from rigorous workouts?"

Schmidt is releasing his own book, "Clearing the Bases," on March 14. He said he discusses, among other things, how performance-enhancing drugs have changed the game the past 15 years, in particular the "ridiculous offensive explosion."

Another former slugger, Larry Walker, Team Canada's batting coach, agreed that Bonds is a Hall of Famer.

"It's very unfair for Barry when there are other guys who could be talked about and ripped -- because I see it, and you guys (the media) see it," Walker said. "I'm not naming names, but you'd have to be blind, you know?"

Former Giant Joe Nathan, a reliever on Team USA and an ex-Bonds teammate, said he hopes the steroids scandal doesn't push Bonds into premature retirement.

"I hope he doesn't. I hope he can stay mentally strong," Nathan said. "I feel he deserves a chance at breaking the record. No matter what comes out of this, he still is one of the best players I got a chance to see or play against. It's a shame this has taken all the headlines when (the WBC) is going on."

Astros pitcher Roger Clemens called the latest report a "witch hunt" and said, "I know Barry, and I consider him to be a friend. I worry about the man's health more than I do about him hitting home runs or whatever the point of this witch hunt we're on is about."

Jpup
03-09-2006, 04:50 AM
STATEMENT BY MICHAEL RAINS, LAWYER FOR BARRY BONDS

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/03/08/MNGAKHKF2B1.DTL&feed=rss.giants

My client, Barry Bonds, has not read the Sports Illustrated article and does not intend to. Furthermore, he does not intend to read the book from which the article is excerpted.

Barry regards this as an unfortunate distraction to his friends and teammates at the San Francisco Giants, and to the good name and the great players in Major League Baseball.

The San Francisco Chronicle, after announcing that it had (illegally) obtained Barry's grand jury testimony, previously published questions asked of him while under oath, and his answers. Many of the assertions raised in this article were also previously mentioned. To that extent, this is simply a duplication of previously reported information.

Although most of the authors' supposed 200 or so "sources" for this book remain anonymous, we know and understand that one of the most prominent sources is a woman who previously attempted to extort Barry for money, and who, after that failed, told Geraldo Rivera that she never saw Barry take illegal or performance-enhancing drugs, but explained that her source of knowledge supposedly came from conversations she had with him -- conversations she intended to report in her soon-to-be published (and yet to be published) book.

Some of the other prominent but "anonymous sources" surfaced during the BALCO investigation, and we understand that reporting their identity would also expose their lack of credibility.

The exploitation of Barry's good name and these attempts to eviscerate his sensational accomplishments in all phases of the game of baseball (throughout high school and college, as well as 20 years playing professionally) may make those responsible wealthy, but in the end, they need to live with themselves. Beyond this -- Barry has no further comment now nor in the foreseeable future. His focus remains on staying healthy, playing baseball and doing everything he can to help the Giants play in the World Series seven months from now.

-----------------------------------------------

Exploitation of Barry's good name? :confused:


It is kind of humerous that everyone is believing his ex-girlfriend. :confused:

Jpup
03-09-2006, 04:57 AM
When Bonds puts number #756 over the wall, are you going to cheer him on?


I'll be watching. :)

OnBaseMachine
03-09-2006, 07:57 AM
I'm liking David Wells more and more each day...

Boomer: Bonds shouldn't pass the BabeAssociated Press

FORT MYERS, Fla. -- David Wells gave up Barry Bonds' 701st home run. He doesn't want the Giants slugger to pass Babe Ruth's total of 714.

"No. Not really," the Boston Red Sox left-hander said Wednesday, one day after excerpts of a book were released alleging that Bonds used steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.

Bonds needs seven homers to pass Ruth for second place and 48 to overtake Hank Aaron for the top spot.

Wells praised Bonds' baseball skills but said he should "be a man and come out and say that he did it" if he used steroids.

"If you're guilty and you got caught, come clean. I think you can get a lot more respect from people than [by] lying," Wells said.

In Tampa, Joe Torre said allegations of steroid use have given baseball "a black eye."

"I think the one thing that baseball has always tried to maintain was the integrity because our game more than any other game statistics are so important," the New York Yankees manager said. "I think that right now that is called into question, and it's a shame in Barry's case. He's such a good player ... long, long ago before there was any doubt on what made him good."

Torre is concerned about the long-term impact on fans.

"It's certainly a black eye that we all have to be aware of," he said. "It can turn to anger if you try to circumvent and get around trying to help us clean up. Trying to cut corners or trying a different way to keep doing what you're doing, that I think is wrong and knowingly wrong."

Wells said that Bonds "probably" used steroids but that he also had been sure Rafael Palmeiro, his former teammate in Baltimore, didn't. Palmeiro was suspended during the second half of last season after a positive steroids test.

"I would have bet my house that Rafael Palmeiro never did them," Wells said. "He's not a large, cut man. He's not. And then it happened. I mean, I had his back the whole time and then he got nailed for it."

The upcoming book "Game of Shadows," written by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters, alleged that Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs for at least five seasons beginning in 1998. Such drugs were banned by baseball after the 2002 season.

Wells seemed uncertain whether Bonds should make the Hall of Fame if his alleged use of steroids is proven.

"If it comes out and he has done them, then no," Wells said in the Red Sox clubhouse.

A few minutes later, he said, "Barry a Hall of Famer in my book? Yeah. Is Raffy? Yeah. ... If we [players] are going to vote, we'd probably vote yeah. Players? Yeah. Pitchers probably wouldn't."

He said Bonds' added muscle and increased head size cast suspicion on the San Francisco outfielder. Wells said he heard a comic on a radio show Wednesday morning joke about Bonds' hat size.

"He goes, 'They use his helmet as a Jacuzzi.' I about died when I heard that," Wells said, "You just don't like to accuse somebody of doing it, but you look at him and you can't help but think. I mean, he's getting bigger and bigger."

Wells, who was with San Diego when he gave up Bonds' 701st homer on Sept. 18, 2004, wondered how other sluggers would have done if they used steroids.

"If Hank Aaron was on them it probably would have been 1,000 homers" instead of his total of 755, Wells said. "It's a shame that it's come down to this and it's really putting a hurting on the game."

He also criticized commissioner Bud Selig for not dealing with the problem aggressively.

"He's putting it on Congress. He's putting it on" the players' association and passing the buck, Wells said. "He's doing what he does best."

Torre said Bonds' Hall of Fame status is up to the individual voter. He does feel the home run marks has been watered down.

"I think right now we have already diluted that," Torre said. "They broke 60 every year. The only good part that came out of this, besides the fans were entertained, all of sudden somebody thought highly of Roger Maris."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2360259

RedsBaron
03-09-2006, 08:04 AM
Interesting statistic:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2795

Aaron produced plenty of late-career homer heroics after 1968. From ages 35 (1969) through 39, he smacked 203 dingers, and he added another 42 in his 40s, meaning that nearly a third of his homers (32.4 percent) came after age 35. The only batters other than Aaron to top 200 homers after 35 are Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro.
The article correctly notes that Aaron benefited from the Braves moving to Atlanta in 1966, but while the Braves were in Milwaukee Aaron hit 185 HRs as compared to 213 on the road so his home park held down his season HR totals when he was young, making his HR rate appear to surge even more when he was older. Aaron was also probably helped by the lowering of the pitcher's mound in 1969; the higher mound and expanded strike zone that were in effect from 1963 through 1968 probably depressed offensive totals.
Of course, after age 35 Aaron also somehow changed physically from being a slim 180 pound player who could run into a muscle-bound 220 pounder with bad knees and a head that seemingly doubled in size, with rumors of using illegal dr....oh, wait, I'm confused, I'm thinking of another guy......;) :evil: scaratch this paragraph:D

RedsBaron
03-09-2006, 08:11 AM
I probably should clarify my position on kicking Charles Comiskey, or anybody else for that matter, out of the Hall of Fame. I absolutely believe that Comiskey never should have been inducted into the Hall of Fame and I never would have voted for him.
However, I would have to think long and hard about whether or not I would support kicking out anyone once he has been inducted. The idea of someone being a Hall of Famer one year and not a Hall of Famer the next does bother me. I'm inclined to think the honor should be permanent.
I don't think that Phil Rizzuto should ever have been inducted into the HOF, but now that he is there, however undeserving of the honor, I wouldn't support kicking him out.

traderumor
03-09-2006, 08:16 AM
It is kind of humerous that everyone is believing his ex-girlfriend. :confused:You might want to read the book and research who the sources are before jumping to a conclusion based on what Bonds' attorney says. I don't see someone as credible who talks about "exploitation of Barry's good name" either.

traderumor
03-09-2006, 08:21 AM
Astros pitcher Roger Clemens called the latest report a "witch hunt" and said, "I know Barry, and I consider him to be a friend. I worry about the man's health more than I do about him hitting home runs or whatever the point of this witch hunt we're on is about."says another star long suspected of steroid use ;)

Chip R
03-09-2006, 10:08 AM
I'll be watching. :)

You think ESPN will be covering it? :p:

registerthis
03-09-2006, 10:49 AM
Mike, right it is a matter of personal judgement, however, for that judgement to be valid and hold some water, I believe it must also reflect reality to at least some degree.

That's just it, though--you're having a very difficult time grasping the opinions of people who view "reality" differently than you do. You'll respect another point of view so long as it matches up with your own.


You understand what the Black Sox did and you understand what Pete Rose did, which is why you're able to construct reality and agree that Bonds is closer to Perry than he is to Rose. Baseball's viewpoint is reality, and that's how they will also view Bonds. Part of me has a suscipicion that a large sector of the fan base believes baseball should penalize Bonds, but I think that fan base will be in for a rude surprise when baseball does little to nothing. Many people believe what Pete Rose did is not a major crime because he bet to win, not lose. It's also a personal judgement to believe what Rose did was not that severe, but I don't think there's much validity in it since it does not come close to reflecting reality.

Again, these comparison to Rose are baffling, because you're the only one making them. And aside from a few quick-fired responses of "he should be banned" at the beginning of this thread, I don't see anyone calling for baseball to bring the hammer down on Bonds. You're bringing up things that just aren't there.


f people hang onto the unnatural edge factor as the prime reason why steroids are banned, then I must ask what is the difference between an unnatural steroid and an unnatural, healthy modern medical method. It always seems to come back to the same point that unnatural steroids are illegal, banned in other sports, etc ... which all comes full circle back to the health factor.

I think when people take a step back and truly analyze why certain substances are legal and others aren't, the key ingredient is a health factor. Anything deemed unhealthy is banned while everything deemed healthy is acceptable to use. When athletes resort to the unhealthy, banned substances, they are accused of cheating. When athletes resort to the healthy, good-for-ya substances, they are looked up to as hard working role models.

Per your bolded statement, that's not accurate: "health concerns" do not explain bat corking, pine tar use or ball scuffing. those are but three examples of activities deemed "illegal" by baseball because they present an advantage to the user--NOT because they pose a health risk. (The only health risk associated with a corked bat is that the player risks gettig bits of cork in his eye when the bat shatters.)

As to your larger point, I hear what you're saying Cyclone, but I'm still not buying it, and I laid out why in my post several pages back. I don't want baseball to become a competition for who has the best contacts in the pharmaceutical industry. I'm not interested in the kind of competition where records are broken every single year, and the players' necks and arms grow increasingly wider. One could easily extrapolate from your argument that nothing a player could do to present himself an advantage should be banned. Batters could use titanium bats while doped up on every potential steroid known to man. After all, if it's an advantage that everyone could have access to, and it could be administered safely and effectively--why not allow it?

While you may question whether Lasik surgery and steroids exist on the same level, I don't harbor similar doubts. As I've repeated ad nauseum, I don't view statistics and records obtained by the use of steroids as legitimate. I believe players such as Bonds, McGwire, Sosa et al. have significantly harmed the game by repeatedly using steroids to bolster their accomplishments, and I view them as frauds. You may not find that my view exists within your reality, but that is your problem, not mine. I've clearly spelt out where I stand on the issue, and at this point I'm simply repeating myself. Bonds = fraud. HoF = No.

Cyclone792
03-09-2006, 11:09 AM
That's just it, though--you're having a very difficult time grasping the opinions of people who view "reality" differently than you do. You'll respect another point of view so long as it matches up with your own.

Baseball will view reality in this mess much in line as how I am. Selig's going to read the book, but will he do anything? Maybe more importantly, can he do anything? I'm thinking no and no.


Again, these comparison to Rose are baffling, because you're the only one making them. And aside from a few quick-fired responses of "he should be banned" at the beginning of this thread, I don't see anyone calling for baseball to bring the hammer down on Bonds. You're bringing up things that just aren't there.

I'm bringing up placing Bonds and his crimes within the proper historical context.


Per your bolded statement, that's not accurate: "health concerns" do not explain bat corking, pine tar use or ball scuffing. those are but three examples of activities deemed "illegal" by baseball because they present an advantage to the user--NOT because they pose a health risk. (The only health risk associated with a corked bat is that the player risks gettig bits of cork in his eye when the bat shatters.)

You might want to read up a bit on the primary reason baseball cleaned up the ball. To give you a hint: player safety concerns.


As to your larger point, I hear what you're saying Cyclone, but I'm still not buying it, and I laid out why in my post several pages back. I don't want baseball to become a competition for who has the best contacts in the pharmaceutical industry. I'm not interested in the kind of competition where records are broken every single year, and the players' necks and arms grow increasingly wider. One could easily extrapolate from your argument that nothing a player could do to present himself an advantage should be banned. Batters could use titanium bats while doped up on every potential steroid known to man. After all, if it's an advantage that everyone could have access to, and it could be administered safely and effectively--why not allow it?

While you may question whether Lasik surgery and steroids exist on the same level, I don't harbor similar doubts. As I've repeated ad nauseum, I don't view statistics and records obtained by the use of steroids as legitimate. I believe players such as Bonds, McGwire, Sosa et al. have significantly harmed the game by repeatedly using steroids to bolster their accomplishments, and I view them as frauds. You may not find that my view exists within your reality, but that is your problem, not mine. I've clearly spelt out where I stand on the issue, and at this point I'm simply repeating myself. Bonds = fraud. HoF = No.

My question is this: what is the difference between a healthy and unhealthy chemical substance as it pertains to harming the game? Why does the unhealthy substance harm the game while the healthy substance does not?

registerthis
03-09-2006, 12:17 PM
Baseball will view reality in this mess much in line as how I am. Selig's going to read the book, but will he do anything? Maybe more importantly, can he do anything? I'm thinking no and no.

I'm not sure Selig CAN do anything--you're right. That's why I've never made an argument for baseball to punish or suspend Bonds. I've read the rules, I know what they can do and what they can't. If there's a positive that comes from this, though, it will just reinforce the importance of sticking with the current steroid policy--and perhaps toughening it up a bit. That it took them until the 21st century to implement a legitimate steroids policy is ridiculous...but that's another topic altogether.


You might want to read up a bit on the primary reason baseball cleaned up the ball. To give you a hint: player safety concerns.

That may be, but be that as it may, that says nothing of bat corking, pine tar, or the banishment of metal bats, which have no safety concerns associated with them.


My question is this: what is the difference between a healthy and unhealthy chemical substance as it pertains to harming the game? Why does the unhealthy substance harm the game while the healthy substance does not?

Now we're starting to get into legitimate questions. Undoubtedly, health risks play a role in the banishment of steroids. But, on a practical level, you can't legislate/control everything. I believe very strongly that--regardless of the inherent naivete in the statement--that sports should remain a pure athletic competition based upon, to the greatest extent possible, the natural ability of the athletes involved. A player who works out religiously, who drinks a 6 pack of red bull before every game, or who receives lasik surgery to improve their vision are doing things that, while offering an improvement in the related areas, are nothing beyond what the body would otherwise be naturally capable of. In other words, discrepancies in the inherent natural abilities of athletes notwithstanding, a rigorous workout regimen simply rewards the player willing to put forth the hardest work, Lasik surgery simply provides the excellent vision that other players possess naturally, etc.

Steroids, however, take the limits of a person's natural ability and raise it to superhuman levels. It will take a player who can routinely drive the ball 350 feet and allow him to drive it 400 feet. It will take a player who can steal 25 bases and allow him to steal 35. It will take a pitcher who can throw at 92 mph and allow him to throw at 96. It will take an athlete who's body would otherwise begin slowing down at 35 and allow him to remain competitive into his 40s. Certainly, you could argue that there are players who "naturally" possess the ability to do all of the things that I just listed, so a player who juices up is merely allowing himself to remain competitive with his peers, as much as one who works out regulalry or has surgery to improve a facet of his game. And this is where my objection comes in--I don't want (nor, I'm certain, do you) a game that is decided by not by a player's work ethic, but by how creative they are with what they are ingesting. Barry Bonds didn't break the single season HR record because of his work ethic, he broke it because he had a personal trainer who knew which steroids would allow Barry to do it. Mark McGwire didn't best Roger Maris because he spent more time in the batting cage working on his timing, he did it because Jose Canseco was shooting stuff into his rear. It's the difference between a company who performs well because they are willing to invest the time and effort to develop a strong management culture, a knowledgeable staff and invest in the most helpful technology, and one that simply fudges their accounting books.

McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Palmeiro et al. fudged their accounting books, their numbers aren't real. Is there a gray area? Sure there is, things are never cut and dry. But the distinct and tremendous advantage presented by the ingesting of these chemicals, coupled with the associated health risks and baseball's history of banning things both for their health risks and the competitive advantage they give the user over other players are where I draw the distinction. If you're unable to draw a line there, then I would argue that there is no basis for the outright banishment of steroids from the game--and, in fact, it should not even be considered cheating.

savafan
03-09-2006, 12:53 PM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-060308bonds,1,6052588,print.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

By Phil Rogers
Tribune baseball reporter

March 8, 2006, 10:56 PM CST

Commissioner Bud Selig was worried enough about Barry Bonds' possible steroid use to arrange a meeting with him near the San Francisco Giants' training camp in the spring of 2004.

He was seeking to contain any possible damage to the sport as Bonds continued to move up the rankings of career home run hitters.

According to highly placed Major League Baseball sources, Selig extended a vague offer of leniency to Bonds if he had anything he wished to admit, including possible acts of perjury in his testimony to the BALCO grand jury. He told Bonds the consequences would be "much worse" if he professed innocence and later was revealed as a steroid user.

It appears they will be talking again.

This time it could be to discuss a possible suspension, which given Bonds' age and fragile knees could derail his run at Henry Aaron's record 755 home runs.

Bonds, who had told the grand jury he had never "knowingly" taken steroids, stuck to that story in his meeting with Selig in 2004, as he has consistently in his dealings with reporters. Yet suspicion since has stalked Bonds for two injury-plagued seasons and another 50 home runs, bringing him within six homers of Babe Ruth's 714 and 47 of Aaron's record.

During this time, MLB security officials have been "monitoring" the Bonds case, although top executives strongly denied they had begun a formal investigation when the New York Daily News reported that one was under way.

Bonds apparently has been clean in the three years MLB has tested players for steroids, but excerpts from an upcoming book, "Game of Shadows," painstakingly reported and researched by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters, document a pattern that began in 1999 and was in full swing in 2001 when Bonds hit a single-season record 73 home runs.

According to a close associate, Selig's initial response after reading the book excerpts in Sports Illustrated was: "Why am I not surprised now?"

The Chronicle's Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams have spent three years covering the story and gained access to a vast array of sources and records. Their reporting for the newspaper raised serious questions about Bonds' denials, but the picture of Bonds' steroid regimen painted in the book left many, including Selig, taken aback.

"It's even worse than I thought," he said, according to a source who had discussed the issue with him. "I'm very concerned."

Selig danced around a flurry of Bonds-related questions during a news conference before a World Baseball Classic game on Wednesday in Phoenix.

"I will review all the material that's relative in every way," Selig said. "And obviously, we've only seen parts of things. The book itself doesn't come out until the end of the month, but we'll review everything that there is to look at. And at some appropriate time, I'll have further comment."

Because Bonds has not tested positive or in any other way been in specific violation of baseball's tougher policy banning performance-enhancing substances, it is unclear whether MLB can discipline him as a result of the latest reporting.

But, according to a highly placed MLB source, Selig is considering a range of possible responses, including a suspension. While Selig is known for moving deliberately, the source said it is possible a ruling of some kind could be made before the Giants' opener April 3.

The Major League Baseball Players Association almost certainly would challenge a suspension, but an angry Selig seems to have little to lose, even if an arbitrator overturned his ruling.

He spoke often about "integrity" issues in baseball as a reason for a stronger steroids program before the penalty for a first-time offense was increased to 50 games last winter, and the lack of discipline for Bonds might raise the same integrity issues.

Little angers Selig more than the accusation that he and other MLB executives gave tacit approval to widespread steroid use after the strike that wiped out the 1994 World Series damaged baseball's popularity. In "Game of Shadows" Fainaru-Wada and Williams write the Giants have turned a blind eye toward Bonds. Selig might think he needs to act to show that someone is accountable.

Selig declined to discuss his powers in this case.

"[I will] determine that at the appropriate time," he said.

At the very least, it seems Selig could be forced to do what he previously had said he would not, attach some form of qualifier in the record books next to Bonds' name.

"Well, the fact of the matter is that … we have no empirical data before 2003," Selig said. "I've heard a lot of people make observations. I've even used the term McCarthyism in some great regard about people who without much evidence other than what they believe is anecdotal evidence say, well, this person did it or that person did it.

"I'm going to be very sensitive about all that because, after all, you're playing with people's lives and their reputations. You ought to be very careful. All of us ought to be careful. The commissioner certainly is going to be careful."

Selig then was asked if there is now more evidence than there had been when he previously had said there wasn't enough to discredit Bonds.

"Again, I'm not in a position to make that judgment," he said.

Cyclone792
03-09-2006, 12:54 PM
Yes, I agree that sports should remain a pure athletic competition based upon the natural ability of the athletes involved. My problem is using the determination for what is and what isn't pure is using the label of what's heathy and what's unhealthy.

I'm not an eye doctor, but I've never heard of the body being naturally capable of turning 20/40 vision into 20/15 vision as you get up into your baseball age playing years. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe I'm not. I have 20/15 vision and I would love to have 20/10 vision, but I've yet to figure out how I can naturally improve my vision naturally without any medical enhancement.

You're also mentioning that you do not want the game decided by who can be more creative with what they ingest. That's perfectly reasonable to want, but not really plausible to exist. Athletes today are greater than athletes of yesterday partially because of what we ingest today. The average person today is bigger than the average person from 100 years ago, largely because of what we eat and put into our bodies on a daily basis. Babe Ruth was a great baseball player, but if you transform Babe Ruth in 1921 to the game in 2006, he'll be terrible. The advancements in medical technology and what we ingest today plays a significant role in athletes being greater today. None of that is natural, otherwise athletes in Babe Ruth's time would have had those benefits at their disposal.

I can cook up a diet regimen that works wonders for my own individual body, and in doing so I'm creating a different chemical element to ingest with the strict goals of seeing improved athletic performance results. Per the public perception of not wanting the best athletes being the guys getting creative with what they ingest, that should fall right in line with not being legal. But it's accepted. Why? Because the only difference with these legal chemicals and illegal chemicals are health factors.

I can include a healthy serving of Xyience (http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/xy/noxcg.html) in my daily diet. Xyience is a nutritional supplement carved out from the efforts of chemists to provide improved, healthy athletic performance. Using a product such as Xyience will give me a competitive advantage over somebody not using it, similar to steroids. The key difference is Xyience is healthy while steroids are not.

Rather than paraphrase this, I'll just copy it ...

http://www.slate.com/id/2116858/


A month ago, Mark McGwire was hauled before a congressional hearing and lambasted as a cheater for using a legal, performance-enhancing steroid precursor when he broke baseball's single-season home run record.

A week ago, Tiger Woods was celebrated for winning golf's biggest tournament, the Masters, with the help of superior vision he acquired through laser surgery.

What's the difference?

At the steroid hearing on March 17, numerous members of the House Committee on Government Reform, led by Chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., denounced performance-enhancing drugs. They offered three arguments: The drugs are illegal, they're harmful, and they're cheating. But illegality doesn't explain why a drug should be illegal, and the steroid precursor McGwire took, andro, was legal at the time. The director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse conceded at the hearing that steroid precursors weren't banned until last year, that steroids "do, in fact, enhance certain types of physical performance," that some are "prescribed to treat body wasting in patients with AIDS and other diseases that result in loss of lean muscle mass," and that "not all anabolic steroid abusers experience the same deleterious outcomes."

Don't get me wrong. If you buy a steroid off the street or the Internet today just to bulk up, you're taking a stupid risk. But much of that risk comes from your ignorance and the dubious grade of steroid you're getting. A star player with access to the best stuff and the best medical supervision isn't taking the same degree of risk. Furthermore, steroids are a crude, early phase of enhancement technology. Chemists are trying every day to refine compounds and doses that might help pro athletes without bad side effects.

Already the medical objection to doping has holes. At the hearing, lawmakers displayed a supposedly damning list of "Performance Enhancing Substances Not Covered by Baseball's New Testing Program." The first item on the list was human growth hormone. But the Food and Drug Administration has approved human growth hormone for use in short, healthy children based on studies showing its safety and efficacy. The National Institutes of Health says it's "generally considered to be safe, with rare side effects" in children, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists has found the same pattern in adults.


Continue Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That leaves one comprehensive complaint: cheating. At the hearing, I heard six lawmakers apply this term to performance-enhancing drugs. They compared the drugs to corking bats, deadening baseballs, and sharpening spikes. "When I played with Hank Aaron and Willie Mays and Ted Williams, they didn't put on 40 pounds of bulk in their careers, and they didn't hit more homers in their late thirties than they did in their late twenties," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky. "What's happening now in baseball isn't natural, and it isn't right." Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., chairman of the House subcommittee on drug policy, recalled that baseball had harshly punished players who threw games. He asked why such punishment didn't apply to "players today who systematically cheat through steroids and performance-enhancing drugs to alter the games." Davis, who presided at the hearing, announced that he would co-chair "Zero Tolerance: The Advisory Committee on Ending the Use of Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sports."

Zero tolerance? Wait a minute. If the andro that helped McGwire hit 70 home runs in 1998 was an unnatural, game-altering enhancement, what about his high-powered contact lenses? "Natural" vision is 20/20. McGwire's custom-designed lenses improved his vision to 20/10, which means he could see at a distance of 20 feet what a person with normal, healthy vision could see at 10 feet. Think what a difference that makes in hitting a fastball. Imagine how many games those lenses altered.

You could confiscate McGwire's lenses, but good luck confiscating Woods' lenses. They've been burned into his head. In the late 1990s, both guys wanted stronger muscles and better eyesight. Woods chose weight training and laser surgery on his eyes. McGwire decided eye surgery was too risky and went for andro instead. McGwire ended up with 70 homers and a rebuke from Congress for promoting risky behavior. Woods, who had lost 16 straight tournaments before his surgery, ended up with 20/15 vision and won seven of his next 10 events.

Since then, scores of pro athletes have had laser eye surgery, known as LASIK (Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis). Many, like Woods, have upgraded their vision to 20/15 or better. Golfers Scott Hoch, Hale Irwin, Tom Kite, and Mike Weir have hit the 20/15 mark. So have baseball players Jeff Bagwell, Jeff Cirillo, Jeff Conine, Jose Cruz Jr., Wally Joyner, Greg Maddux, Mark Redman, and Larry Walker. Amare Stoudemire and Rip Hamilton of the NBA have done it, along with NFL players Troy Aikman, Ray Buchanan, Tiki Barber, Wayne Chrebet, and Danny Kanell. These are just some of the athletes who have disclosed their results in the last five years. Nobody knows how many others have gotten the same result.

Does the upgrade help? Looks that way. Maddux, a pitcher for the Atlanta Braves, was 0-3 in six starts before his surgery. He won nine of his next 10 games. Kite had LASIK in 1998 and won six events on the Champions Tour over the next five years. Three months after his surgery, Irwin captured the Senior PGA Tour Nationwide Championship.

According to Golf Digest, Woods aimed for 20/15 when he signed up for LASIK. This probably didn't strike Woods as enhancement, since he was already using contacts that put him at 20/15. Now ads and quotes offering 20/15 are everywhere. One LASIK practice takes credit for giving Irwin 20/15 vision. Another boasts of raising Barber to 20/15 and calls the result "better than perfect." Other sellers promise the same thing and offer evidence to back it up. Last year, they report, 69 percent of traditional LASIK patients in a study had 20/16 vision six months after their surgery, and new "wavefront" technology raised the percentage to 85. Odds are, if you're getting LASIK, you're getting enhanced.

The medical spin for LASIK, as opposed to the entrepreneurial spin, is that it's corrective. Your eyesight sucks, you go in for surgery, you hope for 20/20. Maybe you get it, maybe you don't, and that's that. But it isn't that simple. If you don't like the results, your doctor might fire up the laser for a second pass. In the business, this is literally called an "enhancement." Hoch, the golfer, got four enhancements in 2002 and 2003. He ended up 20/15 in one eye, 20/10 in the other.

Nor do you need poor vision to find a willing doctor. Most states think you're fine to drive a car without corrective lenses as long as your eyesight is better than 20/40. Cirillo, then a third baseman for the Seattle Mariners, was 20/35 in one eye and 20/30 in the other when he went in for LASIK two years ago. He came out 20/20 and 20/12. Cruz, an outfielder for the Toronto Blue Jays, was 20/30 when he went for an eye exam. Five days later, he was under the beam. "The doctor kind of talked me into it," Cruz told the Toronto Star. He came out 20/15. According to the Orange County Register, Gary Sheffield, then an outfielder for the Los Angeles Dodgers, had eyesight better than 20/20 when he asked for laser surgery to raise his batting average. His doctor talked him out of it.

Why risk surgery for such small increments? "Every little half-centimeter counts," Cruz told the Star. Last year, the Seattle Times reported that Troy Glaus, a power hitter for the Anaheim Angels, had gotten LASIK because he "felt his contacts were sufficient, just not always ideal. A windy day or a wave of dust could tip the advantage back to the pitcher." Often, coaches play a role. The Minnesota Twins training staff successfully encouraged several players to get LASIK. Maddux told the Atlanta Journal and Constitution that the Braves gave him "a little push" to get LASIK in 2000. Meanwhile, the Braves' manager, having talked to the same doctor about getting LASIK, in his own words "chickened out."

This is the difference between therapy and enhancement. You don't need bad vision to get the surgery. Wavefront, if you've got the bucks for it, reliably gives you 20/16 or better. If your vision ends up corrected but not enhanced, you can go back for a second pass. Players calculate every increment. Pro golfers seek "to optimize any competitive advantage," a LASIK surgeon told the Los Angeles Times. "They're already tuned in to the best clubs, the best putter, the best ball. ... Clearly having great vision is one of the best competitive advantages you can have." Eyes are just another piece of equipment. If you don't like 'em, change 'em.

The sports establishment is obtuse to this revolution. Leagues worry about how you might doctor bats, balls, or clubs. They don't focus on how you might doctor yourself. Look at the official rules of Major League Baseball: A pitcher can't put rosin on his glove, but he can put it on his hand. A batter can't alter the bat "to improve the distance factor," but the rules don't bar him from altering his body to get the same result. Baseball now has a dope-testing policy, but it isn't in the rules; the players negotiate it. That's why it's weak.

At last month's hearing, baseball commissioner Bud Selig testified that in 1998 and 1999 he sent his executive vice president to Costa Rica to check out reports that juiced-up baseballs were causing an epidemic of home runs. Selig was looking for the wrong kind of juice. The U.S. Golf Association's Rules of Golf share the same blind spot: You can't use a device to warm the ball, but you can use it to warm your hands. You can't use a device to measure distance or "gauge the slope of the green," but you can get the same powers through LASIK. In the age of biotechnology, you are the device.

Read the testimonials. At 20/15, Kanell can read the eyes of defensive backs. Tom Lehman, who will lead the U.S. golf team in next year's Ryder Cup, says Lasik improved his ability to "judge distances"—a common benefit, according to the technology's purveyors. Woods says he's "able to see slopes in greens a lot clearer." Woods' eye surgeon told the Los Angeles Times, "Golfers get a different three-dimensional view of the green after LASIK." They "can see the grain" and "small indentations. It's different. Lasik actually produces, instead of a spherical cornea, an aspherical cornea. It may be better than normal vision."

Just ask Tom Davis. "I was in and out in less than one hour," the congressman reports in a testimonial for the Eye Center, a Northern Virginia LASIK practice. "I was reading and watching television that evening. My reading was not impaired and my distance vision was excellent."

Good for you, Tom. Now, about that committee you've established for zero tolerance of performance enhancement. Are you sure you're the right guy to chair it?

William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent

Johnny Footstool
03-09-2006, 01:12 PM
I guess it's time to dig up this old nugget from '02...

http://www.spitter.com/spitter_bonds_gamma.htm

Bonds Tests Positive for Gamma Rays
In a news conference earlier today, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig announced that San Francisco Giants left fielder and 2001 home run king Barry Bonds has tested positive for gamma rays.
Selig said that recent revelations by former players Jose Canseco and Ken Caminiti had prompted MLB to begin testing players for performance-enhancing substances. Bonds' recent achievements, including breaking the single-season home run record and passing Frank Robinson for fourth place on the all-time home run list, made him an obvious candidate for testing.

http://www.spitter.com/images/hulk.jpg
Bonds


“We’ve suspected for some time that Bonds was using performance-enhancing substances,” said Selig. “His on-field play was so far beyond anything we’ve ever seen before, we knew he had to have an unfair edge. Plus have you ever talked to the guy? He's just an ass.”

In accordance with new league rules, Bonds will be suspended for ten games and fined $50,000. Bonds’ suspension will be served under the strict supervision of Thor, the Wasp, and Iron Man. Selig also confiscated several of Bonds’ bats, suspecting they may be corked with adamantium.

Gamma rays are not illegal in the U.S. and can be obtained in moderate quantities by standing underneath a cell phone tower, but they are nevertheless banned by MLB, even though many doctors insist that they are not dangerous.

"Gamma rays are a safe, legal way for athletes to attain their full potential," said Dr. Bruce Banner, who introduced Bonds to gamma radiation therapy during a nuclear weapons test in 1999. "There are absolutely no harmful side effects." Banner then shredded his clothes, smashed through a brick wall, and leapt nearly three quarters of a mile.

Bonds protested Selig’s decision to test him, insisting that he had been unfairly singled out. “There are a ton of other players who have the same advantages as me,” said Bonds while bench pressing a dump truck. “Sammy Sosa was bitten by a radioactive spider back in 1998. Mark McGwire was caught in a storm of cosmic rays while piloting his friend Reed Richards’s homemade spacecraft prior to the 1996 season. And A-Rod once told me he was from Krypton.”

When reminded that his protests don’t change the fact that he broke the rules, Bonds’ eyes turned white and he replied, "Don’t make me angry. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry."

Bonds’ fellow players were stunned at the news. "I can’t believe it," said Mariners second baseman Brett Boone. "I’ve been using androstenedione for two years, thinking that was the best way to add muscle mass. Now it turns out, all I have to do is go to an atomic bomb testing range and get caught in the blast. What a sap I’ve been."

“I guess this goes to prove that whatever doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger,” said musclebound Reds outfielder Adam Dunn. “Forget Creatine -- I’m gonna start drinking drain cleaner before I work out.”

Former NL MVP/admitted steroid user Ken Caminiti was busy searching for his microscopic testicles and was unavailable for comment.

Jpup
03-09-2006, 03:10 PM
You might want to read the book and research who the sources are before jumping to a conclusion based on what Bonds' attorney says. I don't see someone as credible who talks about "exploitation of Barry's good name" either.

I know all about it. I have read everything available on the current topic. That was more of a ;) than anything. Quit taking everything so seriously.

Jpup
03-09-2006, 03:12 PM
You think ESPN will be covering it? :p:

I sure hope so. This stuff makes for good TV. :D

MWM
03-09-2006, 03:31 PM
Now we're starting to get into legitimate questions. Undoubtedly, health risks play a role in the banishment of steroids. But, on a practical level, you can't legislate/control everything. I believe very strongly that--regardless of the inherent naivete in the statement--that sports should remain a pure athletic competition based upon, to the greatest extent possible, the natural ability of the athletes involved. A player who works out religiously, who drinks a 6 pack of red bull before every game, or who receives lasik surgery to improve their vision are doing things that, while offering an improvement in the related areas, are nothing beyond what the body would otherwise be naturally capable of. In other words, discrepancies in the inherent natural abilities of athletes notwithstanding, a rigorous workout regimen simply rewards the player willing to put forth the hardest work, Lasik surgery simply provides the excellent vision that other players possess naturally, etc.

Steroids, however, take the limits of a person's natural ability and raise it to superhuman levels. It will take a player who can routinely drive the ball 350 feet and allow him to drive it 400 feet. It will take a player who can steal 25 bases and allow him to steal 35. It will take a pitcher who can throw at 92 mph and allow him to throw at 96. It will take an athlete who's body would otherwise begin slowing down at 35 and allow him to remain competitive into his 40s. Certainly, you could argue that there are players who "naturally" possess the ability to do all of the things that I just listed, so a player who juices up is merely allowing himself to remain competitive with his peers, as much as one who works out regulalry or has surgery to improve a facet of his game. And this is where my objection comes in--I don't want (nor, I'm certain, do you) a game that is decided by not by a player's work ethic, but by how creative they are with what they are ingesting. Barry Bonds didn't break the single season HR record because of his work ethic, he broke it because he had a personal trainer who knew which steroids would allow Barry to do it. Mark McGwire didn't best Roger Maris because he spent more time in the batting cage working on his timing, he did it because Jose Canseco was shooting stuff into his rear. It's the difference between a company who performs well because they are willing to invest the time and effort to develop a strong management culture, a knowledgeable staff and invest in the most helpful technology, and one that simply fudges their accounting books.

These two paragraphs are fantastic and it's exactly how I feel about steroids.

vaticanplum
03-09-2006, 03:50 PM
I don't think that LASIK eye surgery is equatable to steroids in baseball for any number of reasons. The eye surgery improves something that is not working as well as it is supposed to be, and it is not harmful to the body. Steroids, as many on this thread have pointed out, take muscles that are working just fine to heights to which they are not meant to go, to heights to which they do not go in any person with normally functioning muscles, and they are harmful to the body.

I have horrendous vision, I wear corrective lenses and I would get surgery in a second if I could afford it. Most people with bad vision attempt to correct it in some way just so they can function better in the world. I eat vegetables to keep me healthy. Steroids are not about functioning better in the world and they are not taken with an eye towards health; they are used specifically to improve one's performance in an athletic endeavor, and the impetus to use them is not felt by the average person on the street.

traderumor
03-09-2006, 04:00 PM
I know all about it. I have read everything available on the current topic. That was more of a ;) than anything. Quit taking everything so seriously.
You lost me.

Cyclone792
03-09-2006, 04:14 PM
I don't think that LASIK eye surgery is equatable to steroids in baseball for any number of reasons. The eye surgery improves something that is not working as well as it is supposed to be, and it is not harmful to the body. Steroids, as many on this thread have pointed out, take muscles that are working just fine to heights to which they are not meant to go, to heights to which they do not go in any person with normally functioning muscles, and they are harmful to the body.

I have horrendous vision, I wear corrective lenses and I would get surgery in a second if I could afford it. Most people with bad vision attempt to correct it in some way just so they can function better in the world. I eat vegetables to keep me healthy. Steroids are not about functioning better in the world and they are not taken with an eye towards health; they are used specifically to improve one's performance in an athletic endeavor, and the impetus to use them is not felt by the average person on the street.

I bolded your statement on not harmful to the body because that's precisely my point. Steroids are harmful to the body, and there's scientific evidence proving that. I believe steroids are banned because they are harmful to the body (and PR reasons, but that's an entirely different tangent).

Are they banned for any other reason other than detrimental health effects? I don't think they are, because if they were, then we would see other "healthy" chemical substances banned due to reasons of taking muscles to heights that they normally would not go. I'm sure it would be very easy to prove that modern, healthy, legal chemical supplements can aid in developing your muscles to a higher level than anything that existed in 1920, 1940 or even 1980. What was "naturally" attainable 50 years ago can now be exceeded by legal, chemical supplements.

Here's an interesting quote from that lasik article that I want to highlight:


Woods' eye surgeon told the Los Angeles Times, "Golfers get a different three-dimensional view of the green after LASIK." They "can see the grain" and "small indentations. It's different. Lasik actually produces, instead of a spherical cornea, an aspherical cornea. It may be better than normal vision."

Right there we have the eye surgeon of the world's most popular golfer suggesting that lasik eye surgery could possibly produce results better than any natural vision can produce. If steroids and lasik eye surgery can produce results beyond what the human body is capable of producing, then what is the only difference between the two? One has positive health effects while the other has negative health effects. Hence one's accepted and the other's banned.

traderumor
03-09-2006, 04:33 PM
Lasik vs. steroids is like comparing a player switching to contact lenses over glasses to a pitcher with a bionic arm.

vaticanplum
03-09-2006, 04:44 PM
Are they banned for any other reason other than detrimental health effects? I don't think they are, because if they were, then we would see other "healthy" chemical substances banned due to reasons of taking muscles to heights that they normally would not go.

Well, that's reason enough for me. You put "healthy" in quotation marks as if it's just a label for convenience's sake. What are the main reasons kids are ever put in sports in the first place? In my opinion, their health tops the list. Following that pretty closely is teaching them self-confidence, self-reliance, and the value of teamwork through the playing of a game in which everyone is working fairly and with the same tools to achieve the same goal.


I'm sure it would be very easy to prove that modern, healthy, legal chemical supplements can aid in developing your muscles to a higher level than anything that existed in 1920, 1940 or even 1980. What was "naturally" attainable 50 years ago can now be exceeded by legal, chemical supplements.

Again, this is progress. I am all for progress. Should we force basketball players back into Converse? Should we ban Tommy John surgery? Should we take away helmets from football players? Of course not. These things are all designed to protect a player from harm, not to cause harm.

I see your point about LASIK producing results that give people better vision than a normal human being can possibly have naturally. If it were absolutely proven that it caused the body no harm, and if it were legal and thus accessible to everyone, then I would have to do some thinking about it. To my knowledge, this is not the current status of generally available and accepted laser eye surgery, ie. eyes cannot be corrected much beyond normal human capabilities in complete faith that there will be no harm done. Perhaps in 50 years everyone will have "beyond perfect" vision and this will have been progress and that's good, but we're not there yet. If science can cook up a cocktail of herbs and spices and whatnot that produces the same effect that steroids do without causing harm to the body, then that's progress, and then we'll talk. But this is still quite moot at the moment -- I seriously doubt that will ever happen given the very nature of steroids, the fact that the very chemical components that build your body up are the same ones that destroy it -- and so steroids are harmful and illegal as things stand right now.

westofyou
03-09-2006, 04:45 PM
Should we force basketball players back into Converse?

Otherwise known as the Bunion Maker.

Roy Tucker
03-09-2006, 04:51 PM
I believe steroids are banned because they are harmful to the body (and PR reasons, but that's an entirely different tangent).


Over at the World Anti-Doping Agency, their code talks in equal parts about health, fairness, and equality.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v3.pdf

vaticanplum
03-09-2006, 05:10 PM
I want to take a brief respite here and thank everybody for the articles and links they're posting. I've read some amazingly interesting and insightful stuff over the last couple of days (and gotten no work done, but hey, this is all with the good of the world in mind).

Cyclone792
03-09-2006, 05:28 PM
Over at the World Anti-Doping Agency, their code talks in equal parts about health, fairness, and equality.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v3.pdf

Yep, it's the necessary PR to satisfy the masses and justify the reasoning for them being banned. :) Everything derives from the health factor. It is the key core to it all.

It's likely that it really becomes a morals and values issue for most people. I can use a wide range of legal, healthy chemical substances to gain a definitive competitive advantage over those not using the same or similar substances. Right there, fairness and equality is suddenly broken ... but health is not sacrificed. Or I could elect to use steroids to gain a definitive competitive advantage. Fairness and equality is again broken ... and health is heavily sacrificed.

That Xyience stuff I mentioned in a previous post tastes terrible as well as being horribly expensive. :p: There's no other reason to take it other than gaining a competitive advantage!

But it's booming in the mixed martial arts community because of the competitive advantages gained from using it. The difference is it's healthy ... so it's acceptable to use.

It just appears prudent to me that if fairness and equality is as significant of a justification that it's said to be, then all chemical substances should be banned ... healthy substances just the same as unhealthy substances (there are people who take that viewpoint too, and I don't necessarily disagree with them if they're concerned about a level playing field).

RedsBaron
03-09-2006, 05:28 PM
I think that if the HOF ever inducts guys such as Bonds or McGwire that perhaps it should be done as a package deal; say, put a picture of Bonds and his chemist together on the HOF plaque and induct them together. I usually think of Dr. Frankenstein and the creature he created as a package.

registerthis
03-09-2006, 05:32 PM
I think that if the HOF ever inducts guys such as Bonds or McGwire that perhaps it should be done as a package deal; say, put a picture of Bonds and his chemist together on the HOF plaque and induct them together. I usually think of Dr. Frankenstein and the creature he created as a package.

hah! :laugh: