Bonds bombshell: Book details slugger's steroid use

[Reds Nd2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Good points Cyclone.

[Gainesville Red]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.