Bonds bombshell: Book details slugger's steroid use

[registerthis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

about the DH

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

[pedro]

Nice work Yahtzee. I like visual aids. Maybe you could make a Powerpoint Presentation for the gathering.

[MWM]

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]

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]

Interesting statistic:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...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]

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]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...eed=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]

STATEMENT BY MICHAEL RAINS, LAWYER FOR BARRY BONDS

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...eed=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?

It is kind of humerous that everyone is believing his ex-girlfriend.

[Jpup]

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

I'll be watching.

[OnBaseMachine]

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