Bonds bombshell: Book details slugger's steroid use

[registerthis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

With respect to an apologist for Bonds, even Pelagius had his supporters (sorry, he's fresh, was just studying him last night)

[Roy Tucker]

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]

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]

They don't suspend because of drug usage?

[Dom Heffner]

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]

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]

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.