Bonds bombshell: Book details slugger's steroid use

[RedsBaron]

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.

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...... scaratch this paragraph

[RedsBaron]

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]

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

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]

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]

I'll be watching.

You think ESPN will be covering it? :

[registerthis]

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]

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]

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]

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune....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]

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 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]

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.


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]

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]

You think ESPN will be covering it? :

I sure hope so. This stuff makes for good TV.

[MWM]

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]

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.