Bonds bombshell: Book details slugger's steroid use

[Yachtzee]

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

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

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

[RedsBaron]

The same questions apply, Cedric ...

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

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

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

[Cyclone792]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Hoosier Red]

You know what the crazy thing about Bonds is is that if he were more personable, none of this would be happening right now.

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

[GriffeyFan]

Wow, I just spent a half hour and read that entire article. If you haven't read it, I would recommend doing so. It's EXTREMELY detailed.

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

[Cyclone792]

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

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

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

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

Comiskey: Glad to see we agree

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

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

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

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

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

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

[oneupper]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gainesville Red]

When do the article and book come out?

[Cyclone792]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cedric]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[westofyou]

Before and After

[BARRY BONDS

1993-1997

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

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




ARRY BONDS

1998-2004

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

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

[oneupper]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Krusty]

And we thought we saw a circus back in 1989 when Bart Giamatti suspended Pete Rose? This season will make the Giants' clubhouse look like a zoo.

[Cyclone792]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[vaticanplum]

When do the article and book come out?

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