Bonds Stirs Up The Emotions

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by registerthis

But the honesty of their accomplishments on the baseball field was never in doubt.

Bonds' are.

Gaylord Perry says hello

In all honesty, part of me has more of a problem with Perry than steroid use prior to the regulations being put in place (after the regulations, ala now with guys like Palmeiro, that's not necessarily the case). I don't know, maybe I take a weird position, but it's difficult for me to retroactively speculate on a player's potential steroid use in past years and penalize that player when those suscipicions occurred before the game even had regulations against it, especially when such behavior is still speculation. I don't know if Bonds used steroids or not and few people do. When also taking into consideration there were no regulations in the game prohibiting steroid use, I just can't penalize him. Guys like Gaylord Perry broke known rules that had been in place for decades to gain an advantage.

Heck, the 1919 Reds World Series squad had Hod Eller in their rotation, and he knowingly used a shine ball shortly before it was outlawed. Not only that, but then Chick Gandil and his pals then decided to toss some games our way for their individual financial benefit. In the end, the Reds win the World Series and that banner still hangs alongside the other four championships, despite the validity of that accomplishment occurring under some doubt.

[savafan]

I have to believe that if there is any justice in this crazy world of ours, Bonds' guilt will eventually be found out. Even if it isn't, he will have to live with himself knowing what he did. Barry Bonds has no one to blame for making his kids cry than himself. All of the hatred, all of the doubt...he brought it upon himself.

If he hadn't broken McGwire's single season homerun record so soon, I don't know that I'd have thought something illegal was going on.

[westofyou]

Heck, the 1919 Reds World Series squad had Hod Eller in their rotation, and he knowingly used a shine ball shortly before it was outlawed.

The 1919 Reds had at least 2 starters who doctored the ball, Eller, Fisher and perhaps Ruether too.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

I don't know if Bonds used steroids or not and few people do. When also taking into consideration there were no regulations in the game prohibiting steroid use, I just can't penalize him. Guys like Gaylord Perry broke known rules that had been in place for decades to gain an advantage.

I just can't by this line of arguing--that simply because it wasn't illegal by baseball rules (even though federal drug rules cover the purchase and use of anabolic steroids and the like) means that his records are somehow legit. Even if baseball had no specific rules banning them, steroid use was--and remains--illegal. His use of them gave him a clear advantage over the competition, illegally. And, for the record, I am comfortable making the leap in judgment that bonds used illegal steroids during his career. I find it beyond suspicious that his record-setting HR years came immediately after the McGwire-Sosa steroid war, and as a precursor to baseball's crackdown on their use. I also find it highly suspicious that his first significant injuries in years occured after baseball's harsh crackdown on steroid use made their continued use by ballplayers dangerous. This is not even taking into consideration his ties to BALCO and his own personal trainer's problems with steroid charges.

Additionally, the use of certain things to "cheat" the system--such as spitballs, sandpaper, pine tar and cork--while presenting an advantage to the user in that particular instance, do NOT present an ongoing advantage over the player's entire career. Aside from the obvious strength benefits, steroid use--for a time, anyway--helps the player remain healthy and bounce back more quickly from injuries. True, over time, steroid use generally catches up to the player (see Ken Caminiti), but the player who uses steroids has an inherent advantage in raw power, bat speed and endurance over players who are not using performance-enhancing drugs--even those who cork their bats.

Finally, the precedent of permissable questionable behavior does not excuse future behavior, and does not bind us to accept it or recognize it. Even if there was established precendent in MLB of allowing the records of known steroid abusers to stand alongside the records of known "clean" players, there's nothing to imply or suggest that such a trend should or will continue. The use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs casts a pall over the individual ballplayer and his accomplishments, and as such the baseball records achieved by said individuals are questionable, at best, or fraudulent at worst.

There are many admirable traits about Barry Bonds' baseball skills. Indeed, as many have stated, his skills and numbers put up prior to the late-90s warrant HoF induction. But his cheating and use of performance enhancers since that time, unfortunately, call into question his entire career. Now, he is prepared to embark on the quest of a title that many will consider to be fraudulent if he is successful. His use of performance enhancers undoubtedly provided him the opportunity to pursue this goal; thus there's no justification for rewarding him for achieving it.

[Jpup]

Originally Posted by registerthis

I just can't by this line of arguing--that simply because it wasn't illegal by baseball rules (even though federal drug rules cover the purchase and use of anabolic steroids and the like) means that his records are somehow legit. Even if baseball had no specific rules banning them, steroid use was--and remains--illegal. His use of them gave him a clear advantage over the competition, illegally. And, for the record, I am comfortable making the leap in judgment that bonds used illegal steroids during his career. I find it beyond suspicious that his record-setting HR years came immediately after the McGwire-Sosa steroid war, and as a precursor to baseball's crackdown on their use. I also find it highly suspicious that his first significant injuries in years occured after baseball's harsh crackdown on steroid use made their continued use by ballplayers dangerous. This is not even taking into consideration his ties to BALCO and his own personal trainer's problems with steroid charges.

Additionally, the use of certain things to "cheat" the system--such as spitballs, sandpaper, pine tar and cork--while presenting an advantage to the user in that particular instance, do NOT present an ongoing advantage over the player's entire career. Aside from the obvious strength benefits, steroid use--for a time, anyway--helps the player remain healthy and bounce back more quickly from injuries. True, over time, steroid use generally catches up to the player (see Ken Caminiti), but the player who uses steroids has an inherent advantage in raw power, bat speed and endurance over players who are not using performance-enhancing drugs--even those who cork their bats.

Finally, the precedent of permissable questionable behavior does not excuse future behavior, and does not bind us to accept it or recognize it. Even if there was established precendent in MLB of allowing the records of known steroid abusers to stand alongside the records of known "clean" players, there's nothing to imply or suggest that such a trend should or will continue. The use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs casts a pall over the individual ballplayer and his accomplishments, and as such the baseball records achieved by said individuals are questionable, at best, or fraudulent at worst.

There are many admirable traits about Barry Bonds' baseball skills. Indeed, as many have stated, his skills and numbers put up prior to the late-90s warrant HoF induction. But his cheating and use of performance enhancers since that time, unfortunately, call into question his entire career. Now, he is prepared to embark on the quest of a title that many will consider to be fraudulent if he is successful. His use of performance enhancers undoubtedly provided him the opportunity to pursue this goal; thus there's no justification for rewarding him for achieving it.

all I can say is that he took the tests and past them. what else do you want?

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by Jpup

all I can say is that he took the tests and past them. what else do you want?

Do you honestly think it's impossible for a steroid user to pass a steroid test?

[Cyclone792]

Reg, my problem with isolating steroid use away from every other form of cheating is that it introduces a vast grey area. To me, cheating is cheating, and steroid use is a function of cheating. Doctoring a baseball is also a function of cheating. Using a doctored baseball has dramatic effects on the movement of the ball, and if a player continues to throw doctored baseballs it will have a dramatic effect for his career. Ray Chapman was beaned and killed in 1920, and speculation is that Carl Mays threw a doctored baseball that beaned him.

Steroids and their effect on a player's career totals is simply too grey for me. Sure, one can make the argument that Bonds' 708 home runs are a questionable total. Someone else can then make the argument that Babe Ruth's 714 home runs are a questionable total because it came against an all white league. Gaylord Perry cheated, and he won 314 games ... again an argument can be made that his career is questionable. Once you introduce the premise that one player's career stats are to be questioned because he cheated or had some unnatural advantage, it just opens the levee to start questioning scores of statistics and results due to similar unnatural or circumstantial advantages. I just can't sort out the cheaters into groups and claim "this is ok and I'll let it slide ..." and "this is not ok, I won't let it slide ... "

Prohibition was in effect in the 1920s, yet players would routinely show up and play in games while drunk, including known Hall of Famers. Unless a player is in prison or physically cannot play, government laws applied to individual players really have little bearing on how the game manages itself. It's how players such as Ty Cobb could skip around different states and run from the law while at the same time starting the next game in center field. It's how Ryan Freel can get nailed with a DUI, then days later be back in the starting lineup. It's how Paul Molitor claims to have used cocaine and still get elected to the Hall, despite that being illegal. Again, it's the grey area ... if I'm penalizing one group, I must penalize all groups.

Baseball manages itself; always has and always will. If you bet on a game, you're gone for good. If you commit some sort of crime, well as soon you're physically able to play, you'll be back in the lineup. Now, if test positive for steroids, you're suspended for a significant amount of time. A third offense and you're gone for good. A few years ago that wasn't the case, and at the same time there are probably far more players who did use steroids a few years ago that we'll ever know about.

[savafan]

Prohibition made it illegal to purchase alcohol, not to drink it. Two very different acts.

[Dom Heffner]

To me, cheating is cheating,

No, it's not. That's why there are different punishments for different types of cheating.

Scuffing a ball with a nail file and ingesting illegal perfromance enhancing drugs are not on the same level of cheating. Take two players- one who continually throws spitters and one who continually takes steroids. Which one do you think will get thrown out of baseball sooner?

Someone else can then make the argument that Babe Ruth's 714 home runs are a questionable total because it came against an all white league.

No one is saying that the record isn't legitimate. They may question the talent he played against, but no one is saying Ruth's numbers are tainted because he cheated.

Gaylord Perry cheated, and he won 314 games ... again an argument can be made that his career is questionable.

No one believes that scuffing balls wins 300 games. No one.

Once you introduce the premise that one player's career stats are to be questioned because he cheated or had some unnatural advantage, it just opens the levee to start questioning scores of statistics and results due to similar unnatural or circumstantial advantages. I just can't sort out the cheaters into groups and claim "this is ok and I'll let it slide ..." and "this is not ok, I won't let it slide ... "

This argument would be true if all cheating was the same, but it's not.

In fact, your argument promotes cheating because it tells the athletes that we'll just stand by and let them cheat because, hey, a lot of people cheat. Let's just celebrate and be happy about Barry Bonds and his new illegally obtained home run record because Gaylord Perry threw spitballs and Babe Ruth played with all white people who were apprently drunk when they were playing.

Prohibition was in effect in the 1920s, yet players would routinely show up and play in games while drunk, including known Hall of Famers.

Alcohol would impair performance. Alcohol is not listed, anywhere, on a list of performance enhancing drugs. No one thinks that by ingesting massive quantities of Jack Daniels that you can improve your performance. No one is questioning the stats from the prohibition era as being tainted due to alcohol.

You seem to be confusing personal morality with statistics.

Are you serious here?

Again, it's the grey area ... if I'm penalizing one group, I must penalize all groups.

This may be your own written code, but you don't have to penalize them equally, which is why your argument is unfounded. A corked bat does not equal 20 lbs of illegally enhanced muscle mass does not equal a spitball does not equal being a racist, drunk, or cocaine addict.

If you bet on a game, you're gone for good.

I thought all cheating was the same? Are you gone for good if you put pine tar too high on your bat?

Baseball manages itself; always has and always will.

Except for that time they turned a blind eye to steroids. Should we all just turn a blind eye, too, because Gaylor Perry scuffed some baseballs?

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

No, it's not. That's why there are different punishments for different types of cheating.

Scuffing a ball with a nail file and ingesting illegal perfromance enhancing drugs are not on the same level of cheating. Take two players- one who continually throws spitters and one who continually takes steroids. Which one do you think will get thrown out of baseball sooner?

In what year? 2001? You'd get suspended for scuffing a ball in 2001, but would receive no penalty for using steroids. How many games was Perry suspended or ejected for scuffing balls? How many games has Bonds been suspended for using steroids?

No one is saying that the record isn't legitimate. They may question the talent he played against, but no one is saying Ruth's numbers are tainted because he cheated.

Not allowing African Americans to play for several decades likely changed the outcome of every single major league game that was ever played prior to integration. What's the main argument against steroids? That they change the outcome of the games due to certain players having unfair advantages. Excluding specific people to play also changes the outcome of games because players have an unfair advantage of not playing against the best level of competition.

No one believes that scuffing balls wins 300 games. No one.

Scuffing balls provides an unfair advantage. Using steroids also provides an unfair advantage. Perry doctored balls and won 314 games. How many would he have won without doctoring balls? How many home runs would Bonds have hit if he didn't "supposedly" juice himself? Nobody knows those answers.

gument would be true if all cheating was the same, but it's not.

In fact, your argument promotes cheating because it tells the athletes that we'll just stand by and let them cheat because, hey, a lot of people cheat. Let's just celebrate and be happy about Barry Bonds and his new illegally obtained home run record because Gaylord Perry threw spitballs and Babe Ruth played with all white people who were apprently drunk when they were playing.

You're missing my point, which is that I'm looking for consistency when judging known cheaters.

I'm not promoting cheating at all. I'm promoting people to cast players in the same consistent ray of light. You want to downgrade Bonds' performance due to his speculation of steroids, then you're more than welcome to. At the same time, to be consistent, you must also downgrade Perry's performance and every other known cheater. Why someone refuses to simply be consistent and actually acknowledge that Gaylord Perry, Whitey Ford, etc. cheated to gain an unfair advantage boggles me. Instead excuses are made to cast doctoring a baseball as being perfectly acceptable. Bonds is blacklisted and free passes are handed out to Perry and Ford. Is that acceptable to you?

Listen, I'm not pro-Bonds, but I'm also not anti-Bonds. I'm neutral on Bonds, which by default seems to group me in an inaccurate pro-Bonds group. I don't know if Bonds did or did not take steroids so I don't bother with it. I just find it incredibly flawed to claim that Bonds cheats while absolutely refusing to acknowledge that players such as Gaylord Perry or Whitey Ford cheated. Would Perry have given up more than 1,846 earned runs in his career if he never cheated, or would he have given up more?

I thought all cheating was the same? Are you gone for good if you put pine tar too high on your bat?

Any practice that breaks a rule of MLB to gain an unfair advantage is cheating. Doctoring baseballs is cheating. Corking bats is cheating. Finally and thankfully, using steroids is cheating. Each has their own individual system of penalties, but they are all cheating.

The caveat is if you used steroids prior to it being illegal in baseball, you were not cheating per the game's rules. Steroids were illegal in society, fine. So was cocaine. Both are illegal in society but not in baseball so what's the difference? Do government laws suddenly decide what constitutes cheating in MLB? Do olympic committees suddenly decide what constitutes cheating in MLB? Baseball decides for itself what constitutes cheating and what does not constitute cheating, not anybody else.

Except for that time they turned a blind eye to steroids. Should we all just turn a blind eye, too, because Gaylor Perry scuffed some baseballs?

But shouldn't you also hold baseball executives just as accountable as you do Barry Bonds? Since there's such a large public outcry to remove steroid using players from the game, where's the large public outcry to identify and remove every baseball official that covered up steroid usage?

Believe it or not, Dom, but I imagine you and I actually agree on this more than we disagree. All I'm looking for is consistency when people are asked to judge known and speculated cheaters who cheat to gain an advantage and put such cheating in proper perspective. I'm frankly confused with this mass of people who lead the charge that Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi, Rafael Palmeiro, etc. are the worst thing to ever happen in baseball but at the same time say nary a word about the validity of Gaylord Perry's record. If anything, I see those very same people joke about Perry rather than chastise him. It's ridiculous.

[Marge'sMullet]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

The hand-eye coordination was there to begin with. Steroids merely makes him stronger, allowing the ball to go farther when hit.

Add steroids to me, you'd get a guy who still couldn't make the major leagues, but I'd be stronger. I could bench press more, I would become bigger.

Add them to a major leaguer, and they simply become stronger as well, which is a little different scenario, because unlike me, a major leaguer can already hit a baseball. Now the ball goes a lot further and balls that would have been long fly outs are homeruns.

No one is arguing that steroids is improving hand-eye coordination, so your premise seems a bit flawed.

I bet Wily Mo is as strong as Bonds, but he can't hit like Bonds. I don't know what Barry Bonds has done. I don't really care either, and any other player for that matter. It doesn't ruin the game for me.

If your not cheating then your not trying. I applaud everyone of the steroid players for trying.

[Dom Heffner]

All I'm looking for is consistency when people are asked to judge known and speculated cheaters who cheat to gain an advantage and put such cheating in proper perspective.

If you are looking for consistency, then you need to make a more consistent analogy. Comparing steroids to scuffing balls is not consistent with reality.

It isn't even close.

I never want to have people who cork their bats or who scuff baseballs to be placed in the same category as steroid users.

While I appreciate your need to put things in perspective, I kinda prefer it the way reality has it right now, which is that steroids are worse than corked bats and spitballs.

I bet Wily Mo is as strong as Bonds, but he can't hit like Bonds. I don't know what Barry Bonds has done.

No, but give a great hitter like Bonds more strength and, voila- new home run king.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

If you are looking for consistency, then you need to make a more consistent analogy. Comparing steroids to scuffing balls is not consistent with reality.

It isn't even close.

I never want to have people who cork their bats or who scuff baseballs to be placed in the same category as steroid users.

While I appreciate your need to put things in perspective, I kinda prefer it the way reality has it right now, which is that steroids are worse than corked bats and spitballs.

That doesn't really answer the question ... do you consider doctoring baseballs cheating, and is it acceptable? I find it hard to believe you'd answer no/yes, but your post sort of implies that.

Why isn't doctoring baseballs remotely close to steroids?

And because I'm curious ... when do you think Bonds started using steroids?

[TeamBoone]

Originally Posted by Marge'sMullet

If your not cheating then your not trying. I applaud everyone of the steroid players for trying.

That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen written here.

I was informed this was a joke via a neg... I guess I'm supposed to be a mind reader.

[Dom Heffner]

That doesn't really answer the question ... do you consider doctoring baseballs cheating, and is it acceptable? I find it hard to believe you'd answer no/yes, but your post sort of implies that.

I do think it is cheating, yes. I think it's about on the level of a manager stealing signs from the other team. I don't think anyone truly thinks a spit ball has had any effect on the legitimacy of baseball stats.

I think it's like comparing me looking at your hand in cards versus me fixing the entire deck to give me a much better hand.

We have a handful of hall of famers who threw a trick pitch and yet on the other hand we have seen the season home run record fall three times in the course of two seasons and the number of fifty home run seasons represented as many times in the course of one decade as in the entire history of baseball combined and you want to say cheating is cheating.

I'm wondering if the spitball is so effective, how could anyone hit that many homeruns?

If all one had to do was throw spitters to win 300 games, people would be doing that instead of taking steroids. It would be safer and would get you less time on a suspension.

Since you were the one equating all types of cheating, let me turn the question around on you:

If you were a young pitcher trying to improve your performance by giving it an unnatural edge, which would you choose, ingesting steroids or learning how to throw a spitter?

Which do you think would give you the best chance of success?

Using your logic, each should provide an equal amount of success, yet there is no way you can answer with a straight face that you would master the spitball in lieu of taking SEDs and come up with the same results.

I'm not going to waste hours worth of time explaining the obvious physical advantages that PEDs give an athlete and then place that up against a ball with vaseline on it.

What are we going to talk about next, how the grounds crew alters the pitching mound to favor the home team?

And because I'm curious ... when do you think Bonds started using steroids?

Because Bonds used steroids, he doesn't get the opportunity to turn this around on us like you are doing. One doesn't get to cheat on the level at which he did and then shift the burden of the argument on us to say, well I cheated but if you can't tell me when it started, then I'm innocent.

It doesn't matter when he started- he was on them by his own account, and if you want to believe that he did it accidentally, then you are entitled to your opinion.

If it was sometime midway through his career versus early, what does it matter?