Bonds bombshell: Book details slugger's steroid use

[MWM]

I agree with those who say that this will have no overall impact on the game. But I think it's illogical to assume increased attendance was due to the home run and steroids. I don't see the connection.

[membengal]

By the way, to the extent that McGwire has gotten off "easy" in the court of public opinion, well, he went away. When he did surface, he was savaged (rightly so) for his act at the Congressional hearings. Bonds gets it worse than McGwire right now, simply because he is still around, and this stuff is still fresh.

I excuse neither of them and hold them in similar disdain.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by oneupper

Cyc...you can do better than this.
The Coliseum was standing-room only when the Christians took on the Lions.

Many enjoyed the steriod freak show. I watched myself.
How does this change things? Does it make us ALL guilty? I sure don't feel that way.

Many enjoyed the freak show, and many watched. And that's the hypocritical nature of the fans.

Big offense brings a big gate. Just ask Babe Ruth. Then Mark McGwire. And finally, yep, Barry Bonds.

Now you know why baseball didn't care to do anything, why it took pressure from Congress to adopt a policy. If you're watching, then your trust in the game apparently isn't shaken enough to cause you to stop watching. People watched players drug up in 1970. People watched them drug up in 1985. People watched them drug up in 2000. People will continue watching them drug up for as long as the game continues.

I'm being labeled as a Bonds supporter, which is totally inaccurate. If everything that's coming out is true, then Barry Bonds is a complete idiot. If what he did to his body takes 10 or 20 years off his life, then he royally screwed himself up. My viewpoint at Bonds the person goes down. Does it alter my viewpoint of his playing accomplishments? Sure, slightly, but I know where Bonds sits in a proper historical context within the fabric of the game, and it's much closer to Gaylord Perry than it is to Pete Rose. Of course, when I say Barry Bonds can stand in line next to Gaylord Perry (as baseball will say), then by default I must be a Bonds supporter in the minds of ban-all-the-players-who-use-steroids crowd.

The gambling man ... he's different. The gambling man has an entirely different goal than the goal of a baseball team or a player. When the player becomes the gambling man, his goals suddenly and drastically change, and the opportunity for corruption is increased exponentially.

The ladder of crimes against baseball is tall, but gambling and steroids sit far apart on the ladder. If you disagree with me and believe that steroids are the evil sin, then why do you watch? If steroids corrupt the game so much, then why in the world do you invest so much time, money and emotion into the game?

I'd encourage you to go back and read Steel's post, not once, but at least twice. Really take a long, hard look at what he's stating, because it's all true.

[registerthis]

Great discussion, all of you. I fall somewhere in the middle of the two sides--I don't agree with Cyclone that "all cheating is cheating", but nor do I think steroid use is the worst thing to happen to the game.

I honestly don't know if there have been a sizeable number of fans so put off by it that they'll stop following baseball, but what I want to avoid is MLB turning into the WWE circus freakshow. For years, baseball turned a blind eye to rampant steroid use among its players, preferring to see HR records fall and TV ratings rise. IMHO, they are as equally complicit in this whole affair as the players themselves. But, if baseball continues to tread lightly around the steroid issue, and doesn't appropriately deal with Bonds or others caught in the steroid net, I do believe there is a risk of long term harm to the game. Not necessarily in attendance or TV ratings--people fill arenas across the country for professional wrestling, after all, and they'll likely keep turning out for baseball as well--but in the way the sport is perceived. Regardless of whether or not they're speaking with their wallets, the fans are paying attention to the steroid debacle, and it won't so easily be forgotten. It's causing otherwise clean and innocent players to have their achievements called under suspicion, and a rather indifferent reaction to the breaking of long-held records.

The difference between this era's players and players like Perry is that, for the latter, his individual results may be called into question, but the impact of his actions on the league as a whole were minimal. Unless there is some available research on the topic I am not aware of, Perry's behavior wasn't symptomatic of the game as a whole--we don't question whether EVERY pitcher was doctoring the ball simply because Perry did. However, the use of steroids--performance enhancers that turned otherwise exceptional athletes into superhuman mega-athletes--has cast a pall over every facet of the game. Henceforth, any player who exhibits a measureable spike in performance will be looked at with a suspicious eye. Any player who manages to remain productive in his later years will be viewed with skepticism. Any records broken in the forseeable future will be prefaced in discussion with a "yeah, but..."

Thus, on an individual level, you could perhaps make the argument that perry's sins were as great as Bonds, or McGwire, but you could not, I don't believe, make the argument that Perry's actions were as damaging to the overall integrity of the game as the players we're discussing today. And this is not even to mention, as others have, the significantly detrimental effects steroid use has on an individual's health--an argument that would not apply to ball doctoring or bat corking.

But, regardless of where one stands on the severity of the steroid issue, I think everyone agrees that it's something that baseball needs to deal with appropriately. I'm not sure what an acceptable reaction to Bonds' situation would be, honestly. Banishment from the game? Long suspension? Banishment from the Hall? Perhaps no immediate punishment is warranted? I don't know, but what I do know is that the longer baseball allows the steroid cloud to hang over the game, the longer they allow the accomplishments of all players to be called into question, they longer they send signals to high school (and younger) players that steroid use will be rewarded and accepted, if clandestinely, the more damage the sport will sustain. Perhaps not economically, which may be the only thing the Powers That Be in MLB are concerned about, but in the perception of the game. Do they want to be the overseers of a sport viewed by the public to be the domain of the chemically-altered athlete, where both records and steroid use rise every season, and the accomplishments of the game's players are viewed as impressive but not particularly real. That's not the sport I want baseball to be. The next time a player threatens one of baseball's long-established records, I want to feel good about it. I want to be able to cheer the athlete on, and celebrate his phenomenal achievement. I don't want to feel apathetic about it, which is how I feel now. And that is the true harm that steroids have brought to this game.

[westofyou]

If it came down to a decision more people would pay to see Barry Bonds play baseball than Hal Chase.

Even with depleated nads and man breasts.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by westofyou

If it came down to a decision more people would pay to see Barry Bonds play baseball than Hal Chase.

Even with depleated nads and man breasts.

I don't doubt that. I've paid to see a few wrasslin' shows in my time, too.

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

That's been my point for years, literally. For the past 40-50 years, players have been taking whatever they could to gain an edge, be it HGH or something else. If it wasn't against baseball's rules, they took/did it. And sometimes if it was against baseball's rules, they still did it (see Ford, Whitey and Perry, Gaylord).

And before that? It was an all-white league.

People put all these records into a sacred land, but still fail to see the conditions during which they were accomplished. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs ... and not one of them came against a black pitcher. There is no asterik next to Ruth's name, and there won't be one next to Bonds' name, regardless of whether he took anything or not.

Gaylord Perry cheated, wrote a book about it and laughed about it. He's in the Hall of Fame. If Barry Bonds took steroids, then he can stand in line right next to Gaylord Perry. The writers put Perry in, and they'll also put Bonds in. This isn't Pete Rose and betting on the game, which is significantly worse than anything Bonds, Giambi, McGwire, etc. have done.

:notworthy

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by registerthis

Great discussion, all of you. I fall somewhere in the middle of the two sides--I don't agree with Cyclone that "all cheating is cheating", but nor do I think steroid use is the worst thing to happen to the game.

I honestly don't know if there have been a sizeable number of fans so put off by it that they'll stop following baseball, but what I want to avoid is MLB turning into the WWE circus freakshow. For years, baseball turned a blind eye to rampant steroid use among its players, preferring to see HR records fall and TV ratings rise. IMHO, they are as equally complicit in this whole affair as the players themselves. But, if baseball continues to tread lightly around the steroid issue, and doesn't appropriately deal with Bonds or others caught in the steroid net, I do believe there is a risk of long term harm to the game. Not necessarily in attendance or TV ratings--people fill arenas across the country for professional wrestling, after all, and they'll likely keep turning out for baseball as well--but in the way the sport is perceived. Regardless of whether or not they're speaking with their wallets, the fans are paying attention to the steroid debacle, and it won't so easily be forgotten. It's causing otherwise clean and innocent players to have their achievements called under suspicion, and a rather indifferent reaction to the breaking of long-held records.

The difference between this era's players and players like Perry is that, for the latter, his individual results may be called into question, but the impact of his actions on the league as a whole were minimal. Unless there is some available research on the topic I am not aware of, Perry's behavior wasn't symptomatic of the game as a whole--we don't question whether EVERY pitcher was doctoring the ball simply because Perry did. However, the use of steroids--performance enhancers that turned otherwise exceptional athletes into superhuman mega-athletes--has cast a pall over every facet of the game. Henceforth, any player who exhibits a measureable spike in performance will be looked at with a suspicious eye. Any player who manages to remain productive in his later years will be viewed with skepticism. Any records broken in the forseeable future will be prefaced in discussion with a "yeah, but..."

Thus, on an individual level, you could perhaps make the argument that perry's sins were as great as Bonds, or McGwire, but you could not, I don't believe, make the argument that Perry's actions were as damaging to the overall integrity of the game as the players we're discussing today. And this is not even to mention, as others have, the significantly detrimental effects steroid use has on an individual's health--an argument that would not apply to ball doctoring or bat corking.

But, regardless of where one stands on the severity of the steroid issue, I think everyone agrees that it's something that baseball needs to deal with appropriately. I'm not sure what an acceptable reaction to Bonds' situation would be, honestly. Banishment from the game? Long suspension? Banishment from the Hall? Perhaps no immediate punishment is warranted? I don't know, but what I do know is that the longer baseball allows the steroid cloud to hang over the game, the longer they allow the accomplishments of all players to be called into question, they longer they send signals to high school (and younger) players that steroid use will be rewarded and accepted, if clandestinely, the more damage the sport will sustain. Perhaps not economically, which may be the only thing the Powers That Be in MLB are concerned about, but in the perception of the game. Do they want to be the overseers of a sport viewed by the public to be the domain of the chemically-altered athlete, where both records and steroid use rise every season, and the accomplishments of the game's players are viewed as impressive but not particularly real. That's not the sport I want baseball to be. The next time a player threatens one of baseball's long-established records, I want to feel good about it. I want to be able to cheer the athlete on, and celebrate his phenomenal achievement. I don't want to feel apathetic about it, which is how I feel now. And that is the true harm that steroids have brought to this game.

[oneupper]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

If you disagree with me and believe that steroids are the evil sin, then why do you watch? If steroids corrupt the game so much, then why in the world do you invest so much time, money and emotion into the game?

I watch because I like to. It's a great game. It's entertaining. Why should I have to deprive myself of that pleasure because there is a flaw in it (steriods) which can and should be corrected?

I would like it fixed, thank you, so our kids and grandkids can play it and maybe, if they're good and dedicated enough, make a career out of without having to jeopardize their lives.

[MWM]

I'll also toss in that I agree with those saying gambling on the sport is exponentially worse than steroids. So I'll agree with Cyclone that Bonds is closer to Perry than to Rose.

[registerthis]

Originally Posted by MWM

I'll also toss in that I agree with those saying gambling on the sport is exponentially worse than steroids. So I'll agree with Cyclone that Bonds is closer to Perry than to Rose.

Yes, I would agree with that as well. The fixing of games is the cardinal sin in all of professional sports, nothing else approaches it.

[RedsBaron]

I am in no way defending gambling, but there is a difference between gambling and fixing games. A player could bet on his own team and simply use that as an increased incentive to try to win.
On the list of potential baseball sins, fixing a game is at the top (or bottom?)--whatever--it is the worst.
"Mere" gambling, i.e., betting on one's own team to win, is still grounds for being suspended and permanently banned, as one Peter Edward Rose illustrates, but it is a lesser offense IMO.

[vaticanplum]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

The ladder of crimes against baseball is tall, but gambling and steroids sit far apart on the ladder. If you disagree with me and believe that steroids are the evil sin, then why do you watch? If steroids corrupt the game so much, then why in the world do you invest so much time, money and emotion into the game?

Because I am a freak and an addict. Because until steroids are allowed in the game across the board, I can still hold out hope that I am watching a game in which players are winning honestly and on their own merits. So when it turns out that one of the sports' greatest players didn't do so, I find it very, very wrong. Wrong of its own accord, regardless of where it may stand in the baseball pantheon of wrongness.

And if baseball made steroids legal for everyone, I would stop watching.

There are people in the world who would pay to watch any number of illegal things that even they purport to be morally wrong. Their "attendance" is not enough to convince me that it's ok or a lesser crime than something that people won't pay to see.

If I'm not mistaken (and honestly please correct me if I am, because there's a lot to read through here and I'm not sure I've digested all of it), one of your major points, Cyclone, is that steroids won't kill baseball as an organization, that they won't threaten its survival as a money-making family activity and whatnot. Frankly that's not my concern. That's why I don't work for the organization of Major League Baseball; I leave that up to other people. And if those people decide that the public has become immune enough to something -- something that affects fundamentally the way the game is played -- for it not to affect ticket sales, I don't necessarily think this is a good thing. My concern isn't business; it is the game itself, and I don't like what steroids do to the game.

[traderumor]

Bonds also raked in millions of dollars, as have many others, on the basis of steroid-induced power, many of which are still sitting in bank accounts waiting to be spent.

I don't think it is all money that made baseball turn a blind eye. I think it was moreso a bigger animal than they were willing to tackle and took a back seat to other financial problems the game was having to deal with. A near strike, contraction, revenue sharing, etc. have all been on the table during the 'roid era. Somewhere down on the list was the priority of drug testing and having to deal with the negative publicity they knew it would create. It seems that if it was primarily financially motivated, they would have recognized that even bad publicity is publicity.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

Because I am a freak and an addict. Because until steroids are allowed in the game across the board, I can still hold out hope that I am watching a game in which players are winning honestly and on their own merits. So when it turns out that one of the sports' greatest players didn't do so, I find it very, very wrong. Wrong of its own accord, regardless of where it may stand in the baseball pantheon of wrongness.

And if baseball made steroids legal for everyone, I would stop watching.

There are people in the world who would pay to watch any number of illegal things that even they purport to be morally wrong. Their "attendance" is not enough to convince me that it's ok or a lesser crime than something that people won't pay to see.

If I'm not mistaken (and honestly please correct me if I am, because there's a lot to read through here and I'm not sure I've digested all of it), one of your major points, Cyclone, is that steroids won't kill baseball as an organization, that they won't threaten its survival as a money-making family activity and whatnot. Frankly that's not my concern. That's why I don't work for the organization of Major League Baseball; I leave that up to other people. And if those people decide that the public has become immune enough to something -- something that affects fundamentally the way the game is played -- for it not to affect ticket sales, I don't necessarily think this is a good thing. My concern isn't business; it is the game itself, and I don't like what steroids do to the game.

You're still watching, and that's what the game cares about. It's making money off you. It's thriving off you. Steroid use was legal five years ago within the game, and it was known about (otherwise it wouldn't be legal now), but yet I'm guessing you were watching then.

You've stated your concern is for watching honest players play the game on their own merit. Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that cheating has been rampant in the game ever since the beginning of its existence. Believing its been clean up until the 1990s is just refusing to believe reality. If you really would stop watching due to rampant cheating, then you should have never started watching in the first place.

Your pain lies in the fact that you believe you were duped. Well, you've always been duped, whether it's been steroids or some other fashion of cheating. I don't know why this is so difficult to grasp.